File Swappers to RIAA: Download This!

Washington Post ^ | July 6, 2003 | Leslie Walker

[John Jorsett]

The Recording Industry Association of America's announcement on June 25 that it will start tracking down and suing users of file-sharing programs has yet to spook people, say developers of these applications.

"Forget about it, dude -- even genocidal litigation can't stop file sharers," said Wayne Rosso, president of Grokster, one of several systems that allow users to upload and download files -- many of which are unauthorized MP3 copies of songs published by the RIAA's member companies. Rosso said file-trading activity among Grokster users has increased by 10 percent in the past few days. Morpheus, another file-trading program, has seen similar growth.

Maybe MP3 downloaders are interpreting the recording industry's threat -- an escalation from its earlier strategy of targeting file-sharing developers -- as a sort of "last call" announcement. Starting June 26, RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a news conference, the group would collect evidence against consumers illegally trading files of copyrighted music, with lawsuits to follow in a couple of months.

[discostu]

Shh, it makes me feel better to think that all my books are dead trees. I think enviros get way too worked up about that stuff. I'm also proudly in the software biz which was supposed to usher in a paperless society but instead has resulted in doubling our paper usage. I'm also the guy that jokes about animals suffering for my existence as I buy beef jerky.

[Hajman]

So, otherwise they will just steal?

You know, there's a nice sail boat I have had my eye on.. but I think the price is unfair and unreasonable.

If you follow your example to it's logical conclusion, to be consistent with music copying, you'd go out, take a picture of the boat, and build one of your own just like it. That's basically what happens with music swapping (it's just easier to build a copy of digital music with a computer). It doesn't fall under theft, but it does fall under copyright infringment (which your example would also).

-The Hajman-

[discostu]

I already showed you.

No really, go away. First you whine about this turing into a pissing contest then you try again to turn it into a pissing contest.

Wake up yourself. You want to make piece? Stop being a rude lieing jackass. You enjoy being a rude lieing jackass? Go hassle somebody else.

Don't reply. I'm done reading your crap.

[visualops]

no longer taking risks on marginal artists like they used to

That's the total fallacy, there is no risk! The "marginal artist" is on the hook for several 100k. The music industry takes no risks, all expenses come out of the artists supposed earnings. A band can sell millions and still be broke. Have you ever seen a recording contract? The recording industry books make Enron look like a lemonade stand.

The reason a band may eventually have to get with a bigger label is strictly over distribution, hence the RIAA's major problem with file sharers- it isn't about the money, it's about control!

[Principled]

Towards producing and distributing music profitably, I assert that filesharing cannot be stopped with legislation because technology will outpace the law's ability to define and stop the swappers. For this reason, I assert that changing the business model is a way to reduce swapping and to profitably produce and distribute music.

Examples of models have been given on this thread. One even exists.

[moehoward]

BINGO

[Hajman]

The big labels went ape when major music retailers started selling/buying used CD's and cassettes. Full page ads were taken out in Billboard magazine against the practice.

The RIAA will NEVER begin to recover even their legal expenses by harassing file sharers. They will turn on ISP's and music re-sellers.

Unfortunately, I believe you're correct. It'd actually be nice if the music industry was just money-hungry. Then something to benifit them and the consumer could be made. However, this isn't the case. It's not the money.. it's the control, imho. They want to be able to control distribution completely. They don't want competion. And they're hurting themselves, and their customers, but trying to maintain said control. I'm afraid it'll eventually be their undoing.

-The Hajman-

[Principled]

I don't want to make piece... nor is it my intention to make peace. I only want you to know that we agree that file sharing should stop in order to fairly compensate the artists. We only differ on how that should be done.

I'm not pissing. I'm at the computer, which does not happen to be near enough to a toilet.

[discostu]

The hell there isn't a risk. Record company estimate on Fragile was that it would sell 5,000 copies, there was no possible way they'd make back their money had it sold the way the expected, but they released it anyway, and it went multiplatinum and ushered in Yes as a huge band. Which isn't saying that the industry is nice to the artists, but there are risks involved, don't pretend otherwise.

[Sofa King]

The RIAA has tried using technology to limit theft (such as CDs that computers aren't supposed to be able to read)- it just hasn't been terribly successful.

More importantly, you speak as if online distribution is a proven method of reducing piracy, which it isn't. If distribution goes online, people who have never downloaded music before will get a taste of it- and then they might realize that they can do it for free. The theives aren't a distraction, they're the cause of the problem.

What people are doing now, in terms of your analogy, is stealing cars en mass from all over town, whether they are locked or not.

[Jhoffa_]

If you follow your example to it's logical conclusion, to be consistent with music copying, you'd go out, take a picture of the boat, and build one of your own just like it.

No, because you're stealing someone elses property, in clear violation of the law.

The above example isn't stealing. It's called building a boat for your personal enjoyment.

Like listening to rock and roll music, then going home, starting your own band and making similar music for your own listening pleasure.

Both examples involve work and creativity to create your own product.. and are perfectly legal.

Whereas stealing someone elses stuff is not.

[visualops]

has resulted in doubling our paper usage

You can say that again- creating digital documents has just made it easier to distribute them to more people who in turn print them, and buy more paper. Gee, does that sound familiar? :^)

[Principled]

If distribution goes online, people who have never downloaded music before will get a taste of it- and then they might realize that they can do it for free.

I agree. But the music from the good sites (apple, whatever) will be clean, labeled correctly, etc. The quality would be reliable. I'd love to see it.

[rwfromkansas]

yeah....the founders really had Britney Spears and movies in mind for copyright.

I have read Article 1, Sec. 8 several times before and disagree that copyright was intended for this type of stuff.

[Principled]

Are you using "infringment" and "theft" in a technical/legal sense? My common usage seems to lean toward theft, but I am not a lawyer.

[Cultural Jihad]

The Thief's Rationale: "Everyone does it. Therefore it's okay if *I* do it."

[Principled]

I guess theives are dumb for a reason.

[discostu]

I think the worst part is organization. People used to keep track of where their documents were, now if they lose it they just print it again. I once cleaned my desk and found 4 different copies of a 30 page spec identical except for the notes I'd written while reviewing it.

[Principled]

Article one section 8 was taxation, wasn't it? Giving Congress power to lay and collect tax? How is it related to copyright?

[Hajman]

My point is that theft does not consist solely of depriving an owner of their property. Theft can consist of not compensating a laborer for their labor. If someone mows my law with the expectation that they will be paid when they are done, and I refuse to pay them, I've stolen their labor.

I agree with you.

If a band records an album with the expectation that they will be paid for their performance and I enjoy the album without compensating them, I've similarly stolen their labor.

The law disagrees with you (see: pawn shop reselling of music CDs. More people enjoy the CDs without direct compensation to the owner. This kind of thing has already been hashed out in court. The RIAA didn't like it one bit. 'A secondary person was enjoying the music, and the artist wasn't getting compensated for it', was their argument. It was rejected). Neither a goods, nor a service, is actually removed from the owner in the case of file swapping. The example you gave, there was (the owner moved the lawn, and their service was taken without compensation). In the file swapping case, the song (or rather song copy) has already been paid for. It moves from the song IP owner's hands, to the song copy owner's hands. The song copy owner desides to copy the song. It's his copy, his material, his time. He doesn't, however, get completely away with it, as it falls under copyright infringment (he didn't have permission to create another copy). It doesn't fall under theft permission, because the copy from the owner had already been compensated for (the same argument for the pawn shop reselling). The first is the song IP owner's copy, and the song IP owner decided to sell it. The second, however, is not the song IP owner's copy. It's the song copy owner's copy. (Hope that isn't too confusing with all those copies and owners in there :).

-The Hajman-