Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

File Swappers to RIAA: Download This!
Washington Post ^ | July 6, 2003 | Leslie Walker

Posted on 07/06/2003 9:08:26 AM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: riaaesad
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 341-359 next last
To: Principled
Oh yeah.. I would love it.

I completely stopped listening.. Entirely.

I just turned the radio back on for my 2 hour commute in the last couple of weeks, as a matter of fact.

I just wasn't about to go and pay like twenty bucks for a song or two and THEN have to brave the zoo full of pierced and tatooed things at Best Buy on top of it.

If it works as good as advertised, they regained a customer with this idea.

It's wonderful.

281 posted on 07/06/2003 9:23:02 PM PDT by Jhoffa_ (BREAKING: Supreme Court Finds Right to Sodomy, Sammy & Frodo elated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE
> I have even heard suggestions that they be allowed to seek and destroy computers with music files.

If by "suggestions" you mean a bill that they want introduced, then yes. If it ever makes it onto the floor, than as far as I'm concerned any artist working under a label that's part of the RIAA can go suck shit.
282 posted on 07/06/2003 9:25:47 PM PDT by Sofa King (-I am Sofa King- tired of liberal BS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Principled; BOBWADE; moehoward
If I was in a band and spent 6 months on the road living in a bus eating crap every meal just to support my newly released CD, I would feel like I was robbed if my music was being offered for free on the internet.

You got that right. I'd also look for another line of work.

Maybe Hajman is knowledgeable about such legalities.


For the nitty-gritty legalities of such things, I can't claim to be an expert of any level. moehoward would probably be the person you'd want to get specifics from. However, for BOBWADE's statement, even though I'd have to agree that I'd 'feel robbed', I'm afraid I couldn't allow emotions to determine the legal aspects of things (though I'd like to if I was in that situation). If I was in a band, spent 6 months on the road living in a bus, eating cruddly food just to support my newly released CD, I would also feel robbed if I didn't get much compensation if the music industry didn't want to give my CD very much visibility. However, technically speaking, this wouldn't be considered theft, even though I'm losing potential value because of the actions of someone (creating a potential value loss isn't theft, and it isn't illegal. It might, however, be completely and totally unfair :).

-The Hajman-
283 posted on 07/06/2003 9:26:07 PM PDT by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
I quit buying music years ago. I own vinyl. My sis is on the apple thing though and loves it. I just listen to radio. I found a great station near CHarlotte...95.7 "The Ride". Stupid name, great music, minimal commercials. I'm actually thinking about that satellite radio thing because of it.
284 posted on 07/06/2003 9:26:46 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Sofa King
Apples music is a higher quality (less compression) than well over half of what's available through sharing. There are quality MP3's out there but it does take time and often many tries to get a good one.

Try this. Just like no single brick and mortar has everything, no single site would either. OldieMP3.com could sell, well oldies. You get the idea. Removing complex distribution would result in more $ to the artist.

Know why this will never happen? The RIAA.
285 posted on 07/06/2003 9:28:51 PM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Sofa King
Wait a second. I thought the compensation given to the artist was by the record label ( 1 million $$ you produce an album for me). The album sales go to the record company. I know there are variations of this, but isn't that why all the artists hate the record labels and why some want to have their albums sold directly on the internet? If this is so, then the infringement (or as some call it, theft) isn't against the artists, it is against the record labels.

And the record labels own the music. Not the artists. So if I download the song, I am hurting the record label, not th artist, as he or she has already been paid (by the record label).

Hmmm, so the record label rips off the recording artist and then the record label gets ripped off by the consumer!! Sounds like what goes around comes around? I know that WGACA is not in the constitution, and I am not laying claim to either side, just an epiphany I just had!!

286 posted on 07/06/2003 9:30:01 PM PDT by John.Cooch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Hajman
I agree with your view that it isn't legally theft and that it is really a matter of infringement. My only point was that some people would still feel like it is theft even when the applicable law would refer to infringement.
287 posted on 07/06/2003 9:30:38 PM PDT by BOBWADE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Principled
I don't know why the industry didn't change with technology. Are they run by unions?

Technologies that disrupt distribution channels are very often the death of established companies. The risk that any one RIAA member faces here is huge, and I wouldn't minimize that. But failure to move is just as deadly.

Encyclopedia Brittanica is a good parallel. This company's entire business was built on a direct sales force of some size... guys who literally went door-to-door selling encyclopedias. If you're sitting in the conning tower at Brittanica headquarters, you see this thing called CD-ROMs coming, and you realize that it means the death of selling encyclopedias door to door. What used to cost several hundred dollars to produce, throwing off a markup that paid for selling the things one-by-one with a salesman, was going to turn into a $10 item that could not possibly be marked up enough to cover door-to-door selling. BUT... today, and for the forseeable future, your revenue depends on that sales force out there. The entire sales bureaucracy in the company -- not a small contingent -- argues that these CD's are a fad and they'll all go away. People will want real books. You can imagine the noise these people make as the world changes around them and they see that The End Is Nigh. If you make the damned CD and put it in Costco, you shoot the pins out from under your own sales force, and your business. So what you do is, you put on blinders and watch Microsoft put you out of business with Encarta.

All the record companies have the same problem. There's a lot of record stores out there. They are 80 to 90 per cent of revenues. Every one of 'em says, "You put that stuff on the Internet, and we're dropping your whole line like a hot rock."

This is why the record companies will watch Apple or Microsoft put them out of business. They will dither too long, hoping to keep their record-store channel happy, while iTunes or something like it slowly takes over the marketing and distribution of music. Bertelsmann was right to buy Napster. Somebody in that place 'got it.' But then they lost their nerve, and didn't follow through. They'll probably die for that mistake, but not for another 10 years.


288 posted on 07/06/2003 9:31:18 PM PDT by Nick Danger (The liberals are slaughtering themselves at the gates of the newsroom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: discostu
I'm not oversimplifying things at all. Many people on this thread are claiming that the business model of iTunes will reduce illegal filesharing. iTunes sold something like 5 million songs in the first month, this is pretty significant number if iTunes will result in less theft there should be a noticable difference in bootlegging. Obviously since it's on limited release right now we won't be seeing it's full effect, but just as obviously if it's going to have an effect we should be seeing it forming. Where is it?

Yes, you are oversimplifying, by looking at only a single variable point (money in this case) for the economic model which drives these things (instead of looking at other variables, such as why people swap, and why they'd be willing to buy.. which btw, has already started happening). Where is the effect? I haven't looked. And it'd be difficult to measure, given the nature of file swapping. It'd probably have to drop quite a bit to be actually noticable (and it'll take a while for it to slow down). However, the fact that many people are going to models like iTunes tells us (gives us a good inference) that there's less people out there swapping files. It's not going to be cut and dry. We won't see a dramatic and sudden drop in swapping. However, it will happen (and we'll probably notice it first by the increase of models like iTune).

-The Hajman-
289 posted on 07/06/2003 9:31:33 PM PDT by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: moehoward

With this apple thing out of the gate now, why would any artist want to associate themselves with the RIAA?

Sounds to me like legitimate internet distribution is going to be their downfall.

I mean, if you're that good.. Why screw areound with middle men? I wouldn't.

290 posted on 07/06/2003 9:31:59 PM PDT by Jhoffa_ (BREAKING: Supreme Court Finds Right to Sodomy, Sammy & Frodo elated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: moehoward
Know why this will never happen? The RIAA.

Don't you think they'll ever get it?

The longer it takes them, the worse the swapping will get, the more intrusive and unbelievable the laws will get, the less money artists under the RIAA will make, the less the RIAA will make.

Can they be that dumb?

291 posted on 07/06/2003 9:32:20 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: moehoward
> Apples music is a higher quality (less compression) than well over half of what's available through sharing. There are quality MP3's out there but it does take time and often many tries to get a good one.

Actually, I've heard alot of people say that Apple's music is lower quality. I've also yet to hear an MP3 that was noticably below CD quality.

Bottom line is that any clearly superior format can be copied.
292 posted on 07/06/2003 9:34:44 PM PDT by Sofa King (-I am Sofa King- tired of liberal BS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
THat's a good point... record retailers will not tolerate competition from their own distributors. That exlains why retailers are against it. What about artists. A few posts on this thread made reference to artists not being too fond of the apple thing. Whassup widdat?
293 posted on 07/06/2003 9:36:27 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: John.Cooch
> Wait a second. I thought the compensation given to the artist was by the record label ( 1 million $$ you produce an album for me). The album sales go to the record company. I know there are variations of this, but isn't that why all the artists hate the record labels and why some want to have their albums sold directly on the internet? If this is so, then the infringement (or as some call it, theft) isn't against the artists, it is against the record labels.

I have yet to hear of a record deal where the artist were not paid royalties for each record sold.
294 posted on 07/06/2003 9:37:11 PM PDT by Sofa King (-I am Sofa King- tired of liberal BS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
Again. When you build a boat that looks similar to another boat you saw, for your own pleasure.. that's called building a boat. It's perfectly legal.
...
When you steal someone elses music and use it for your own listening pleasure, it's called theft.


One has to define theft before one can apply it. You're applying theft before it's been define. Invalid. I defined theft, with the logical argument that went with it. Can you show me the logical fallacy in my argument? If not, creating your own copy of goods X (MP3 song) isn't stealing. You can't call it stealing until you've determined what theft is to begin with, and if creating a copy of goods X (MP3 music) with your own materials falls under the definition of theft. (BTW, the term 'steal' and 'theft' are basically the same idea, just different usages of the same concept. Using one to try to lead to the conclusion of another is invalid, since it leads to cirular reasoning, since 'theft' is technically in the conclusion, and in the premise).

-The Hajman-
295 posted on 07/06/2003 9:37:25 PM PDT by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Hajman
... looking at other variables, such as why people swap, and why they'd be willing to buy...

Yes it is important to understand why folks swap. That would obviously lead to solutions.

296 posted on 07/06/2003 9:38:04 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: discostu
LMAO!!! Record companies STOPPED TAKING RISKS 20 years or more ago. Your example of the YES album is terribly out of date (killer album though) with what takes place now. Recording contracts are NOTHING more than high interest bank loans where if the product doesn't sell, the ARTIST is on the hook for EVERYTHING. If the product does sell then the artist get's a pittence of the profits.

You might wanna get up to date with your info regarding recording contracts. The days when record companies were legally on the hook for *marginal artists* vanished a long time ago. If you don't have the $$$ backing you up you will NOT get a record deal these days. However, you can drive to Nashville tomorrow morning with 250k in your pocket and get signed to a record deal almost instantly....even if you can't sing and don't know how to play an instrument. They'll gladly sign ya and take your money, pick out some songs from their song factory and throw you into a studio with people who know how to do what you can't. Sheesh, if you have 500k behind you they'll even do a huge national PR schtick for you and you might even break even. Odds are you won't and then you will either declare bankruptcy or go even deeper into debt (assuming you can borrow more $$$ of course) and try again.

This is also why acts are never brought along slowly and allowed to develop a following as they were back in the days of Yes and their album Fragile.

Take some time and do a search on that silly Cobain woman, who for all her faults, wrote a very good article a few years ago regarding the modern day recording contract.
297 posted on 07/06/2003 9:38:27 PM PDT by TheStickman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: BOBWADE
I agree with your view that it isn't legally theft and that it is really a matter of infringement. My only point was that some people would still feel like it is theft even when the applicable law would refer to infringement.

Ah, I see. I would tend to agree with you on this point.

-The Hajman-
298 posted on 07/06/2003 9:38:51 PM PDT by Hajman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Hajman

ROFL..

You're going to work that into your closing arguments I assume?

Good luck selling the judge and jury on that concept, Mr. Hajman.

299 posted on 07/06/2003 9:39:53 PM PDT by Jhoffa_ (BREAKING: Supreme Court Finds Right to Sodomy, Sammy & Frodo elated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Sofa King
...the infringement (or as some call it, theft) isn't against the artists, it is against the record labels

I think some artists earn a % also. But your point does indicate why the RIAA is acting so desparately. Their very existence is not needed. They need to legislate themselves back into existence.

300 posted on 07/06/2003 9:41:50 PM PDT by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 341-359 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson