File Swappers to RIAA: Download This!

Washington Post ^ | July 6, 2003 | Leslie Walker

[discostu]

The fact remains that because CDs have maintained the same list price for over 10 years they have gone down in actual dollar value ($12 doesn't buy as much as $12 did 10 years ago... except in the CD market).

Fine don't be ripped off by those thugs, I don't give a damn where you spend your money, just don't use that as a pathetic excuse for criminal activity. Downloading copyrighted material against the coyright holder's wishes is theft, that's inexcusable. If you want to boycott them then boycott, but don't be a petty criminal and lie to yourself and the world pretending you're striking a pose for freedom.

[moehoward]

Seems like folks would rather discuss terminology than solutions. There is a long list of offenses that will label an individual as a thief. And in a broad sense that person may be.

I would like to add to my comments above. In my 20 some years of working with IP. I have seen very few situations actually go to court. 99% of the time sending a "cease and desist" form letter to the offender is the end of the matter. And this is when the copyright license holder has "proof" of damages.

Also counterfeiting still goes on in the recording industry. Music retailers can, and do, buy Canadian Import "cut-outs" (wink-wink) easily. Real actual damages here, not so sure with the sharing of MP3's.

Working solutions have been given. Apple is working. MP3.com was working. Many RIAA members refuse to be involved with on-line sales, saying they are working on their own sites.

IMHO This is bull. Streamlining sales through web-site transactions reduces the bloat and as a result fewer "expenses" are incurred. The money trail is easier to trace. Read "HitMen" by Frederic Dannen for insight.

[Nick Danger]

false analogy... Mass online distribution of a digital product is new territory.

People have different levels of ability to generalize from abstraction. I accept that.

I don't think you understand what the new American morality is all about.

People will tend to project their own values onto others. That does lead to mistakes, I agree. I can only hope I am not mistaken. I suppose we'll all find out soon enough.

[TheStickman]

That's exactly my point. Unless they know they'll make their money back they won't sign anybody
30 years ago, your argument was valid. Now it's not. The *new, marginal* ARTIST is the one on the hook for EVERYTHING. There is NO risk for the record company when they sign a new *artist* anymore. There hasn't been for a good many years now.

[battousai]

"I especially love the little plastic CDs that cost 25 cents to make that sell for $17.00. Serves the greedy vermin right."

its not even that high, more like 2.5c if even that, I can buy blank CD-Rs for 25c each :)

[discostu]

We're still saying the same thing, there used to be risk but they won't take any risks anymore. The major labels still aren't signing them, so either these guys aren't getting a shot at being successful or they're doing it on a smaller label. Either way the record company isn't getting the gravy trains they used to get when Yes or Talking Heads or Oingo Boingo or Jethro Tull blew to the top of the charts for no apparent reason. Of the top of my head the last round of this we saw was the Seattle grunge thing, even with that most of the labels stayed way back until after Pearl Jam was successful, then everybody followed with their own flanel band.

Note I'm placing the blame squarely on the record labels themselves. They've adopted a chickensh!t attitude toward artist signing and development and they're missing out on the high revenue risk brings. They're also missing out on the savings, bands like the ones I listed above didn't sign for fat advances and didn't spend a year and a half in 3 different studios making an album. They're cheaper to work with. The other thing the major labels have rejected are tried and true marginal bands with a proven if small audience. Checkout Spitfire Records, they've gobbled up tons of acts the majors didn't have time for, sure nobody on that list is going to go multiplatinum anymore, but combined there's a lot of revenue there and every last one of them used to be on a major label and those labels are now missing that revenue.

The majors have taken an attitude that all they're interested in is the next Brittney or Shania or J. Lo or Michael. They've forgotten why they went throgh the 70s and 80s with hundreds of artists. And they're losing money over it.

[friendly]

"I especially love the little plastic CDs that cost 25 cents to make that sell for $17.00. Serves the greedy vermin right." its not even that high, more like 2.5c if even that, I can buy blank CD-Rs for 25c each :)

All the more reason why these greedy characters are going to lose big time. If the RIAA thinks they are basically going to shut down the Internet, they are insane.

[moehoward]

"We're still saying the same thing, there used to be risk but they won't take any risks anymore."

They are taking the biggest risk of their collective lives by NOT embracing internet sales.

Ironically, one of the most outspoken opponents of file-sharing is none other than Metallica founding member Lars. This band made their bones with ZERO attention from Big labels. Their first several albums all going gold with virtually no airplay outside of Z-rock and KNAC in LA.

[discostu]

Staying away from internet sales is pretty dumb on their part. I said earlier in the thread that I see that replacing the 45 in a way the CD single hasn't been able to do. The 45 was a kickbutt revenue stream and getting that back can seriously help.

I see no suprise in Metallica's drummer beingagainst illegal filesharing, the band worked their ass off to get where they are and Lars has always had a good head for dollars. Illegal file sharing is a violation of their copyright, why should they want their stuff distributed for free.

[moehoward]

"...Illegal file sharing is a violation of their copyright, why should they want their stuff distributed for free."

Yes, agreed. But ironic none the less that now they/he are on the same side of the fence as the corporations that would not return their/his phone calls before. Do not forget, when this and other bands started they "salt the market" with thousands of free records. I am willing to bet had the Internet been around, MP3's would have been given away instead, and then the plug promptly pulled upon signing with a big label.

[discostu]

It was (and probably still is) a great way to be heard for new bands looking for followings, Metallica doesn't need that anymore, now they've got mortages and car payments and alimonies. Twenty years has a habit of changing things.

[Warren_Piece]

I have seen very few situations actually go to court. 99% of the time sending a "cease and desist" form letter to the offender is the end of the matter.

As a funny aside: in the 80's I was in a band that for a short time was name "Gibraltar". For a while we had posters that showed the famous rock and said "Gibraltar: Get a piece..."

Believe it or not, we got a cease and desist from Prudential. We were so flattered we framed it.

[moehoward]

"As a funny aside: in the 80's I was in a band that for a short time was name "Gibraltar". For a while we had posters that showed the famous rock and said "Gibraltar: Get a piece..." Believe it or not, we got a cease and desist from Prudential. We were so flattered we framed it."

LOL. I believe it. But you know, had it gone to court you most likely would have prevailed under fair use, parody.

[gitmo]

He still has his product to sell.

Wrong. The person who illegally copied it has diluted the producer's possible future sales. Intellectual property is still your property, and you have the right to determine how a product you offer for sale can be used.

You're assuming the person who has the copied file would have purchased the CD. But if that person promises he would never purchase that CD, all is OK. Right??

[Sofa King]

> People have different levels of ability to generalize from abstraction. I accept that.

It is not a matter of ability, it is a matter of willingness.

[Paladin2]

"If this is not theft, then what is it, in the abstract?"

Fraud.

[supercat]

Every public library that offers books to readers for free is "book sharing"....every time I read a book and pass it on to a friend, I'm book sharing..same thing. I don't hear the authors and publishers of the nation going to and fro looking for people to devour with law suits.

If a library has one purchased copy of a book, then if someone else is using that copy nobody else can. If the library has two purchased copies, then two people can use the book at the same time, but nobody else can until one of the two is done with it.

Borland had the right idea in the license agreement that came with version 3 of their Pascal compiler. Why can't anyone else follow suit?

[supercat]

I was under the inpression that it is legal to tape music off the radio. How is this any different.
Good questions. I await replies.

The RIAA's biggest objection to on-line distribution of music, paid or unpaid, is that it allows the distribution and promotion of music from groups which haven't been signed with the RIAA.

Prior to on-line music distribution, musicians had a choice: (1) sign with the RIAA, have their work get played on the radio and sell thousands or millions of copies, and get paid almost nothing; (2) don't sign with the RIAA, don't get any radio airplay, sell a few hundred copies, and end up with most of the revenue from those disks (not not much revenue in total).

The RIAA's biggest fear is that it will no longer be able to demand as much from bands for "promotional services". That's far more of a threat than the loss of individual CD sales.

[supercat]

The inherent problems with using a peer-to-peer file sharing program are there, but they aren't that bad. Most people will put up with a few inconveniences if it means they can get the same product for free.

That depends how much they'd have to pay if it wasn't free.

Suppose someone had a choice between downloading a song a few times to find a copy that was good, or paying $0.01 and being guaranteed of getting one that was good. Do you really think anyone wouldn't pay the $0.01 [assuming the payment was not in and of itself inconvenient]?

Back when video tapes were expensive, many people built up huge collections of movies recorded off cable. Now, I don't think nearly as many people bother. It's just not worth the effort.