File Swappers to RIAA: Download This!

Washington Post ^ | July 6, 2003 | Leslie Walker

[discostu]

The physical object is their property and they can do with THAT as they please up until but not including copying the copyrighted material ON the object and distributing that seperate from the object.

What the thieves want is for copyright to evaporate. That isn't going to happen and shouldn't. Once it does there's no reason for anybody to make new music or books or movies. COpyright is the method by which people can earn a living creating non-physical (copiable) things. Without that the invisible hand has nothing to grasp.

[visualops]

Exactly. Infringement is infringement. It may or may not involve financial compensation, but only if the infringement is judged to have affected the copyright holder's potential market.
The RIAA claims that file sharing is affecting CD music sales.
Given what they are trying to sell, I think they should consider other factors for the faltering sales of what *they think* should be selling well.

And, to an industry that cries and whines over CD music sales, what say they to these facts:
Other positive trends for the industry include the growth in sales of music videos, which saw a 12% rise in units sold. Growth worldwide is attributed to the increase in sales of DVDs overall and DVD players; DVD music videos rose by 58% compared to a 42% decline in VHS. With the release of over 1,300 new titles by record companies in 2002, DVD music videos are expected to become a growing contributor to music sales.

New formats such as DVD Audio and Super Audio CD (SACD) also did well. Music companies have launched new CD titles simultaneously on DVD Audio or SACD. Since 2001, unit sales of both DVD Audio and SACD combined more than trebled, with each format selling over one million each in 2002.

Remember this doesn't take into account the big growth in indie music sales. Many of these small companies have doubled and tripled business in the last 2-3 years.

[Owen]

Wolfgang Mozart never collected a penny of royalties or copyright based income in his life.

[visualops]

the concept of copyright is in the Constitution.

Oh, you mean this part:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

Many learned people interpret this clause to specifically mean extended and restrictive use of copyrights stifles creativity.
All other copyright laws are Acts and codes, not part of the Constitution.

Let me ask you this then, since you feel the RIAA et al cannot effectively alter their business model, why didn't the advent of the cassette recorder and blank tapes kill the music industry back then?
Why didn't the advent of VCRs, VHS tape and the camcorder kill the movie resale business back then?

[discostu]

Because the technology of the time didn't allow for mass distribution of his work. Original copyright laws didn't apply to paintings because at the time they could only be "copied" by hand and it was only a problem if you tried to pass your copy off as the original which was fraud, then came lithography and the copyright laws had to be expanded.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Your logic is in abeyance

What is the "logic" of forcing a 1900's business model that centered around making vinyl impressions of analog grooves in a disk upon technology so powerful that it allows people to store and transmit billions of bits of information for a few dollars?.

Because you don't want the world to change? Because the world must always stay exactly the same so you don't get scared?

[discostu]

What "learned people" could possibly interpret it like that? The meaning is rather painfully obvious: to get people creating science and art they need to be able to have exclusive right to their creation. In case that's not clear enough they need only look up Federalist 43 "The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors."

It's not that they "cannot" alter the business model it's that the file sharers want something for nothing, giving your product away can never be a business model, that's charity. As for your "question" again painfully obvious: in order to copy an album with a cassette using the tool available to the everyman (at that time) I'm limited to one copy at a time and it will take me as long to make the copy as it does to listen to the album, there's automatic limiting factors with that the average person will never be able to distribute a significant number of copies. With file sharing that's blown to crap, depending on your computer it can take as little as 1/5 of the time of the album to make a copy and then that copy can go on the internet and be grabbed thousands of times, now there's no functional limit to how many copies one "casual" copier can be responsible for.

As for VCRs ever actually hooked one through another? The MPAA has had certain stuff put in VCRs to make them not like to read from each other, but again the same limitations apply and become even more significant because movies are longer than albums.

And of course those are total red herring questions because it really doesn't matter if file sharing is "killing" the industry, it is being used to illegally distribute copyrighted material against the wishes of the copyright holder, that's illegal.

[Hajman]

Those are the only choices; file sharing or copying the music without permission is stealing, plain and simple.

Actually, it can only be considered stealing if one person owned the object before you did. And there's a difference between the object, and the copyright on the concept of the object (between, say, the MP3, and the song the MP3 stores). There is a copyright infringment, but without actual value loss, there's no actual theft (note that potential value loss doesn't equal actual value loss. Removing potential value isn't illegal. Competition does it all the time.) One could theoretically go out and build a Toyota pickup. The pickup itself would not have been stolen, since it wasn't actually owned by anyone else. Potential value may have been loss with you building your own Toyota, but like I mentioned above, this isn't illegal, nor is it stealing. It may not do the Toyota company any good, but it's not theft. The Toyota concept though would have been infringed, and that's where the person who went and built their own Toyota would be in trouble.

We have a good enough issue here (copyright infringment) without creating an invalid one (theft).

-The Hajman-

[Principled]

Giving a copy of some tunes for my wife to listen to on a road trip is a violation.

Yeah. Good law.

[discostu]

No it isn't. She's considered to also own all the things you own so any copies you "give" to her are the same thing as copies made for yourself which are perfectly legal and considered "fair use". That's not distribution.

Actually it is a good law.

[visualops]

stealing something that no one seems to want. Your logic is in abeyance

Your logic is nonexistant. It isn't the music, it's the "service" that is no longer indispensible.

The simple fact is the RIAA needs to get with the program and work in the direction things are going, rather than trying to maintain their monopolistic control over an industry.

[visualops]

Not true.
Fair use is not part of the law, it's used as a defense against an accusation of infringement.
Also, saying a spouse "owns all the things you own" is also a fallacy.

[Principled]

Your argument is the same as used by the IRS.

The reason tax compliance is so poor (and it is, btw, VERY poor) is mostly because the code is not fair.

Most people are honest and will pay their fair share...but when it becomes confiscatory taxes, folks will not comply.

Just like the music that costs $17 per CD.

If they'd change the price to a more reasonable figure and distribute it in a way that would conform to today's technology, they'd have a hit. But they refuse to do it, and it will be the death of them.

There will be smart, assertive, capable individuals that will end the industry as we know it. THey will form the new industry, and it will be a different model. That you think there is no other model is infantile.

The argument over copyright is not germane in this environment of technology. Any law you can dream up will be instantly circumvented using technology.

The only answer is a new model.

Of course, there will always be criminals. But changing the model would minimize the problem... just as making taxes fair would minimize non-compliance...folks are honest if you're fair to them.

[discostu]

I didn't say "fair use" was a part of the law, I said it was legal.

For purposes of copyright your spouse owns all of the things you own. Not a fallacy.

[Principled]

What's "distribution" then? Are you going Clinton on us?

I can copy and distribute to my wife. What about children? Nephew? Cousin? Neighbor???

[Principled]

BTW, I bought 99% of my music before I was married.

[discostu]

No my argument isn't the same as that used by the IRS, no tax compliance isn't poor, and the laws of copyright are EXTREMELY fair.

And now you go for the tired old and completely worthless "it costs too much" defense. CDs have cost around $17 for 25 years, they didn't cost too much then and since then $17 isn't has dropped in actual value thanks to inflation. And even if it wasn't too much that doesn't excuse theft. You don't get to steal a car because you think the dealer is charging too much and you don't get to steal music because they're charging too much. You don't like what they're charging? Fine then live without the product until they charge what you consider to be equitable.

What the filesharers want is free product, there can never be an industry that provides it's product for free. There's only two way to get free stuff: steal it yourself (what the sharers are currently doing), and somebody else's charity. The music industry isn't going to convert to charity because there's no money in charity and industry exists to make money.

The ENTIRE arguement is about copyright, just because somebody can break the law doesn't mean there should be a law. Should we irradicate red lights because people can run the light? That's an even more pathetically stupid arguement than whining about the cost.

Change the model to what? All you thieving bootleggers keep saying they should change the model, fine lay it out: how does somebody make a living having their stuff STOLEN?! It can't be done. There is no "model" for that.

Theft is theft. Copyright violation is theft. That's the end of the discussion, anything past that is whining by people unwilling to admit to being petty thieves.

[visualops]

to get people creating science and art they need to be able to have exclusive right to their creation
I don't agree.
You should do some reading and you'll see the Framers were seeking to extend as well as restrict rights.
Mind you, I'm not a communist and I don't think everything should be pooled into some sort of mass shared pot.
However, the original intent of copyright to foster creativity both from the side of the creator and the consumer, has been taken to extremes. Bodies like the RIAA who want to maintain a monopoly fudge their books and cry foul.
I'm an artist married to a musician and I full well understand full well the ramifications of copyrights and file sharing.

This is good analysis of the topic IMHO:
http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,16071,00.html

[discostu]

Please, if anybody is going Clintonian it's you. Distribution is giving it to people that aren't legal owners, your wife and other members of your household (children you're the gaurdian of, a few others) are legal owners. People outside your household aren't.

[Principled]

Tax compliance is indeed very poor.

YOu are misreading me. I don't intend to defend those that do mass file-swaps. Reread.

My point, again, is that if your goal is to prevent music from being copied and mass-swapped, the model WILL have to change. You can make all the laws you want, but due to technology, they won't help.

And I do not buy CDs. I listen to the radio.

I don't think any file swapper wants a free product. He spends thousands on machinery to save $17 on a cd??? not.

ANdl you've started repeating mantra to yourself, so I'm gone.

Just know that I'm not defending mass-swappers, as you denoted above.

ANd there are an infinite number of models that could be used. Apple has just one.

You're off base on this, disco.