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]

Now divorce her and see how much of it you get to keep. You won't get everything you had before.

[Principled]

Oh but that would be counter to RIAA wishes. She couldn't have ANY of the music...she didn't buy it. lol

[discostu]

I've done plenty of reading on it. And yes the Framers didn't want absolute infinite copyright, that being said they most assuredly wanted copyright. If you want to say they wouldn't want copyright to work the way the RIAA does I'll agree. If you want to say they didn't wouldn't see filesharing as a clear violation of copyright I'd have to disagree.

[cowtowney]

FURIAA

[visualops]

As I stated, fair use is up to interpretation and is not specifically designated by law.
The RIAA doesn't want you making any copies at all. They just know that wouldn't be enforced via current copyright law, hence the push to pass DMCA.

[discostu]

Gimme sited numbers. How "poor" is tax compliance?

What should the model be changed to? What business model would stop this massive theft? People keep saying that but nobody has put a model on the table. Put up or shutup, what's the model that will work?

If you don't think file swappers want free product then you obviously haven't listened to a word the file swappers say. They want free stuff. They want music without paying. Did I say they buy a computer to steal one album? No of course not, that would be stupid and your repeated use of blatant exhagerations and idiot statements like that shows how poor your position is. These guys steals thousands of songs, and software, and movies, and they even use the computer for legitimate reasons like surfing the web.

It's not a mantra, it's the truth. I repeat it because not one single person on your side of the argument has ever managed to construct a remotely effective counter argument.

Yes you are defending mass-swappers.

Got any proof that illegal distribution of songs has dropped one bit now that iTunes has started?

I'm not off base. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[discostu]

I'm not discussing RIAA wishes, I'm discussing existing copyright law. LOL at the fact that you can only counter by changing what I said and twisting the discussion to something other than what it is.

[Hajman]

Copyright violation is theft.

Actually, it's not. Theft can occur related to copyright violation, but the two are seperate (one can occur without the other). See my post #48.

-The Hajman-

[aruanan]

But how can someone else tell me what I can and cannot do with my own property?

Your property is yours to do with as you wish. In the case of something that is copyrighted, your property is the physical medium in which is conveyed the copyrighted work. In the case of, say, a CD of Abbey Road, your property is the CD, not the recording on the CD. When you purchase the CD of Abbey Road, you have purchased an item which you can possess or give away. You have also purchased limited rights to the use of the copyrighted work on that CD. Those rights include making a copy for your own personal use. They do not include making a copy for someone else's own personal use. That other person is supposed to obtain that right by purchasing the license himself.

Some sales of copyrighted material are much more restrictive. For instance, by purchasing the very excellent software synths by Spectrasonics, you are entering into a contract under the terms of which you may install the software on only one hard drive per purchase and you may not sell the software to a third party, nor may you sell the computer to a third party with the program still on the hard drive. In constrast, if you purchase the also excellent software synths by YellowTools, you may obtain additional licenses from them to be able to install the program on other computers that you own at no extra cost. These conditions are up to the owners of the software. They sell their license for use under the conditions they set. You purchase the license under those conditions. Your purchase of it is an agreement to abide by those conditions. When they send you the DVDs to install the program and sound libraries on your computer, you own the DVDs. You can install them on your computer and not use them. You can refrain from installing them. You can use the DVDs for coasters or skeet shooting. But you do not own the program on those DVDs. You only "own" the conditional use of that software by your purchase of a license subject to certain conditions the definitions of which are determined by the owner and agreed to by you by your act of purchase.

Some people who don't want to pay the full price for something they want come up with all sorts of justifications as to why it's not wrong for them to acquire and use the program without paying for it, but if they do, they're still ripping it off. Many software products have an education version that is exactly the same and fully upgradeable but at often hundreds of dollars less. Look at the price for Mark of the Unicorn's Digital Performer 4.0 at Musicians Friend (List: $799, Sale: $495) as it compares to the education version at AudioMidi.com (List: $799, Sale: $499, Educational: $329).

[discostu]

Because we have a system that includes jurisprudence something can be legal and a matter of law without being written as A law. Fair use is a set of conceptual violations of copyright (ie making copies of copyrighted material) that have stood up in court as legal.

The RIAA doesn't want a lot of things. Different discussion. I'm perfectly happy to switch to that discussion but it is a very different discussion.

[TheStickman]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

The RIAA doesn't *protect their intellectual property*. How many songs has the RIAA written? What a farce!!!

The RIAA is only upset cuz people aren't buying the garbage they are trying to force down the public's throat AND their monopoly on distribution has been ruined by the internet. Btw, calling someone a thief for downloading music from the internet is an error of fact. But semantics aside, as someone who's been in the music biz for a long while now...I'm GLAD my music is being downloaded because it gives millions more people an opportunity to hear my work and I get more DIRECT sales (yes, RIAA fans, that's sales WITHOUT dealing with you and your slavers....errr contracts) which means I get to keep the $$ made from MY work instead of only getting a percentage.

The RIAA is fast becoming the UN of the music world:irrelevqant!

[Tuxedo]

Some good points. If the RIAA and their ilk had other ways to ditribute as opposed to CD's which contain maybe one or two good songs and a bunch of filler, then perhaps those of us that download might change our ways. MP3 is not CD-quality, but it is somewhat superior to radio quality, and the technology allows you to store 10 CD's worth of music on a single disc. You can store them in folders, random play, make your own greatest hits, etc. Why is it that most artists' recording companies distribute greatest hits albums but intentionally leave some songs off? So that you are forced to buy that $17 CD to get that one song not on the greatest hits CD, and then you have to switch discs in order to listen to your version of the band's greatest hits? With MP3, you fit them all in one folder on a disc. Great! Now, also many major mnaufacturers of car stereos: Sony, Alpine, JVC, Pioneer, Kenwood, Clarion, etc all have MP3 decks! We have two JVC decks. Nice stuff!

[visualops]

CDs have cost around $17 for 25 years

What planet are you living on?
No one was buying CDs in 1978.
Even if you took the cost of an album and adjusted for inflation to today's prices, it wouldn't take into account the manufacturing savings of CDs vs albums, and it still wouldn't amount to $17.

[strela]

The RIAA doesn't *protect their intellectual property*.

It protects its client's intellectual property.

How many songs has the RIAA written?

Zero. Its customers, who willingly and voluntarily signed up with them, have written a lot of songs though. Don't they deserve legal protection for the intellectual property they sweated and worked hard to produce too?

What a farce!!!

The only real "farce" here lies in the attitudes of otherwise intelligent Freepers who defend theft and the death of a thousand cuts by wastoids on the Internet stealing their product.

[discostu]

Actually it is theft.

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=www.findlaw.com&topic=31/31ffe2069b9351940b85482a6746e3c3
: a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent
Note: Theft commonly encompasses by statute a variety of forms of stealing formerly treated as distinct crimes.

The property is the illegal copy.

[discostu]

Sorry bad math, 20 years. Happy.

Manufacturing cost is immaterial. The dodge that cost is a valid reason for theft is always junk, even if the cost is out of whack and insane (which it clearly isn't in this case since the price has been dropping in constant dollars something no other copyrighted material has done in the last 2 decades) that doesn't excuse theft.

[strela]

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

Do you mean the "service" of defending artist's intellectual property rights? If there weren't so many wastoids out there stealing stuff from their clients, then RIAA would be a couple of bored lawyers sitting around drinking coffee. Dream on, my FRiend.

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.

RIAA is perfectly entitled to do whatever their little ice-covered hearts choose to do when it comes to defending their client's right to their intellectual property. As a consumer, you have exactly two choices when it comes to recorded music if you want to listen to it: either pay the going rate for it or don't listen to it. Stealing it is not a proper option and is punishable (and deservedly so) by whatever sanction that other thieves get.

[visualops]

People keep saying that but nobody has put a model on the table
Actually many people have ideas, the RIAA doesn't want to talk to them.

And, I'll add that this discussion isn't solely about copyright law. The discussion is about the whole ball of wax; filesharing, the RIAA, changing technology, copyright law, etc.

[TheStickman]

It protects its client's intellectual property.
LMAO!!! They do? Wanna bet? Its customers, who willingly and voluntarily signed up with them, have written a lot of songs though.
Oh my. Are you affiliated BMI or ASCAP perchance? Those are the outfits that COLLECT monies for artists for the broadcasting/use of their work. NOT the RIAA. The only real "farce" here lies in the attitudes of otherwise intelligent Freepers who defend theft and the death of a thousand cuts by wastoids on the Internet stealing their product.
Psst, calling the downloading of music *theft* 10,000 times a day will never make it real. Again, I'd love to learn my copywritten work is being downloaded thousands of times a day. To know I'm reaching so many more people than the RIAA monopoly (take some time some day and learn what a recording contract REALLY is) allows is a wonderful thing.

[Tuxedo]

Stealing? It's called sharing. And it also while bearing some resemblance to the original tracks on the ripped CD, the MP3 compression algorithm alters it enough that it no longer possesses the same audio fidelity as the original. No different that recording a tape of a CD or record and giving it to a friend. You keep the original, with its superior fidelity. If your friend likes it, maybe they buy a CD. While this in the strictest letter of the law is a copyright infringement, it was seldon, if ever enforced. Only now, when technology has allowed this behavior to escalate into the tens of millions of individuals, has RIAA taken notice. It is a war they cannot win, as hackers and their ilk will devise untraceable methods of file-sharing.