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.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Keep whistling past the graveyard, friend. And hide your assets well, because you might very well be living in a refrigerator box under a bridge somewhere when RIAA gets through with you.

Two words: Bankrupcy protection.

The RIAA might learn the hard way that you cannot squeeze water from a rock.

[discostu]

So put one on the table.

Actually this discussion that you and I are having is copyright law. If you want to switch I'm perfectly willing to switch but there are those that participate in these discussions (and I'm not pointing fingers or saying anything about you) that try to use the large ball approach to transfer "victory", ie if I agree that the RIAA is by and large rotten bastards they try to indicate I no longer agree with the basic concept of copyright law. That's why I like to put a clear deliniation in.

[visualops]

I never said filesharing wasn't a violation of copyright. The fact is, there will be filesharing of one sort or another, just as people have been trading tapes and making bootleg recordings and the like for years. If the RIAA wants to stay in existance and continue to be profitable, they need to change with the times. Copyright law may well need to change accordingly. Copyright law has become increasingly restrictive, and not to the benefit of the originating artist, but to the benefit of the distributor, such as the recording companies. I doubt the Framers had in mind to protect the production, manufacturing, and distribution monopolies of the RIAA. By maintaining their monopoly, creativity HAS been restricted, as well as the public's access to artists and their music.

[A. Pole]

By infringing somebody's copyright, you are depriving them of monies that you would have spent to acquire their product, and you are facilitating that same theft on the part of others.

A false assumption. That someone downloaded a copy of your song, it does not mean that he would buy it. Even it does not mean that he will keep it or listen to it.

[strela]

They do? Wanna bet?

Sure. Any amount you want to bet.

Oh my. Are you affiliated BMI or ASCAP perchance?

Irrelevant.

Those are the outfits that COLLECT monies for artists for the broadcasting/use of their work. NOT the RIAA.

RIAA is the enforcement arm for intellectual property rights for their client artists. Just because they have a business model that would have been at home in Josef Stalin's Russia according to many people doesn't mean that their clients don't deserve protection from their stuff being stolen by Internet users.

Psst, calling the downloading of music *theft* 10,000 times a day will never make it real.

Please post proof where I have used the word "theft" 10,000 times today. I'll wait.

Again, I'd love to learn my copywritten work is being downloaded thousands of times a day.

Again, irrelevant. You might, but what about those who DON'T want their copyrighted works ripped and distributed and they not get a penny for it? Just because you don't mind pickpockets stealing your stuff doesn't mean that everyone feels the same way.

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.

I get a warm feeling when street panhandlers walk up to me and lift my wallet out of my jeans pocket too. That way, they'll be able to afford another bottle of Short Dog.

[Richard Kimball]

I think the best example I've ever seen of how greedy and out of touch the bastids are is the movie "American Graffiti." You can buy the movie on VHS for five bucks or DVD for 10 at Walmart. The soundtrack is $30 on cd.

[gitmo]

Someone once stole my wallet and all my money. I no longer had access to my belongings.

That's not true in this case. The producer hasn't lost anything.

[Hajman]

The property is the illegal copy.

Only if that copy was owned by someone else to begin with. It's your medium (you created it with your own materials). Also, copying a song isn't considered taking the song (if you went out and tried to claim the song was yours, then you'd be taking it). It's duplicating the song, but not actually taking the intellectual property (and the actual copy is yours, so you didn't take that, either). All you're doing is distributing without the owner's permission. Copyright infringment. Not theft. Also, theft removes a specific value from the one you're taking it from. Real value, not potential. What real value does the owner previously own that is removed by copying a song?

-The Hajman-

[Principled]

The big misunderstanding is that some here think others are defending theft. Nobody is defending theft. Some just simply believe their argument hinges on the theft issue.

Again, that isn't the issue.

The issue is how to profitably produce and distribute music.

What some are calling theft is simply a symptom of the disease. More laws won't prevent it.

Passing laws against file-swapping (or enforcing those already there) will do nothing to slow the problem.

IF the goal is to produce and distribute music profitably, laws are not a solution. Technology makes it mute.

Until people see it as fair and reasonable, they will continue their swapping. Of course, SOME people will always swap, just like some people always cheat on taxes.

The model must change.

Apple has just one of an infinite number of alternate models.

[strela]

A false assumption.

No, a quite true one.

That someone downloaded a copy of your song, it does not mean that he would buy it. Even it does not mean that he will keep it or listen to it.

So if hypothetically I walk into Sears and shoplift a blade for a lawnmower even though I live in the city and don't have a yard, that's not theft? Because, by your logic, since I don't have a yard, my stealing of the mower blade can't possibly be theft and I'm somehow *entitled* to the mower blade without paying for it.

Read the dictionary definition for the word "theft" some time, then get back to me.

Unauthorized downloading is stealing, plain and simple.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Actually, I have seen DVDs at Walmart as cheap as $6.00 or $7.00 dollars in their bargain bins. And some of them are good movies.

[discostu]

But how should they change? How can they change to minimize the effect of illegal file sharing? iTunes isn't the answer, a little digital magic will make those $1 downloads just as easy to illegally copy as a CD. This isn't just like trading tapes because the scope is so much larger, this is no longer 1 guy giving a dozen tapes to is budies in school, it's now one guy giving thousands of copies to people all over the world.

What monopolies? What people commonly refer to as the RIAA is over a dozen different companies that compete with each other and non-RIAA companies in the music marketplace. They work together on some legal and lobbying matters via the RIAA but outside of that it's a competition and nobody has anywhere near a monopoly share.

How has creativity been restricted via the current copyright laws? Cover versions are still easily doable often for free and the rest of the time at a nominal fee even the most subsistance level band can afford. There's plenty of companies selling CDs in music stores that aren't in the RIAA so introducing new music to the marketplace isn't being restricted. It's simply not happening.

[BOBWADE]

I was under the inpression that it is legal to tape music off the radio. How is this any different. All of the songs these guys are swapping are played all the time on the radio. I hear everyone fussing from both sides of this issue but were is the line at? Analog tapes are okay but digital copies are not? If someone knows, please explain the difference for me.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

You sir, are a Freeper of singular wit and distinction.

I always enjoy reading your posts. They posess clarity and a sprinkling of humor.

Touché.

[strela]

Stealing? It's called sharing.

So if a panhandler walks up to me on the street and removes my wallet from my back pocket, is he "sharing" my money and credit cards with me too? Stealing is stealing.

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.

Irrelevant. The artist, the record company, and RIAA all have a legal say in how their product is consumed by the public; they've all agreed to it together. And, if you fail to abide by that agreement, you are a thief. It is as simple as that.

[gitmo]

The violation is that copyrighted materials cannot be copied without the permission of the copyright holder. None of this is new, they aren't making new laws, the concept of copyright is in the Constitution.

I can't find the word "copyright" in the Constitution. Perhaps they're using another term? Which Article refers to copyrighting.

I'm pretty sure the right to bear arms refers to weaponry.

[Principled]

So if hypothetically I walk into Sears and shoplift a blade for a lawnmower...

A blade has a value certain. That was dumb.

[Principled]

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.

[A. Pole]

So if hypothetically I walk into Sears and shoplift a blade for a lawnmower even though I live in the city and don't have a yard, that's not theft?

A false analogy. The proper analogy would be if you make a photo of the blade and make a replica in your basement.

[strela]

The issue is how to profitably produce and distribute music.

Irrelevant. It is extremely hard for me to believe that otherwise intelligent, principled Freepers continue to defend thieves who are stealing other people's goods and services. True conservatives don't steal.

As a consumer, you have two choices: Either buy another man's product or don't buy it. To claim that you somehow have the right to take another person's product without their permission because their business model is not the best or because you don't like lawyers is sophistry and hair-splitting. Otherwise, breaking and entering would be absolutely legal IF you had the newest model Ripper 2000 crowbar. And that is anarchy.