Recording industry goes after file sharers

The Oregonian ^ | 08/04/03 | JEFFREY KOSSEFF

[yonif]

The Internet isn't the anonymous playground of free goodies that many once thought it was.

In fact, your online behavior could land you across the courtroom from a multibillion-dollar industry.

The Recording Industry Association of America is cracking down on Web surfers who it claims have shared copyrighted music files over the Internet.

The organization, which represents record labels, has sent hundreds of subpoenas in the past month to Internet service providers for the identities of file sharers, and it plans to begin filing lawsuits later this month and next month.

The following questions and answers are intended to shed light on the issues at stake in the battle over Internet music swapping.

What is the RIAA attempting to prevent?

Since the record industry killed Napster, a popular file-sharing company, a few years ago, more decentralized computer programs have emerged, enabling computer users to swap copyrighted songs and videos.

Because it's difficult to sue a company to stop this form of file sharing, the RIAA is pursuing individual computer users. The industry plans to seek hefty fines in civil court, claiming violations of copyright law.

Who is the RIAA considering suing?

For now, the association is targeting only music consumers who make copyrighted files available to other people for uploading via file-sharing programs such as Kazaa.

Those who only download are not at risk of being sued now, although RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said downloading over free file-sharing networks also is illegal.

"There's no distinction in the law or what the courts have said," Lamy said. "I don't think anyone should take comfort in the fact that they're safe."

Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a technology consumer-advocacy group, said Internet users with fast computers and high-speed Internet connections are most likely to be on the RIAA's hit list.

Because college students often share large quantities of music, they are considered to be among prevalent subpoena targets.

File-trading programs such as Kazaa don't require you to enter your real name. How is the RIAA tracking down file sharers?

The association uses software to scan file-sharing networks such as Kazaa for computers offering "substantial" amounts of copyrighted files.

It records the user's name within the file-sharing network and unique numerical Internet address. With that information, it can locate the uploader's Internet service provider. It then includes that information, along with a list of some songs the computer had offered to other users, in a subpoena that asks the ISP for the identity of the subscriber.

How many files does the RIAA consider to be substantial?

"There's no hard and fast rule or number," Lamy said.

But the more songs that file sharers offer, the more likely the RIAA is to target them, he said.

"It benefits the RIAA in their efforts to be as ominously vague as possible," said Mike McGuire, research director at research firm GartnerG2 in San Jose, Calif.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's von Lohmann said the RIAA has been subpoenaing information on computers that file-sharing networks have randomly chosen to be "supernodes," which coordinate traffic on the file-sharing network.

It is difficult to tell whether your computer has functioned as a supernode, but you can avert such use of your computer by selecting an option in your file-sharing program.

Will my ISP reveal my identity?

It depends.

Some ISPs have complied in light of a recent federal court ruling in Washington, D.C., that required Verizon to hand over names of file sharers. Pacific Bell Internet Services, a subsidiary of telecom giant SBC, has challenged the subpoenas' legality and won't release the names. But Comcast, the largest cable company in Oregon and the United States, has not publicly challenged RIAA subpoenas for information on some users of its high-speed Internet service.

"At Comcast, our customers' privacy comes first," the company said in a statement. "However, we will comply with a subpoena in situations in which we are legally bound and when the request meets specific legal criteria."

Has the RIAA revealed a list of the subpoenas it has filed?

No, but EFF's Web site, www.eff.org, offers a free search engine that enables you to search a database of publicly available subpoenas to see whether your user name or Internet address are listed on a subpoena.

If you don't find yourself there, it doesn't necessarily mean you aren't a target. Only about 250 case listings appear on the U.S. court's Web site, and the Associated Press late last month reported that RIAA had filed more than 900 subpoenas. Lamy said the RIAA will not reveal how many subpoenas it has issued.

Have any Oregon file sharers been subpoenaed?

Oregon ISPs and universities are not among the publicly available subpoenas.

A review of 30 publicly available subpoenas for Internet subscribers to Comcast did not reveal any Internet addresses that were traced to Oregon. Most of the Comcast subpoenas sought information about users in Massachusetts and California.

"The Northeast and California may have a lot more colleges," GartnerG2's McGuire said. But because many subpoenas are not publicly available, it is possible that Oregonians are among those the RIAA is targeting.

Can I download music without uploading?

Most file-sharing programs allow you to choose to stop sharing your files with other users.

That prevents you from uploading and, presumably, landing on the RIAA's hit list. But there is no guarantee that the industry won't eventually go after downloaders.

Why does the RIAA care?

When people download songs for free rather than buy them in stores, they take money away from the artists and labels, the RIAA says.

And downloading is pervasive. According to surveys conducted this year by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 35 million U.S. adults download music files online.

"We'd much rather spend time making music then dealing with legal issues in courtrooms," RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a written statement. "But we cannot stand by while piracy takes a devastating toll on artists, musicians, songwriters, retailers and everyone in the music industry."

Why do people download music if it violates copyright law?

Downloading proponents say most Internet users download as well as buy music, and they blame the record industry for not quickly creating alternatives that enable people to purchase music online.

CenterSpan Communications, which once employed 87 people in Hillsboro, has downsized to two employees after unsuccessfully trying to sell software that would enable record companies to charge for music online.

"The labels and the studios have always viewed themselves as having complete control of their content and distribution channels," said Frank Hausmann, CenterSpan's chief executive. "The Internet represents a new channel they would have no control over."

McGuire said copyright holders tend to fight threatening technology.

"Whenever a new technology comes along for copying something, like the VCR, the initial thrust from the copyright holders has been to fight it and stop it," McGuire said.

But haven't companies recently launched ads for music download sites that charge money?

Apple's iTunes.com and the recently launched BuyMusic.com are among the industry's most notable efforts at selling music online.

A few years ago, Lamy said, RIAA's opponents may have had a point in arguing there was a lack of music-industry online alternatives. But that is no longer the case, he said.

"If fans want music online legitimately, there are a host of great services that have great content from every major record company," the RIAA's Lamy said.

Will these industry-backed sites catch on?

Some technology experts say the pay sites don't yet have the range of songs available on the free sites.

And because the industry has been slow to adopt file-sharing technology, they say, it may be difficult to win over subscribers.

"They're trying now," said Anthony Davis, a partner with Davis Dixon Kirby, a Portland law firm that specializes in intellectual-property cases. "The real problem is that it's too late. Everybody got used to getting it for free."

Jeffrey Kosseff: 503-294-7605; jeffkosseff@news.oregonian.com

[goldstategop]

Its not about protecting copyrights; its about RIAA's wanting to make sure it can make money for the record labels off the customers. Its all about greed.

[yonif]

Using their own logic, can't movie companies begin to track DVD recordables and blank tapes bought by customers to see if they are using it to copy movies?

[goldstategop]

Well movies are protected by Macrovision copyright protection. And TV show recording is protected by "the fair use" exception under the copyright law.

[Banjoguy]

The RIAA is organized and funded by the recording industry. It is not a self interested entity. It, instead, acts as an ombudsman for the vertical market responsible for the, production, manufacture and distribution of recorded entertainment.

Copyright laws were established to protect the originators of creative product so that they could reap the benefits of their work; that would include financial gain. Saying that one is exclusive of the other is an absurdity.

In addition, I submit that it is not greed to expect a monetary payback for the creation of a product. As a risk taker I have every right to legally produce and distribute a product and to expect a financial reward for my efforts. Those who would purloin the product, justifying on the basis of technology, are, to put it bluntly, thieves.

[grania]

As a risk taker I have every right to legally produce and distribute a product and to expect a financial reward for my efforts. Those who would purloin the product, justifying on the basis of technology, are, to put it bluntly, thieves.

What physical product are they stealing? The record companies brought it upon themselves, by continually passing off the junk they do as music, and by reducing what they produce to nothing but computer bytes. If they were to go back to nurturing (and giving creative freedom) to talented musicians, producing albums that were the total package...artwork, photography, historical and informational notes, the words, a cohesive and meaningful theme, people would buy them...just as they still purchase movies and books, even though movies can be copied and books can be borrowed at the library.

Why do you think dinosaurs like Mick Jagger, Bruce Springfield, and Jimmy Buffet keep selling out concerts and having a following? Maybe, just maybe, it's because what they create for their fans doesn't s---.

Why shouldn't the kids download this junk? Even they know it won't be worth listening to two weeks from now.

[Diogenesis]

These "people" are so sick, that they deserve a boycott.

[Sacajaweau]

"What has the company lost?" They are saying that everyone who has done this is a lost buyer. How do they prove that??

[John Doe #1]

Copyright law is no more than a tyrannous tool for
corporate America. If you have the misfortune of having your copyrights violated by them (as I have) ,you'll learn the hard way why it is my opinion having copyright protection on your individual work's is no more than a fantasy in reality.

[afz400]

If anything, Kazaa has increased interest in music that is not heard on the radio anymore. The record companies should view that as a plus not try to stop it. MP3s are not good quality - lots of people hear the song and then buy the CD for better sound.

[sgtbono2002]

Perhaps if they priced their product at a fair price people would not try to copy it. This stuff is priced way too high.

[AeWingnut]

I'll never forget the flap over the PMRC w/ Tipper Gore. Frank Zappa was complaining that while they were out there talking about labeling music - Algore was in the back room giving a private industry the ability to tax us. What he was talking about was the royalties that were being paid to RIAA ASCAP or whoever for blank media. For every sale of blank media they got a percentage. I remember when CD-Recorders first came out. Only CD-Rs marked "For Consumer" would work and they were more than $7 each while CD-Rs that you use in the computer were only $1 - $1.50 each. Why ? Because the demChiComCrimocrat Algore is a corporate statist.

SACD DVD-A surround sound Cds are more difficult to copy but they are barely being marketted. If they really were concerned about piracy they would push the new formats

[Gil4]

Why shouldn't the kids download this junk

If it has no value to them, they won't waste their time downloading and listening. If it does have value to them, they need to pay for it.

I'm not crazy about some of our copyright laws, particularly as they apply to older works (especially those that are no longer produced.) I personally think the Beattles have made their money off of Love Me Do and it should be in the public domain by now, but I won't begrudge anyone the right to make a buck off the song they wrote last month, even if I consider it junk.

[bk1000]

"Perhaps if they priced their product at a fair price people would not try to copy it. This stuff is priced way too high."



I haven't bought a CD in years for that very reason.
(I don't download, either) The record industry is
desperatly clinging to an outdated business model.
Rather than change with the times, they whine.
(sounds like a bunch of liberals!) I'll bet these new
'download a song for a fee' websites are the wave of
the future. Why should I pay for ten songs on a disk
when eight of them stink? Buying music by the song
(remember 45 or 78 RPM records?) is a way for
the industry to return to it's roots and will ultimately inspire
artists to write better songs instead of album filler.
People like to download music. I think most would
pay a small fee per song to keep it legal and fair.

[Gil4]

...royalties that were being paid to RIAA ASCAP or whoever for blank media....

I've heard about this but I don't know exactly what the provisions of that law are - does anyone know where I can get details on this? (I thought it applied to cassettes as well.)

[goldstategop]

One would think RIAA would get into a cozy deal with the P2P networks instead of trying to get rid of them. You know, if you can't beat em, join em.

[Nick Danger]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. It's as if the entire industry has put the legal department in charge of marketing. "These people are not buying our stuff — let's send law enforcement out there to crack their heads!"

It appears that the sales of the recording industry are indeed declining. By definition, that is a marketing problem. That means that the solutions probably lie in one of four areas:

• Price — and in particular, relative price. Music CDs are not the only thing out there competing for the entertainment dollar. DVD sales are going through the roof; they didn't exist a few years ago. Some of that money is coming out of the music industry's hide. It has to be.

  Particularly in the age group that the recording industry targets, console video games are another thing vying for the entertainment dollar.

  The recording industry has not lowered its price in many years, even in the face of these two new competitors for the entertainment dollar. The price spread between a music CD and an entire movie, with sound track, on DVD is becoming smaller all the time. Which is really the better value for the consumer? A CD at $17, or the DVD movie at $21?

• Product — I'm no music critic, so I will shut up on the subject of whether the stuff out there today 'sucks.' It probably can't be worse than the Archies. What is apparently true is that the industry is now more concentrated, and has become more risk averse, meaning that new acts with sounds that "don't fit the mold" are less likely to get any attention. Taking those risks is where new hit bands and new genres come from, so if they aren't taking those risks, what they do sell will sound tired and boring after a while. That will lead to declining sales. They should expect nothing else.

• Distribution — This is the industry's achilles heel. They have enormous sums invested in relationships with bankruptcy-bound retail music store chains. They can't abandon those guys because today, that's where the revenue comes from. So they are trapped manufacturing, shipping, and warehousing millions of little physical objects that add a lot of cost to the distribution process. This is cost that doesn't really have to be there for a large fraction of what consumers want to buy.

Is there stealing? Yes, but is that really the problem? To the point that the industry is willing to become identified in its customers' minds as a kind of legal ogre that goes around suing its customers? Treating the customers as The Enemy is a big step to take. It's a very risky proposition. But it's the first thing lawyers would think of.

Where are the people in this business who are responsible for selling music? How is it that they are allowing their legal department to dictate strategy? To alienate their customers like this? You cannot beat people with sticks to make them like you. Once they come to hate you, you don't get to sell them things anymore.

At some point, sanity must prevail. There are 30 million of these "thieves" out there. Even a 13-year-old can figure out that he's more likely to get hit by lightning than to draw one of these lawsuits. There is no real deterrent in that. Plus, breaking the rules appeals to a teenager's need to rebel against adult authority. The lawsuits just make the fruit 'forbidden' as well as tasty.

Turning the lawyers loose on the customers is nuts. The right answer for declining sales lies in one of those other areas. You have to entice people to buy things; you can't sue them into it.

If Wal*Mart was this nuts, they would have security guards roaming the store, waving guns at people and shouting "No Shoplifting!" to everyone with a shopping cart. They would be out of business within a month if they did that. The recording industry can have the same thing happen to it. There are other ways to spend the entertainment dollar.

[yonif]

BTTT

[grania]

If it has no value to them, they won't waste their time downloading and listening. If it does have value to them, they need to pay for it.

That makes as much sense as saying that if it has no value to them, they wouldn't bother listening to it on the radio. Look at it this way...I have a lot of CDs I purchased and (legally) downloaded to my computer. Why? Because I could. They sound like what they are on the computer...squeaky disconnected bits. I don't listen to them, not at all.

Sure, maybe these vicious, nasty purloiners of quality sound do listen to it. But, if they do, they're more (not less) likely to become familiar with the performer and buy stuff. They'd be really likely to buy anything that was really good, on high-quality vinyl (producing music in waves, not blips), with all of the things I mentioned. Of course, they'd have to be educated first. This whole thing started because record companies wanted something easier to market and shelf.

The other issue someone brought up is out-of-issue music. The computer is where it is stored and found.

You assume people actually buy or don't buy things as a matter of finances. That's ridiculous in the US today. If people want something badly enough, they'll buy it. I don't here anywhere in your argument that the "music" today is actually worth paying for.

[wildandcrazyrussian]

Turning the lawyers loose on the customers is nuts. The right answer for declining sales lies in one of those other areas. You have to entice people to buy things; you can't sue them into it.

If Wal*Mart was this nuts, they would have security guards roaming the store, waving guns at people and shouting "No Shoplifting!" to everyone with a shopping cart. They would be out of business within a month if they did that. The recording industry can have the same thing happen to it. There are other ways to spend the entertainment dollar.

17 posted on 08/04/2003 8:06 AM EDT by Nick Danger
**********
That was great!