The RIAA sees the face of evil, and it's a 12-year-old girl

The Register ^ | 09/09/2003 at 13:54 GMT | Ashlee Vance in Chicago

[Charles Martel]

I do not understand why so many FReepers buy into the democrat style argument that it's OK to steal from the rich recording industry corporate fat-cats.

Let's not forget that the recording-industry "fat cats" have been picking the consumer's pocket at every turn. The duplicity is amazing - if they want to discourage home recording of music, they certainly sent the wrong message by tacitly approving of it early on. That's right, there is a tax paid by the manufacturer of Blank "Music" CDR disks under the "Audio Home Recording Act", as well as a 3% tax on every CDR recorder. The manufacturer adds the tax to the wholesale price, so you never see it. The money collected is administered by SoundExchange which is housed in the RIAA headquarters and headed by a former RIAA employee.

There's another dirty little secret: RIAA is actually *benefitting* from the data they receive on file-sharers. Not just what they find in Kazaa users' "shared folders", but in every P2P search request. Companies such as "Big Champagne" compile data from P2P searches (NOT downloads). So, to the RIAA, file-sharers are evil people and must be stopped - but it's okay to use them as a marketing resource to look at trends in music tastes and such (before dragging them off to court, I suppose).

If I've never used my CD burner for music recording but only data backup, can I get that 3% tax refunded to me? No, I didn't think so.

[moehoward]

"The analogy is valid. If you steal a candy bar or a million bucks, it's still stealing."

Yeah, sure. Let the Mars Candy Company sue every 6 year old that ever stole a stinking candy bar.

"And no one uploads music to these sites out of the goodness of their hearts. They reasonably expect that the site will attract others who do the same so they can download music which doesn't belong to them."

More of your assumptions. FYI. Most file sharing occurs peer to peer, not from a "site". The files are shared from harddive to harddrive.

Look, as someone who has made his living in Intellectual Property for the past twenty years I see both sides. While I worked for RCA/A&M (what is now BMG) I saw real piracy and counterfeiting. Retail record stores routinely bought counterfeit (cut-out, wink wink) records. Labels never bothered these retailers or their customers. Now I work with licensed sportswear, still see the effects of REAL copyright infringement and counterfeiting all the time.

IMO file sharing is no different than checking out a cd from the Library, or recording a song from the radio (legal, BTW).

 

[jjm2111]

"I do not understand why so many FReepers buy into the democrat style argument that it's OK to steal from the rich recording industry corporate fat-cats."

Probably because the copyright cartel is such a scam. Why is it that inventions go into the public domain after a period of time, but music is perpetually "copyrighted" for eternity?

The monopolistic practices of the industry tend to send music lovers into a tizzy, furthering the P2P revolution. Everytime they paid 16.99 for a CD full of filler. Or where the single is great song, but the rest of the album is trash. Can you return it? If you buy a coffee maker and and it's a piece of garbage, usually the store will allow you to return it for credit. Try that with a CD.

[VRWCmember]

Let's not forget that the recording-industry "fat cats" have been picking the consumer's pocket at every turn.

The consumers pay what they are willing to pay. That is free markets. Government regulations come into play regarding protection of intellectual property rights (one of the Constitutional powers specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a legitimate purpose of the government by the way) and those regulations interact with the market in determining costs of production for certain items that then are passed on to consumers.

If you want music, pay for it. If you think what's out there isn't of adequate quality to warrant buying it, then don't. But don't use the industry's "duplicity" or the quality of the product as a justification for stealing.

[Protagoras]

Most file sharing occurs peer to peer, not from a "site". The files are shared from harddive to harddrive.

And no one swaps? They expect nothing in return? I have a bridge to sell you in the desert.

IMO file sharing is no different than checking out a cd from the Library,

Then you need a remedial course in logic. The CD or book you borrow from the owner is legal because you aren't COPYING it. It's called COPYRIGHT for a reason. If you COPY the cd or book it's theft.

or recording a song from the radio (legal, BTW).

The radio station paid. The courts have decided that you can record anything floating around in the air. But you cannot then COPY them and sell or trade them for value. Now do you get it? You wasted 20 yrs it seems.

[razorback-bert]

I didn't know the RIAA owns the music.

Looks better in the papers that the RIAA is suing, not Sony.

I doubt that suing customers that want music and are willing to pay is going to work long term. This girl's mother was willing to and did pay a fee for her daughter to get music, she just didn't do it correctly. I wouldn't know how to do it either and doubt many others do too.

I believe in protecting property of all types, but this action appears to me to be short sighted and ineffectual.

The music companies should listen to the market and realize that their product is overpriced for the benefits.

[moehoward]

LOL. What's your point? The notion of a bridge in the desert is absurd or the notion that you may have one for sale?

Libraries have copiers for the expressed purpose of COPYING pages of books and magazines. Many smaller libraries never purchase CD's, computer games, or movies at all. They are donated by private parties, and as such the library doesn't even have the "right" to the media period. Blockbuster pays fees to the copyright holder for "X" amount of rentals per video. The library has no such arrangement with ANY copyright holder.

Xeroxing an entire book and giving it away may indeed be infringement, but unless monitory damages can be proven there is no case.

You are dead wrong on the radio subject. The radio station (supposedly) paid ASCAP fees for each time the song is played. I assure you very often these fees are NEVER paid and frequently UNDERPAID. The station does not pay for a million listeners recording the song.

And you certainly CANNOT "record anything floating around in the air". Try sitting at the NSA's gate and recording "what floats around".

[Protagoras]

What's your point?

If you think that people don't swap files quid pro quo you might buy a useless bridge from a person who doesn't own one. That's the point. Some people will believe anything or can convince themselves of anything.

They are donated by private parties,

The gift transfers ownership.

Copying small amounts of books is fair use. Brush up.

[rwfromkansas]

oops. I did misread that. I read it right the first time, but for some reason got it screwed up in my reply.

There is no such thing as intellectual property rights for music.

[moehoward]

"Some people will believe anything or can convince themselves of anything."

Obviously.

"The gift transfers ownership."

Not according to the RIAA. And even if it did, it would be a single user right. Not for multiple listeners.

"Copying small amounts of books is fair use."

According to "Fair Use" copying an entire cd is as well. But again, not according to the RIAA.

"Brush up."

I'd rather "Brush off"... cheers.

[Dark Knight]

It's not a theft. It is a violation of copyright. Stealing a CD is theft. Is it against the law, sure. But it is intellectual property, not real property.

Geovernment has also settled this issue. We pay a tax on blank media (tapes etc.) that goes to the RIAA for this kind of thing by consumers. I pay a copyright fee for my media, EVEN IF I AM NOT USING IT FOR COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL! I haven't heard anyone trying to recall this tax paid to the RIAA for copyrights in order to sue music sharers. They want a bigger cut. They ignored the computer trend because it did not fit into their monopolistic model, and the competition is killing them. I Tunes downloaded what, a million tunes in its first month?

RIAA is a disservice to musicians everywhere. They use government to enforce something they had other ways of dealing with. When you make a law that is not enforced, no one respects that law. Period. Choosing to enforce it on under 300 people when tens of millions of people disobey is it capricious and arbitrary. Enforcing it on a twelve year old is not only capricious and arbitrary, but foolish as well. If she would have actually stolen the CD from a store, her fate would be less than one grand penalty, if you could enforce the law on a twelve year old. That's the penalty for real theft.

The law was intended to deal with the CD, software, and movie piracy for profit. That why the fines are high, and there was international implications. They busted guys that were making and selling copies of anything on computer media. The technology for doing it was out of the reach of consumers purse.

The law being used was intended for those making a profit from copyright violation, and now has been extended to the absurd. If I own a DVD and want to play it for my Russian class, I have to get permission. If I invite my Russian class to my home, I don't. That particular legal stupidity is directly caused by this bizarre copyright entension frenzy. And most of the money does not even go to the artist, which was the initial reason for copyright law in the first place. If the founders thought the copyrights would not apply to a artisan or writer, I wonder if they would have done it in the first place?

DK

[FreedomCalls]

I'll bet she develops a new respect for property rights after this.

Much as VRWCmember will learn to respect the rights of the owners of the copyrights to the news stories posted here on Free Republic.

[FreedomCalls]

It seems to me the author of this story is trying to paint the thieves as "victims" of "corporate greed".

So what about the "theives" here at Free Republic who "steal" news stories. That differs how?

[FreedomCalls]

I would expect that in the future she will be much more aware of property rights and will make sure that she pays for the things she uses or takes.

Do you subscribe to all the newspapers that have stories reposted here on Free Republic? Are you a thief for not subscribing?

[Protagoras]

Not for multiple listeners.

Nonsense, owners can lend their property to anyone as many times as they want. This is not public performance we are talking about. It is lending to one person at a time for personal use.

[FreedomCalls]

12-year-old Brianna LaHara (if she's anything like my kids) is old enough to know right from wrong. My guess (my opiion only of course) is she knowingly chose wrong.

When you read a newspaper's story posted here rather than subscribing you are choosing as well. What's the difference in getting free access to news articles here and not paying for them and in getting access to songs on Kazaa and not paying for them?

[TomServo]

So what about the "theives" here at Free Republic who "steal" news stories. That differs how?

We comply with their wishes as far as I know. When we get our asses hauled into court, we either win or comply.

[FreedomCalls]

So, if you go into a grocery store and decide the price of ice cream is too high (it's unfair), you can just cart as much of it as you can carry out the door without paying for it, and then give it away on the street as long as you don't do it for profit. (This is your concept of fair use?)

No but if I go the the bookstore and find the price of a new bestseller too high and I go to the library and check it out instead, is that fair use? Are libraries themselves legal?

[moehoward]

Give it up. Try telling your story to Bill Gates.

[FreedomCalls]

You left this part out of the article you copied and distributed here:

Copyright 2003 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.