RIAA facing RICO?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No, that was not the point. Not at all. (And yet again, it would be a copyright violation, not a theft).

The point was that when the record companies claim that they lose $X billion because of illegal copying, that claim is invalid.

I read it as a justification for downloading, not as a complaint that the estimate of lost revenue was too high. If I have interpreted incorrectly I apologise.

 

[tedly]

Where are we

.. in Canada. I read an article in the National Post that covered the fee we pay here when we buy the recordable medium. Since this money is paid to the recording industry, the law includes a clause that says it's legal for me to have that copy, whether the original ripping was legal or not.

The industry is going after the sharers here in Canada, not the downloaders, which seems to indicate they think they'd lose otherwise.

 

[bignickel]

If you copy it, you (or the person who put it available for copying) commit a copyright violation. Copyright violation is a crime but it is not a theft.

Copying information when the information itself is the item for sale is theft.

 

[LW]

Copying information when the information itself is the item for sale is theft.

I know that I'm not an expert in American laws, but around here the legislation about copyrights and their violations are defined in Tekijänoikeuslaki 8.7.1961/404 and the corresponding legislation for thefts is in Rikoslaki 19.12.1889/39.

Two different concepts, two different laws. Just as robbery and theft are two different crimes.

I propose that in a large proportion of internet copyright violation cases the offended party doesn't suffer any real losses. This is because the offended didn't lose any physical property and the offender wouldn't have purchased the copied thing in any case.

In a theft the offended party always suffers a clear loss: the stolen item.

Yet again I want to emphasize that I'm not stating that copying stuff from internet is legal or even a right thing to do. It is not.

But claiming that it is a theft doesn't make it so. Like blackmail and extortion is not a theft. There are a lot of crimes that are not theft, and copyright violation is one of them.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I propose that in a large proportion of internet copyright violation cases the offended party doesn't suffer any real losses. This is because the offended didn't lose any physical property and the offender wouldn't have purchased the copied thing in any case.

I can't see how someone obtaining copyrighted material does not inflict a real loss on the holder of the rights. Maybe they would not have purchased at the market price but at a lower price (as they clearly want to obtain a copy there must be some price they would be willing to pay) therefore the rights holder has lost that potential income.

Do you believe any loss is inflicted if someone attends TAM without paying? Or the Olympics?

 

[ssibal]

I can't see how someone obtaining copyrighted material does not inflict a real loss on the holder of the rights.

It is simple, just because someone obtains copyrighted material illegally does not mean that they would have acquired it legally if they had no choice.

Maybe they would not have purchased at the market price but at a lower price (as they clearly want to obtain a copy there must be some price they would be willing to pay) therefore the rights holder has lost that potential income.

Well, in that case they may have lost potential income. Though you have to ignore the cases where people buy used books or records. But my point was if you are going to argue that they would have purchased it at ANY price then provide some evidence.

Do you believe any loss is inflicted if someone attends TAM without paying? Or the Olympics?

No.

 

[bignickel]

A: I have this information for sale.
B: How much?
A. X amount
B. X is too high. Zap!
A. What the? What have you got in your hands?
B. A copy of your information, which I obtained thru Y means.
A. So, that'll be X, then.
B. No, I'm not gonna pay you. Adios.

Again: this is THEFT. Nothing physical was stolen: but since information was for sale, and the way for B to get the information was to copy it, then it is theft.

If B wasn't going to pay anyway: then why does he currently have a copy of the information? Sooner or later, B is gonna want information from SOMEONE; short of Y, he will have to pay someone eventually.

There MUST be trust in the sales process for information for information to be produced by anyone.

IF THERE IS NO TRUST that the creator of information will get what he/they believe to be sufficient recompense for their work, then NO MORE information will be produced.

In which case: I will no longer be able to obtain any new information, either by money or Y. Thanks a whole bunch for screwing it up for the rest of us.

 

[Solitaire]

I will no longer be able to obtain any new information...

There is no new information, nor will there ever be.
Within the digits of Pi exists multiple copies of every
recorded song in every possible musical style. When
we give an artist rights to song we're really giving
him a claim in much the same way we give a gold
miner a claim to the gold on public lands. But that
claim should be limited in a way that benefits the
rest of society.



Your name in pi.

New digital FBI warning sticker.

 

[evildave]

So, if you buy an "original" copy of a CD from someone off Ebay, you're really "stealing" from the record companies?

After all, you didn't buy it from the record company. The artist doesn't get any royalties from you.

And if the seller kept a copy for himself, that would be something a lot like you receiving stolen goods? And the RIAA would be justified in suing you for this, too?


(I guess nobody read my previous post....)

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A: I have this information for sale.
B: How much?
A. X amount
B. X is too high. Zap!
A. What the? What have you got in your hands?
B. A copy of your information, which I obtained thru Y means.
A. So, that'll be X, then.
B. No, I'm not gonna pay you. Adios.

Again: this is THEFT.

No it's not. This has already been explained to you. Extortion is not theft. Blackmail is not theft. Murder is not theft. Copyright infringement is not theft.

Nothing physical was stolen:

Exactly.

but since information was for sale, and the way for B to get the information was to copy it, then it is theft.

That doesn't make it theft. Not all conduct that costs you money is theft.

There MUST be trust in the sales process for information for information to be produced by anyone.

No.

Musicians made a living before music recording was invented.

IF THERE IS NO TRUST that the creator of information will get what he/they believe to be sufficient recompense for their work, then NO MORE information will be produced.

Yes, but "sufficient recompense" need not be in the form of direct cash. Advertising is a benefit in itself.

In fact, for most recording artists who aren't superstars, albums get them recognition rather than money. They tour to get paid. They make albums because they have contractual obligations to do so, and because it encourages people to come to their live shows.

The RIAA member organisations make money out of album sales. Not the artists.

In which case: I will no longer be able to obtain any new information, either by money or Y. Thanks a whole bunch for screwing it up for the rest of us.

Music will not die if the middle men who make money out of recording and selling CDs lose their jobs. The musicians will make money by performing the way they have done throughout most of history.

These disaster scenarios are made up by RIAA flacks. They have no basis in history or reality.

 

[bignickel]

No it's not. This has already been explained to you.

Yes it is. This has already been explained to you. THEFT is taking without authorization what doesn't belong to you.

These disaster scenarios are made up by RIAA flacks. They have no basis in history or reality.

It's not a 'scenario'; it's the logical extension of what happens if everyone follows your personal morality regarding theft of information.

Am I the only one who looks at morality in terms of 'what happens if every person on the planet does what I do?' Or is that just seen as 'old-fashioned' thinking and not 'with it' or not 'cogniscant of the new paradigm'?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Yes, but "sufficient recompense" need not be in the form of direct cash. Advertising is a benefit in itself.

And if they choose to make their albums freely available for download to advertise in this way then there is no problem.

On the other hand if they decide that the advertising is not a sufficient benefit to give their property away for nothing, what gives anyone else the right to decide that they can have it for free by downloading it?

 

[LW]

Yes it is. This has already been explained to you. THEFT is taking without authorization what doesn't belong to you.

Is murder theft? In it you are taking someone's life without authorization.

Is kidnapping thef? In it you are taking someone's person without authorization.

Is poaching theft? In it you are taking some animal without authorization.

Is DUI theft? You are taking away other people's right to travel safely by driving while drunk.

And moreover, your definition contains the verb to take. In case you haven't noticed, generally if you take something then that thing is not anymore in the place where the taking took place. If you copy something, then the original thing stays in the same place.

It's not a 'scenario'; it's the logical extension of what happens if everyone follows your personal morality regarding theft of information.

For the absolutely last time, we are not saying (or at least I am not) that downloading songs is morally right.

Repeat:

Downloading songs is not morally right.

See, I wrote that perhaps third or fourth time in this thread.

We are saying that it is not stealing.

There is a very big number of things that are morally wrong but that are not stealing.

 

[bignickel]

(Sidebar) Wow. That is so wierd.

You've actually summed up my own personal morality. And I thought I was the only who came up with that! Or maybe it's just implicit in my posts

"The only things that are wrong are theft and fraud." Thus, eliminating all the 'sins' and 'vices' charges thrown at you by religous fanatics. For that purpose, rather effective I think.

Theft of life. Theft of propety. Theft of freedom. Breaking your word.

Pretty simple. And says nothing about the consensual things that adults can do with each other. (/Sidebar)


Anyways:
Just for arguments sake: if you claim that the authorized copying of a song is not the same as stealing the .80 CD, in that it's not theft per se. So: if we have a certain punishment for shoplifting: what should the punishment be for the unauthorized copying? Same? Less? More?

 

[LW]

Maybe they would not have purchased at the market price but at a lower price (as they clearly want to obtain a copy there must be some price they would be willing to pay) therefore the rights holder has lost that potential income.

Well, if the rights holder is not willing to sell the stuff with the price that the copyright infringer is willing to pay, I'd say that those losses are still quite illusionary.

I don't think there's any place anywhere where I can go to a record shop and say what price I'm willing to pay and then get a brand new record with that price.

There are four different cases in downloading songs:

- person A downloads a song that he or she would otherwise have bought;

- person B downloads a song that he wouldn't have bought in any case;

- person C downloads a song, likes it, and goes to by the album that he wouldn't have bought otherwise.

- person D downloads a song and buys the album and would have bought the album in any case.

Depending on details of the local jurisdiction any one of them might be legal or illegal. [Uploading a song is illegal in almost all cases, downloading might not be depending on the circumstances].

The only situation that leads to a clear quantifiable loss to the record company is person A. On the other hand, person C downloading the song gives a net profit to the company.

In my circle of acquitances I have seen examples of all four persons, A, B, C, and D. By my subjective perceptions their proportions go somewhere like this.

- Most downloaders are B, getting songs that they wouldn't have bought.

- Then comes A. Persons who would have bought the record if unable to download it. I have heard three different persons to say these exact words: "now that I have a broadband I don't have to ever buy a CD again". However, in my circles there definitely are more people in B than in A.

The vast majority of downloaders that I personally know fall into the first two cases. The cases C and D are rare and I can't say which one is more common.

I can't say how well my personal experiences generalize. I can't estimate the proportions of A, B, C, and D worldwide. I've seen lots of posts by people who claim to be in C but I don't think it is a very reliable sample.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Well, if the rights holder is not willing to sell the stuff with the price that the copyright infringer is willing to pay, I'd say that those losses are still quite illusionary.

But the price of rights is not static (for example you tend to pay a lower price for older music) so there may come a point when the price fell to a level that they would have purchased and will no longer do so - a real loss.

I don't think there's any place anywhere where I can go to a record shop and say what price I'm willing to pay and then get a brand new record with that price.

- Most downloaders are B, getting songs that they wouldn't have bought.

So what? The moral case is unchanged - they are infringing someone else's copyright.

I also have to question how genuine people who claim to be in this category are - they want the songs enough to download but not enough to pay for them? I suspect a lot of people who claim to be in this category are in fact just seeking to justify their actions.

 

[Roadtoad]

For me, it's like this: If I download, I'm more than likely going to buy the album at some point within the next year. All I'm doing is shopping. Most of the time, if I don't like it, I delete it after hearing it, and I'm done with it.

Personally, I am one of the few who actually grooves on things like liner notes. I enjoy reading that sort of thing. I may be one of the few who uses MP3s as they were intended.

 

[anduin]

For me, it's like this: If I download, I'm more than likely going to buy the album at some point within the next year. All I'm doing is shopping. Most of the time, if I don't like it, I delete it after hearing it, and I'm done with it.

Personally, I am one of the few who actually grooves on things like liner notes. I enjoy reading that sort of thing. I may be one of the few who uses MP3s as they were intended.

Your case is not uncommon. Most people who download music still buy music. There is an interesting recent study by Forrester Research that has found that 31% of Americans download and burn CDs often. However, those same people make up a staggering 36% of all CD music sales in the U.S.

This is evidence that people will download and buy. It is true that music sales are down for the last three years, but not as bad as we are being told. While sales are down, new releases are also down for the last three years! This means that there are less new records out there.

Another factor is that games and DVD sales are skyrocketing, which will have an effect in music sales as well. I know that I buy less music, but it is mostly because my entertainment budget is spent on games and DVDs. I still spend roughly the same in entertainment, but the competition is fiercer.

Consumers are also becoming savier. They will no longer buy a CD only for one song, they will only buy CDs that are worth buying, that is why pop artists are not selling as much as they used to, and music sales in rock, alternative and jazz are up. Good music is in.

We are seeing an increase in “legal downloads” as well. Kazaa Lite and Napster are going legal, and iPod is a big hit. The RIAA is battling an outdated business model, they should embrace music downloads and stop alienating their best consumers.

 

[Earthborn]

So, if you buy an "original" copy of a CD from someone off Ebay, you're really "stealing" from the record companies?

Yes, of course. And think of all the people who ask their friends over to listen to their new CDs. It means that people are sharing their music! If two people are listening to the same CD, whether at the same time, or by lending to a friend to listen to it, record companies could have sold two CDs instead of one, and they are losing money. It should be illegal!

It should also be illegal for people to learn to play instruments, because if they can, they can just play the songs the record companies try to sell themselves, tape it and listen to it whenever they want. It is exactly the same as copying, only by other means.

And how about people with 'phonographic' memories? When they hear a song they can instantly replay it in their head. Why should they ever buy CDs? They can just copy the song to their brain illegally. This illegal remembering of music should be stopped! Everytime anyone thinks of a song they did not buy on CD, they are robbing the record companies of money, because instead of just playing the music in their head, they could have been listening to a legally bought CD.

What about those artists who make their songs available for free on the internet? Why should that be legal? After all, if someone is listening to a free song, they are not listening to one they could have paid for, and are thus robbing the record companies. It is even worse: many of the sites that distribute free music make very clear that their goal is to destroy the record industry. When free music is presented it often has descriptions that tell downloaders that a certain artist 'is just like [fill in commercial artist]' or music is meant 'for people who like [fill in commercial band]'. People who listen to music very much like music that is available for sale, are stealing from the people who are trying to sell their music. After all, if people can get music just like it for free, they are not going to buy the music that isn't free and record companies lose money. Record sales have shown this: there is a statistically significant correlation between the growth of free music on the internet and the decline in record sales.

 

[Jaan]

Forget legalities ... RIAA is just being stupid.

Look at an industry that has dealt with piracy from day 1, the software industry. You can still download a cracked version of Windows XP very easily for example (and I know for a fact it works). The software industry is more successful than the music industry, but even with heavy piracy it still doesn't sue it's customers.

And why should they? Today's pirates will be purchasing their software later on. Downloading a pirated copy of a game could almost be considered a full trial version. Pirated software that is GOOD will result in purchases somewhere down the line. Not to say they don't go after the big guys like Shane Pitman of Razor1911 (you'll be missed dude!) but they don't sue little kids and old ladies.

I think Bill Gates has the right philosophy when he talks about piracy in China (94% of their software is pirated). He doesn't want them to pirate anything but if they're going to do it, he wants them to pirate Microsoft.

When I download songs it's for 2 reasons. Either I can't get the music I want (out of print or from another country) or I want to check it out first before spending my hard earned money. I listen to a LOT of underground stuff that I wouldn't hear anywhere else. For every band that turned out to suck, I've been turned on to a band that was awesome ... and went out and bought the CD and went to the shows. Most indy labels will give away songs on their web site for just this reason. I don't buy music because of flashy ads or half naked gyrating chicks, I buy music because it makes the hair on my arms stand on end ... but I have to hear it first.

The truth is, if CD's were cheaper I would be more willing to buy one just to check a band out. As it is, if I'm going to spend that kind of money on something I'm going to make damn sure I like it first. Right now though, I see the music industry in a much different light, and I'm even less inclined to buy CD's because of these lawsuits. You listening RIAA?