RIAA facing RICO?

[evildave]

Yes! That's it! Lobotomize people with good memories!

That way, they won't even remember what they bought!

Profits for all!

 

[Roadtoad]

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.

Actually, this is a rather impressive bit of sarcasm...

I have another point that I've yet to see made. Just a few months ago, Bobby Hatfield, Bill Medley's partner in the Righteous Brothers, died in a hotel room. The man was playing the casinos, state fairs, and the like, just to keep working. He recorded "Unchained Melody," the song which could have made him millions, which was used the movie Ghost. He could have at least lived comfortably, if not actually retired.

Only problem is, all the royalties from the song were sent to Phil Spector, the producer. The man was a first rate pr***, who literally robbed his artists, broke them, cheated them, and if they went out on their own, tried everything he could to destroy them. (Just ask Darlene Love.)

Think that was an isolated instance? Look at John Fogarty, who was sued by Fantasy Records for (irony of ironies) a copyright violation for recording his own songs from Creedence Clearwater! Or consider how Buddy Holly was treated after his death. Perhaps, if we're going to consider trash rock, maybe we ought to examine Kim Fowley and his relationship with The Runaways. Where was the RIAA to protect the artists, the same people we're being told are being ripped off by downloads? Especially when you look at a guy like Clive Davis, who's still living high on the hog in spite of what we're told are record losses for the industry.

I've got no problem with people receiving what they've earned in the way of income. But, let's at least be honest about this: This is not about making sure that, say, Eric Clapton gets royalties he's due for his days recording with Cream. This is about keeping a bunch of already very fat cats a little fatter, keeping them in their Jags, their motoryachts, and their five figure square foot mansions, and their eight and nine figure salaries.

Ktesibios, if you're losing money, it's being stolen from you not by 15-year-olds with a modem and a CD-RW, it's being taken by people who already have a great deal, and aren't satisfied until they take from you.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

Why don't you just do your "shopping" at Amazon. Most CDs for sale -- and I'm pretty sure they list every CD in every catalogue and back catalogue -- have sample MP3s of 30 seconds or so of four or five tracks on the album.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

How is that statistic interesting or even significant. The only thing shown is that the type of person who steals music (i.e. a music buff), is also the type of person who buys music (i.e. a music buff).

 

[bignickel]

I find it interesting that while everyone is happy enough to go round and round debating whether RIAA's tactics are sound, or whether the music industry is making too much money, etc, etc, no one has yet to address my aside:

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:
if we have a certain punishment for shoplifting: what should the punishment be for the unauthorized copying? Same? Less? More?

 

[Iconoclast]

if we have a certain punishment for shoplifting: what should the punishment be for the unauthorized copying? Same? Less? More?

Death by Cheesegrater!

 

[Iconoclast]

Only problem is, all the royalties from... ["Unchained Melody"] ...were sent to Phil Spector, the producer. The man was a first rate pr***, who literally robbed his artists, broke them, cheated them, and if they went out on their own, tried everything he could to destroy them.

Yep, don't you just hate people who screw musicians over. You know, record producers and a*holes who feel they don't have to pay for music.

Look at John Fogarty, who was sued by Fantasy Records for (irony of ironies) a copyright violation for recording his own songs from Creedence Clearwater!

I assume John Fogarty signed over the rights to his music to Fantasy Records, and I assume he knew how to read a contract or perhaps even paid for the services of a laywer to explain the ramifications of the contract to him before he signed. Right? Then, some time later, he recorded some music that he no longer owned the rights to and was sued by the copyright owner. I'm sorry but I just don't see the irony here. Mr Fogarty is a big boy, and he has to live with the reality that he willingly signed a binding contract.

 

[Jaan]

<snip>
Think that was an isolated instance? Look at John Fogarty, who was sued by Fantasy Records for (irony of ironies) a copyright violation for recording his own songs from Creedence Clearwater!

Actually, it's even worse than that ... John Fogarty was sued for sounding too much like himself.

The lawsuit was brought on by CCR's old manager Saul Zaentz who royally screwed CCR out of ...well ... royalties.

When John Fogarty finally came out with a solo album Centerfield he recorded a song on it called Vanz Kant Danz, an obvious dig at his former manager.

Then, to prove what a nice guy he was, Zaentz sued John Fogarty as revenge. The accusation? The hit single from his solo album The Old Man Down the Road ripped off CCR's Run Through the Jungle, and that he also deliberately tried to sound like himself! Yes folks, he capitalized on the popularity of himself in CCR by singing, writing songs and playing guitar just as well as he used to.

Luckily, John Fogarty won the case. He brought in a guitar, and showed the jury what the differenced in the songs were.

But think what the implications are ... especially since it does possess a certain cold logic. When you sell the rights to art that you made (or have them stolen from you) you basically give away the right to your talent, and if you keep working then you could be accused of copying something you no longer own.

How many great artists are immediately recognized? I'm no art expert but I can tell a painting by Renoir, or Sargent, or Picasso. How difficult would it be for any of us to change the subtle differences that separate us from everyone else and make us unique?

 

[Iconoclast]

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).

Cracked XP eh?

The software industry is more successful than the music industry, but even with heavy piracy it still doesn't sue it's customers.

Um, sure they do, they just haven't got around to you yet. I guess you've not heard of the Business Software Alliance, they regularly nail companies and individuals who steal software. If you go to their News Room page you can see the results of their latest efforts. In Australia, we have the BSAA, and they have a similar role. They maximum penalties for piracy offenses in Australia are staggering:

- Fines up to A$93,500 and /or up to five years imprisonment for individuals;

- Fines up to A$467,500 and/or up to five years imprisonment for companies.

In the USA, for that cracked copy of WinXP that you're so damn proud of, you're liable for a fine of up to US$250,000, or jail for up to five years, or both. Though you're probably thinking there's no way the BSA will find out about you, all it takes is a single p*ssed-off collegue to make an anonymous call to the BSA (and he'll get a $5000 reward from Microsoft for his trouble), and you're screwed.

Downloading a pirated copy of a game could almost be considered a full trial version.

I'd love to be in the court room when you tell that to the judge.

 

[evildave]

Besides, even if music were made 'secure', we would have the same industry pop up as for console games.

Bring in your old game, get money.
Bring in your old music, get money.

Not that it's at all possible to make any media that can be played "copy proof". Once it's out as a signal, it can be turned back into a very, very clean digital one with virtually no loss at all.

The only thing they could do would be to somehow require encrypted digital interfaces throughout consumer electronics, and then people would simply open the devices up and solder in some 'test points' at any stage where the final analog signal was being boosted for output.

At that point, it can be re-digitized, filtered and re-encoded to an 'open' format with virtually no signal degredation, and no further as it's passed around at all.

All RIAA has really accomplished is to make data exchange more secure. That's right, now data software like emule very securely encrypts what you pass around and sends it through randomized ports. Prove it was a 'stolen' song... unless you yourself provided the song and engaged in 'entrapment'.

 

[Jaan]

Iconoclast,

Once again, I wasn't talking about the legalities of it all ... which can be argued endlessly and will be I'm sure. I was discussing my opinion of what happens.

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear but I was talking about individuals not companies. Companies would be stupid to have pirated software on their computers. Home users are a different story though ... and indeed there are software companies out there which allow free personal use of their programs but make companies pay. That strategy seems to work ... people use a program for free at home and recommend it to their boss (whether it's legally done or not).

OKay, before Win XP how many of us installed the Windows 98 disk we got with a computer onto other computers? I guess it was illegal, but Bill Gates still ended up being the richest guy around regardless.

I'm not proud that I've used somewhat questionable software, but I'm not ashamed of it either. I've been in the position many times of recommending software for the places I've worked at and I've based those recommendations on what I've used. Truth be told I don't really do that "stuff" anymore (too old I guess), but when I buy Adobe Photoshop, it's because I got used to it a long time ago when I couldn't afford to buy it ... and the reason I've recommended Adobe Premiere as a video editing system for a high school is partially based on my experience with Adobe products in general over the years.

Getting back to music ... when I was much younger, I used to make a video music show that aired on public access TV. It was just an excuse for me to cut my teeth and to meet bands. I asked for permission from many record companies and video distributors. Not once did I ever get anything in writing to air the videos or to video tape the concerts. However, they kept sending me videos and allowing me to record concerts. Basically what was said to me was that getting legal written permission was a P.I.T.A., but if I sold them more CD's they wouldn't mind one bit. I would even send them all a copy of the show every 6 months or so.

(This was in the days before RIAA though)

Right now the music industry has placed itself under a microscope, and they're being perceived by the general public as low life greedy fat cats. They shot themselves in the foot and alienated a good portion of the people that buy most of their products.

What do I think should be done? The music industry should make lower quality full length MP3's available to people for free so they can check out a band. They should drop the prices on store bought CD's. They should make available rare out of print and international music downloadable for a reasonable fee.

Oh yeah, and Australia should chill out and get rid of mandatory helmet laws for cyclists (c:

 

[anduin]

How is that statistic interesting or even significant. The only thing shown is that the type of person who steals music (i.e. a music buff), is also the type of person who buys music (i.e. a music buff).

It is significant because we are told by the RIAA that music downloads are the direct cause of decrease in sales, while the picture is much more complex. People who download music are still buying music!

BTW, I am sure that you have heard that the term used is infringement. This is not just using a euphemism; the term theft has a very specific legal meaning to refer to the misappropriation of a physical object. The misappropriation of ideas is called infringement, because you are making use of rights that don't belong to you.

These terms are not interchangeable. Imagine if Disney had decided to call their summer blockbuster movie "Infringers of the Caribbean". It doesn't have the same sound, does it?

 

[Iconoclast]

You've made some excellent points Jaan

What do I think should be done? The music industry should make lower quality full length MP3's available to people for free so they can check out a band.

That's not a bad idea, but I don't think the industry would go for it. I'm guessing they'd hate the idea of releasing low quality audio to the public, and so too would the artists and the sound recordists probably. How about this: They chop off the second half of every song on the CD and let the public download these half songs for free. It'd sort of be like a video game demo where you get enough of a taste of it to decide whether or not you like it.

They should make available rare out of print and international music downloadable for a reasonable fee.

Getting no longer available music is a real problem. I can understand the public's frustration in not being able to buy a rare recording while knowing it's sitting on a file server at the record company.

Oh yeah, and Australia should chill out and get rid of mandatory helmet laws for cyclists (c:

But won't somebody please think of the children!!!!!!!

 

[rockoon]

I think something you are all missing is that the RIAA isnt going after people who download music. They are going after people who offer music for download.

It will never be feasable for them to go after people who download music for multiple reasons:

The act of downloading music is not an indication of theft. The downloader may very well have the right to do so and if pressed by a lawsuit can give himself the right to do so by buying the music. How do you fight that in court? You don't..

The RIAA would have to set up Kazaa accounts that offered music for download for them to 'catch' you downloading music. But this screams of entrapment as well as a very solid logical arguement: If they didnt want me to download it, why did they offer it?

A person cannot know the contents of a file they are downloading until the download is completed. They would have to show that you kept the file after you had knowledge that it was illegal to have. If this wasnt the case.. I could email you copyrighted material without your permission and you wouldnt have a defense.

-----

If I ever get sued by the RIAA (which seems unlikely..) my defense arguement would probably amount to something like this:

The RIAA had a right to download the music from me and their doing so did not constitute any theft. They hold the copyright to this material and as such so far they have not shown that a crime has been committed through their act of downloading. I had a right possess the materials in question because I purchased the CD's with this material on it. I therefore ask, since I am not in possession of stolen goods, that this case be dismissed on the grounds that there is no evidence that any crime has been committed.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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

You aren't taking. You are copying.

You are not removing a physical object from their possession. You are infringing a state-granted monopoly by copying without permission.

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

Even if I politely grant your assumptions about my personal morality and the theft-nature of copyright infringement, it would not have the disastrous consequences you forecast. Or at least there's no evidence to lead us to think so, and last time I checked this was a skeptical bboard.

All the available evidence is that "theft of information" causes no provable net loss of sales, and has had no provable impact on the number of bands touring or recording.

This is hard for many people to wrap their heads around. For many people, "common sense" tells them that file sharing should hurt sales, and they refuse to believe evidence to the contrary. But it's simply not the case. The number of sales lost is balanced out by the number of sales gained due to people either buying music they have sampled on the 'net, or just generally becoming more interested in music as a result of listening to more of it.

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'?

That's the point of view of Kant and Jesus, and it's still fairly popular.

The problem is that you are stuck on the assumption that people who download music do not also pay for music. The bottom line is what counts, and the bottom line is that people are buying as many CDs as they ever did, allowing for variables like the number of releases and the general economic climate. Thus the recording industry is making the same kind of money it always did even though far more people are listening to far more music.

I'll put it this way. Suppose you "normally" buy 6 CDs per year. Suppose you get keen on file sharing and download a million billion songs per year, but you still buy 6 CDs per year. Is anybody harmed by this? Note that I did not ask you whether a crime has been committed, or ask you whether an immoral act has been performed. Is anybody harmed by this change in your behaviour?

 

[DavidJames]

Suppose you "normally" buy 6 CDs per year. Suppose you get keen on file sharing and download a million billion songs per year, but you still buy 6 CDs per year. Is anybody harmed by this? Note that I did not ask you whether a crime has been committed, or ask you whether an immoral act has been performed. Is anybody harmed by this change in your behaviour?

Yes, anyone who would have received compensation had "you" purchased those CD's would be harmed. Because "you" refused to pay for listening that resulted from the labor of others, they do not gain the financial rewards. Suppose you were one of the performers, you would not receive a nickel. Suppose you were an engineer during creation of the CD, you would not receive a nickel. All the people who worked to create the music, the artist, songwriter, performers, engineers, producers, manufactures, distributors, wholesalers, retailers all get nothing. But "you" get to listen to the result of their labor, for free.

I don't know about you, but I know a lot of high school aged kids who haven't paid a dime for the songs they enjoy, not a dime. Yet they have hundreds of songs and listen to music all the time. Of course it's not correct to assume that w/o stealing (my word), they would buy all the music. They may not buy any of it (equally not correct, the answer lies somewhere in between).

Getting stuff for nothing is great. As long as "you" are the one getting the free stuff and not the one getting screwed out of part of a paycheck. Knock yourself out, blame the RIAA or the greedy corporations or the bad music or whatever excuse allows you to sleep at night knowing that "you" freely benefit from the work of others without "you" need to spend a penny.

All the available evidence is that "theft of information" causes no provable net loss of sales, and has had no provable impact on the number of bands touring or recording.

If you have independent and reputable studies which detail that evidence, please reference them. Industry "evidence" tells (not surprisingly) a different story. I would welcome seeing a neutral study as I think the answer falls somewhere between nothing and everything and it strains credibility to think the millions of downloads have zero affect.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes, anyone who would have received compensation had "you" purchased those CD's would be harmed. Because "you" refused to pay for listening that resulted from the labor of others, they do not gain the financial rewards.

You have skipped over the heart of the question. How is this harm, when they are no worse off due to your change in behaviour? They are worse off than a set of imaginary people in an imaginary world, in which you are a billionaire and bought millions of CDs, but that is not a sane basis for moral comparison. They have not been harmed by your change in behaviour in any meaningful sense.

I don't know about you, but I know a lot of high school aged kids who haven't paid a dime for the songs they enjoy, not a dime. Yet they have hundreds of songs and listen to music all the time. Of course it's not correct to assume that w/o stealing (my word), they would buy all the music. They may not buy any of it (equally not correct, the answer lies somewhere in between).

That's the "common sense" I mentioned earlier biting you on the behind. It seems to just make sense that overall the RIAA member companies should lose money. But they don't.

What I think is likely to be the case is that poor people with access to computers (kids and uni students) are spending less on CDs as a result of file sharing, and that rich people with access to computers (people with jobs) are spending more. Because it's easier for a kid to download a song than to get the money to pay for it, and the opposite is true of people with jobs. But I have no proof that is the mechanism for sustained RIAA member sales. Just proof that sales are steady despite file sharing.

Getting stuff for nothing is great. As long as "you" are the one getting the free stuff and not the one getting screwed out of part of a paycheck. Knock yourself out, blame the RIAA or the greedy corporations or the bad music or whatever excuse allows you to sleep at night knowing that "you" freely benefit from the work of others without "you" need to spend a penny.

That's neither necessarily bad nor necessarily immoral though. Kids, to run with the example you brought up, get all kinds of stuff for nothing. They get schooling, they get subsidised public transport, they get to use roads and pavements and basketball hoops, and by and large they do not pay a cent. This is okay and this works because they grow up to be taxpayers who do pay for all that stuff.

As long as the money lost to kiddy downloaders who spend their money elsewhere is balanced out by older music buffs who spend more on CDs, no one is out of a paycheck when you settle up at the end of the day.

If you have independent and reputable studies which detail that evidence, please reference them. Industry "evidence" tells (not surprisingly) a different story. I would welcome seeing a neutral study as I think the answer falls somewhere between nothing and everything and it strains credibility to think the millions of downloads have zero affect.

Got to http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html and have your credulity strained. It's not an independent and reputable study, by the way. It's an analysis of the RIAA's own, published data. Enjoy. There is much more out there, but I'll let you do the googling.

 

[evildave]

Yes, anyone who would have received compensation had "you" purchased those CD's would be harmed. Because "you" refused to pay for listening that resulted from the labor of others, they do not gain the financial rewards. Suppose you were one of the performers, you would not receive a nickel. Suppose you were an engineer during creation of the CD, you would not receive a nickel. All the people who worked to create the music, the artist, songwriter, performers, engineers, producers, manufactures, distributors, wholesalers, retailers all get nothing. But "you" get to listen to the result of their labor, for free.

So, buying used CDs would be "stealing", in your opinion?

After all, the artist, record companies, distribution channels, retailer, etc. don't get a cut of that deal when you buy it second-hand.

 

[Earthborn]

Yes, anyone who would have received compensation had "you" purchased those CD's would be harmed.

I think there is a difference between a loss and less gain. I this case people gain less because of file copying.

It also makes no fundamental difference what causes this loss of gain. Whether people lose profits because of file sharing, because the competition makes better music, or whether people start to listen less music, the effect is exactly the same. If people are not listening to music any more, we don't think they are stealing from the record company. When they buy different records from someone else, we don't think they are stealing. The same thing happens because of file sharing.

Getting stuff for nothing is great. As long as "you" are the one getting the free stuff and not the one getting screwed out of part of a paycheck.

Yes, getting free stuff is great. And many artists make their work available for free, screwing those artists who are trying to sell their music out of a paycheck. So your argument can just as easily be used to make offering music for free illegal. Is that what you are advocating?

 

[evildave]

I'm sure the folks at the RIAA could get behind legislation that mandated everyone purchase their crap every week.

"If you don't buy this $40 RAP CD, we'll send the cops over to bust a cap in yo' @$$!"

"But I don't like 'rap'!"

"Tough! We are selling it, and that means YOU MUST BUY IT! Otherwise, you're DEPRIVING US OF INCOME! American corporations need all the income we can get! Just think of all those little children in third world countries who'll be out of their dollar-a-week jobs if you don't make stamping all of these CD's full of crap worthwhile!"