In defence of the RIAA
 

I just realised something. All those who are opposed to the RIAA's crackdown on file sharing (in general, not its specific methodology) are working under one very mistaken assumption. So let me clear this up right now.
YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO MUSIC
It's true. If the record companies are charging you too much for a CD, then that's a shame. I'm sorry for you. But they own the rights to the music, and may charge you what they like for it. If they choose not to sell the music at all, that also is their perogative. You have two options: pony up your $20 and buy the CD, or make do with listening to the music on the radio. If you can't afford $20 for a CD, that does not give you the right to illegally copy someone else's.

Perhaps there's something fundamental I'm missing here, but I can't see where anyone has a leg to stand on against the RIAA. The thing is, like this article said, sharing copyrighted files is not legal. Jaywalking is illegal, and you can get fined for it. I have. It sucked, but I couldn't complain, because I was knowingly breaking the law and I got caught.
Artists hold a copyright on the music they produce. When they sign a record contract, they hand those rights over to the record company, who may do with them what they wish. If the artist gets screwed in the deal, that's their problem; they should've read the contract better.
Now the record labels hold the rights to that music. Like it or not, when you copy music that you have no legal right to, you are violating the rights of the company, and that is illegal. If you get caught, I have no sympathy for you. If you are a 12 year old girl, or a retiree, you are still subject to the law. If a 12 year old girl ran up and stabbed you, would you say 'ah, I'd have to be a prick to sue her for that'? I doubt it. If the 12 year old girl didn't understand that she was breaking the law, her mother should have explained that to her. Likewise, if it was the retiree's kids or grandkids who downloaded the music, he should have been keeping a closer eye on what they were doing with his internet account.
The only ground you have is that the RIAA's tactics may be unconstitutional. Go after them on that line, and you have my full support.
I say this, knowing that not many will agree with me, because I am soon to enter the workplace in computer science. If I write a nice piece of code, I expect to hold the rights to it. Even if it is open source, I still have some rights; for example, to have my name forever associated with that bit of code. If I sell that code to a corporate giant for a pittance, I expect to recieve my pittance, and I do not wish for you to use my code without in some way paying me for it. If it's only 0.1 cents a copy, it still adds up when a few hundred thousand of you are using it. IP laws, including copyrights, patents and open source licences are what make it worthwhile (financially) to do anything creative (including inventing stuff, writing code, making movies and recording music) in a capitalist society, and if we don't punish those who break the laws, it's going to become real, real hard to make any money at all in a thinking profession.

In the eyes of the law, all that you have said is correct. Now to reality; most people do not want to "pony up" the $20 for a piece of digital crap, i.e. a CD with 4 good songs on it. This has been going on forever, way back to the 80's. How many one hit wonders did the 80's turn out? Don't ppl who bought T'Pau's album deserve a refund for the 8 songs that never made it on the radio because they sucked? Ppl are getting sick of the music industry selling them an inferior product, meaning a CD with 2 hit-worthy songs and just filler crap in the rest. 2-4 songs are NOT worth 19.98 or even 12.98 to me. I won't buy anything anymore without hearing the entire album and liking at least 80% of the album, and then unless it's at most 14.98 USD.


And why can't we download things that we've already paid for but no longer have the physical media due to destruction or oh the irony- theft? I've bought every Metallica album all the way up to Reload...I will NOT but them again if my tape got mangled or stolen. They got my money once, I paid for the right to hear those songs. I never signed any licence agreement, I never saw on any of those discs, " You must keep this media if you wish to transfer it's contents to another". I say it's all crooked crap and millions of others agree. When they can make something as complete as Kazaa or Soulseek at 50 cents a song then come talk to me about buy before try.


Let's also remember human nature to be defiant, such as yourself jaywalking in the first place. You knew as well it was illegal but you wanted to do it anyway.. ;)


edit: spelling crap

I agree TIO, I dont have a leg to stand on. I am breaking the law.

If the RIAA is going to file lawsuits to suspected internet file sharers, then they need to be more consistent: they also need to go back to everyone who ever bought a cassette recorder and tapes to record a borrowed album from the library. Why are they not doing that? Because the Internet is a bigger news story. No, I have no right to keep downloaded music, but if a friend loans me a CD for an evening, or even a public library, does this also mean that I cannot listen to it in my own home?

The RIAA has lobbied for new laws to protect only themselves. The public does not have this kind of power, so we lose. US law affords those with too much money the chance to do whatever the hell they want. Don't believe me? Just review the OJ Simpson trials for a brief reminder. The RIAA is nothing but an association of starched shirts and big money. They have no real interest in artists or turning out good products. Its all about the money. If they are so interested in keeping the copyrights to their crappy products, maybe they should invest more in technologies like SACD which only allows analog output from a player. But what if I record that analog stream to another CD, is that okay? No? Hmmm....this goes back to vinyl records and cassette tapes again........ What if I record a stream of audio off the radio...who gets sued then, the radio station for supplying the stream or me for recording it?

A quote for your linked article (which was interesting!)
"...Is file-swapping depriving large numbers of artists of their livelihood? That's not clear. Some artists have openly embraced it, just as they embraced cassettes and the radio. What is clear is that file-sharing is eating into the record companies' bottom line. It's also clear that it is a sign -- a flashing neon sign -- that music fans are unhappy with the state of the industry, and that it is no longer serving their music needs..."

I really hate the RIAA. They can't scare me back into the store. They are turning out lousy products, and now the time has come for them to pay the piper.

Well said, TIO.

I am a musician, and at one point supported myself as one. Now I am just a hobbyist. I don't agree with file-sharing, it *is* wrong and the RIAA and it's members are right in trying to stem the traders.

However, we can not allow the industry to run over our rights like they are right now. DMCA subpoenas and lawuits go against the grain of everything logical and sensible. Before the DMCA, copyright holders would actually have to work to *PROVE* their case. Now, they send in a subpoena against an IP address and sue the person that used that IP address without actually investigating whether or not it was the person they are suing that was violating copyright. What if the person had a (mistakenly or otherwise) open WiFi network that people were using without permission? What if it is a 12 year old that may or may not be old enough to understand copyright law? Afterall, a person at 12 years old isn't held to the same standards as an adult in legal cases so why should they be held to the same standards as an adult in a civil matter?

You are very right. Copying music you don't own is illegal. Yes, people do not have a right to music. However, they do have rights when it comes to the music they have purchased. They have the right to make a copy for themselves, either to the same medium or to a different medium. This was given to us in 1984 with the Sony VCR case, the right of fair use and time / space shifting. The RIAA is taking this away by introducing copy-protected CDs. They are breaking the law and they too should be held accountable.

You hit the nail on the head, Holo: the recording houses are selling an inferior product. People are buying it. To those people, the one song is worth $20.
If you don't want to buy a CD without knowing that you'll like almost all of it, go into a record store and have a listen. They all have listening posts where you can listen to the entire CD, usually for as long as you want, for free. If you're not satisfied that the CD is worth the price, hand it back to the attendant and politely inform them that you don't want it.
That is how the music is presented to you: as a complete album. If you only want one track, buy the single. But you have no right to determine how music is sold to you; if the price for a CD is more than you believe it to be worth, don't buy it.
Think of the most expensive restaurant in town. Do you think the prices there are justified? Would you pay to eat there tonight? No! It's overpriced! But do you think that gives you the right to walk in to the kitchen and take the food anyway?

As for your damaged CD, go ahead and download another copy. It probably comes under fair use, particularly if you retain some proof of purchase for the recording, or a copy of the police report you filed about the theft of your CD. Better yet, if you feel that your recording may be damaged or stolen, copy it first and leave the original in a safe place. As for replacing a broken cassette tape with an MP3, that may be something more of a legal minefield. You probably would have paid less for the tape than for a CD, and you are paying less because the quality is lower. I'm not sure if replacing a cassette tape with a near-CD quality MP3 falls under fair use.
On second thought, I'm not sure replacing any damaged recording medium with downloaded material is legal. If I drop my stereo and it breaks, that's my bad luck; I don't expect the company to provide me with a new one for free. If it's stolen, it's covered by my insurance, and I expect your Metallica CD is as well. If you don't have insurance, then I'm afraid that's your problem.

And I am not defiant of legal authority. I did not jaywalk out of defiance for the law. The police have a legal right to prevent me from jaywalking, and the laws against jaywalking are written in the better interests of society. I jaywalked because I was hungry and I wanted to get to lunch, and I didn't feel like waiting for the lights to change.

It may surprise you to learn that the artists probably have no more right to share their music than you or I. They sold their rights to that music, and now they must use it under the terms of the label.

So what if the RIAA is picking its battles? So what if it is motivated by the dollar? They are businessmen, and yeah, file sharing is probably cutting into their bottom line. They have a right to defend that bottom line, just like Microsoft has the right to sue someone stealing their code or McDonalds has the right to charge someone pilfering money from the cash register.

Tinfoil, unless I'm mistaken, the cases have not been heard yet. The RIAA has attempted to sue people, but it's not like you have to cough up as soon as the RIAA points its big sharp stick at you. They still have to prove that you did not have the right to own the music you had, and that you did not have the right to share it. Indeed, they need to prove that you, individually, were sharing that music. As for your WiFi, it's another interesting legal issue; you shouldn't be sued for sharing the files yourself, but you may be liable for not taking adequate precautions against illegal activity on your network.

Like I have mentioned before, with changing techologies comes changing ways of doing things. I think if the RIAA came up with a solution to the filesharing, by adding a little payment/per share, they would keep themselves happy as well as the consumer. I think they are spending too much time fighting the people who share the music and not spending enough time finding ways they can keep the sharing consistent and monetarily beneficial.

Sure, water_boy, they should be changing. I'd love to see affordable, legal music downloads. But the lack thereof still doesn't justify illegal activity.

I'm not going to buy it for 2 songs out of 12 anyways. So they aren't loosing money if I download it or just don't buy it.

Thats all I have to say.

I think of downloading as a way to protest the high cost of musice these days. Even though I take this stance I have ended up probably buying more CD's because I find one song I like then I want the whole album wich is problomatic to completely download.

You must be an amateur ;)

Re: In defence of the RIAA
 

Yes, there really is. The assumption that the law is right in the first place, sure we don't a right to music, but why do they have a right to an almost complete monopoly of the music industry? Your agument is that sure, it sucks but "Thats the law!!!!!1" just becuase it's a damn law doesn't mean its right, why is it that anarchy seems to solve most of the problems posted about on this board? when we people get? Bah I give up it makes me so so mad when suckers like yourself end believe their drivel untill you think that you paying a huge amount of money for a CD thats mostly crap is a Great thing!
Anyway, have fun with paying for your music, I'll get mine for free untill the RIAA gets the drift and shuts the hell up and be content with the large large large amount of money there are already making.
P.S. Mabye I'm the only on who does this, but I'll download music, if I like it, buy it. Recently I download a bunch of Jack Johnson, I had never heard him before and would never have bought the CD without knowing most of his music. So I downloaded some, fell in love, and went out and bought the album. I mean, thats what everyone says they do but I really do it, that way I can find whats the best album to get, with the least amount of crap, and buy it.

I think that you are correct, but only to a point TIO. The companies have every right to do whatever it takes within the law to protect their business. My problem with what they are doing is that they want the ability to do things to consumers that even law enforcement isn't allowed to do. That's frightening to me. Does it justify piracy? No. But I do think that the RIAA is continually hurting themselves by treating everyone as an enemy. I only download what I want to demo before buying. If I like it, I buy the CD. If I don't, I delete it. According to the RIAA, I'm an enemy. They don't really give any way for someone like me to demo the music other than listening to the radio or watching MTV. Sorry, but I'm not doing either. I don't want to sit through an hour of crappy music for a chance at hearing one song that I might like. I agree with the people that have said that they need to change their business to enbrace the internet. The biggest problem for them, though, is they see the internet as another enemy when it isn't being used as ad space for them. :rolleyes:

sure, some cds are worth $20 or whatever, the REALLY good ones. i myself only buy cds with labels that aren't under the riaa's nazi rule and download the rest. plus, the cds that i do buy, i only buy because i've downloaded at least half the songs off them and i like it enough to spend money on it. however, is a single song worth <b>$150,000</b>? these lawsuits are as ridiculous as the royalties that internet radio stations have to pay. the one thing the riaa hasn't figured out is, you do <b>not</b> sue your own customers. david bowie said something to this extent, but i can't find the exact quote.. heard it on screensavers the other day.

I download music because i'm damn poor. Despite the fact that i'm poor, i'll still shell out money for an album if: the artist is even remotely independent, or i respect their work.
So much of music today is throwaway bullshit anyway. A good single can move hundreds of thousands of albums worth of crap. Why should i be expected to subsidize an industry of inflated economics, and disgusting levels of synergistic promotion by paying twenty dollars for an hour of sound. How much does a producer make per album sold compared to the artist? How much does an executive make compared to a producer? Remeber when the dotcom bubble burst? I think it is about time the record industry bubble burst.
Another advantage to a hard drive full of CD's? I used to have a huge CD collection, but it all got stolen. When i called the cops, they did everything except actually say "what the fuck did you expect to accomplish by calling us?" I realized that i had a couple thousand dollars worth of plastic just taking up space in my life. If i had all that music in my computer and just burned a mix when i wanted to i would never have been in a position to have that much shit stolen from me.
I'll pay for downloads when there are artists i enjoy selling their wares at a reasonable price per download, with an infinite # of downloads for whatever i choose to download.

No, this doesn't surprise me, and I am familiar with recording contracts. What is wrong about it is that the RIAA has created new laws to protect only themselves. They don't even care to protect the artists. How come in a democratic society we cannot vote on something like this which affects us? I suppose with this kind of thinking, that if I had a few million to throw around, I could create my own law that allowed me to jaywalk and download music in my own city limits...because I simply paid off the correct politico. This is classic political corruption. If they can create unfair laws, then users should beat them at their own game and share files.

You know what is also illegal??

PRICE FIXING....but that doesn't stop them from keeping the price of CD's high.

When new technology comes out, it's expensive. But after time, the price comes down. On video cards, on TV's, and yes, on CD PLAYERS...CD's are the ONLY technology where popularity and time has NOT brought the price down.

So technically, they have stolen from my pocket. Took money for a bad product (CD with 2-3 good songs out of 10) and overpriced me for a good product as well.

We do not have a right to the music.

And the RIAA does not have the right to be a monopoly.

www.cdbaby.com

I certainly agree. Especially in the case of cassette tapes. I have replaced a lot of my cassettes with CD's and spent hundreds replacing them. When I paid for the music the first time (Whether it is CDs, Cassettes, or even LPs) I paid for the right to own that music in any format available to me. And in some cases, paid for those songs 2 times (sometimes 3 because of stolen CDs)

AGREED, the record companies own the music under US copyright law. They could charge $100 a Cd and it would still be ok, because it's THIERs. Just like a used car salesman doesn't have to sell you that car for a fair value, he can sell it for whatever he wants, it's the consumer's job to make sure that they only pay what the value is. If you were to grab the keys for a test drive and take off with the said car without asking the salesman you would be stealing, just as downloading music without permission is stealing. For some reason though, it is thought to be ok for people to do this... Trust me, I DL music too, but I simply deleted Kazaa when this whole thing came out and will lay low for a while until some new and improved method for DLing music or obtaining music comes along. Either way, you can't really complain and you can only hope that the whole thing will blow over, and remember... there is no way in hell that people are going to just take it and start eating $15 a CD for new music, no way in hell.

Personally I think the real reason the sales are down 30% is because of USED records and CD sales.

My friends family owns a couple of used record stores and their business has tripled in the past couple of years....Hmmmmm...I wonder if the RIAA has looked into this as their loss of revenue.

Now, heres the problem I have.

I buy a CD and after recording it and playing it a few times I then go and sell it to a used record store. Buy a couple of different cd's and do the same thing. Now the RIAA does not see one dime of this money and they don't complain or pitch a bitch.

I buy the same cd and put it on my PC and offer it up for free for those who wish to have a certain song, now remember this is MY CD that I purchased USED and no money was given to the RIAA from the used record store or to their artists.

Whe I purchase music it means that I have PURCHASED THE RIGHTS to that individual CD or ALBUM, what I choose to do with it is of my own FREE WILL.

If I put the songs on MY HARDDRIVE and offer it up for the use of others it is my right because that particular CD is MINE.....not the songs....not the artist.........that CD.

The used record stores are basically doing the same thing I am doing but they CHARGE for EXCHANGING music because thats all it really is anyway, just another form of exchanging music.

Maybe we should sue the RIAA for infringing on our rights as consumers and trying to dictate what we do with the product we buy. If I have a receipt for 100 cd's and I share those.........IT'S MY FUCKING BUSINESS wether I wipe my ass with them or make copies and give them to all my friends.

When they start tring to dicatate what I do in the privacy of my home and on my PC something is really wrong with our judicial system when they allow this to happen.

And for any of you that are going to say the artists are being hurt...........DON'T give me any of that BS because the artists are the last ones on the food chain in that industry that sees only the crumbs the record industry makes.

At least someone here thinks with something other than his/her desires.

I think that is the exact same argument that child porn perverts make. The pictures are already out there, it won't hurt the children anymore if you download the pictures of their rape and get your jack on.

Good company you keep. :thumbsup:

I disagree with the comment that "we don't have a right to music"

It is a proven fact that every culture has what western culture would classify as music, even if they do not consider it to be music. There is even research that suggests that animals create music, as well. So how can a company consider themselves able to control something that is such an integral part of not only humankind, but living creatures?

Another thing the RIAA doesn't seem to be paying any attention to is real music piracy. There is a huge industry selling pirated cds. I'm not talking about some kid downloading songs, then burning copies and selling them. I'm talking about large groups that mass-produces copies of cds, throws in copies of the cover art, then sells them for around $5. So let me get this straight... instead of combating the real music piracy that in truth costs the RIAA millions, they instead go for individuals. Am I the only one that sees something wrong with this?

IMHO, the music industry just sucks these days. There's only a couple good artists that have enough good songs on a CD to make it worth the money. And in my opinion, these bands are Evanescene, Tool, A Perfect Circle, and They Might be Giants. When I buy a CD, I dont pay $17 for a single song I wanted. I buy a CD that I KNOW I'd like the other songs on. But, unfortunatly.... because of that, I havnt bought a CD since march because of that.


And as far as I know, I believed it was only illegal if you SHARE downloaded music.... not that its illegal to download it, just illegal to share it with everyone else. Thats why i've disabled all sharing...

TIO, thank you. you are 100% right.

You've said a mouthful right there.

It is illegal to download (posses) it as well. It's just far easier to bust people for sharing it because there is no easy (or legal) way to show that somebody is in possesion of it without proof and a subpoena.

personaly, as a college student with minimal finances, i cant afford to buy music. most (if not all) of the bands i listen to are independent and have not sold the rights to their songs to major label devils. when the band comes to my town i am the first one in line to see their show and will either buy their cd or a shirt or something to make sure they get all of the profit. plus, at these shows the cd's are usually 8-10 bucks so i can swing that. these artists also look at music as an art form and dont create it for money, they do it because they love it and profits are secondary. these are the bands i listen to and support. bands like metallica who have made millions and millions and rally against the kids trying to experience their music should be shot. screw em.

TIO, I agree with you completely, but I want to attempt to clarify one of your points:

As was mentioned earlier, music isn't limited to a few cultures but rather is something common to all of mankind. We are musical creatures. This is going to be a horrible over-generalization and logical fallacy, but I think music may be the one universially appreciated art form. I know many people who have no love for art or theater or literature. However, I can't think of a single person who doens't like some form of music. I have plenty of friends whose taste I would question, but will grudgingly admit that what they listen to is some form of music. This being said, since music is a part of us, I would offer that we do have a right to music.

I would add, though, that we do not have a right to all music which is what I belive you meant. Whether we like it or not, a good deal of the popular music is owned by large corporations. We cannot decide to steal from them just because we don't like the price they have set on their commodity. I agree that it is unreasonably high. But they own it, and if they have what I want, I have to pay their price to get it. I have no right to set my own price on what someone else owns. You can't come to me and say, "Hey, I like your car. Here's $100. Now it's my car." We can't confuse the nature of tangible and intellectual property here. I recognize that the idea of IP is a little abstract for a good deal of the populace, especailly younger ones (like the 12 year-old girl) who haven't developed abstract reasoning skills yet. Property is still property whether tangible or not. If I were to plagarize someone't work, I would be guilty of theft even though they still have the original copy.

I don't have an easy solution to all of this. Universal's price cuts and Apple's iTunes store are a good start, and both have come sooner that I had expected to change. Corporate America resists change like this. They had a model that worker for most of the history of their industry, and they don't want to change it. It will come though. Until it does, however, look elsewhere for music. If you don't want to pay for major-label artists, then don't. There is plenty of good music made by local artists that you can hear and buy CD's from at local venues/coffee houses, etc. If music is really important to you, learn to play an instrument and make your own. If will give you a far greater understanding and apprecation for others' music at the same time.


/steps off soapbox

I'M WITH YA BUDDY! I think this is because they have no idea how to get to these people...and I think its funny.

Thanks for bringing that up!

Further proof that the music industry is a Dinosaur that needs to evolve or die:
A CD with 45 minutes of music - $20

A DVD with a two hour movie, special deleted scenes, audio commentary, alternative languages, theatrical trailers, videos of soundrack selections etc. etc.... - $15

Anyone else see something wrong with this?

The RIAA is just a bunch of greedy bastards who want to line their own pockets with money, at the expense of the people, of course. They need to realize that they will never stop the downloading of music, unless they stopped the programs people use to do it. The RIAA just wants money and nothing more. If they really cared about piracy issues the would put an end to the programs used to download, not go after the people who do it.

And how do you propose they go about this? If it were simple, it would have been done long ago. If it were even possible, we would hear about it being attempted. The only means they have to fight the software is legal action. You might recall that the court decided that despite the overwhelming evidence pointing out that Napster, Shaman, etc. are guilty of both contributory and vicarious infringemnet, the software people could not be held liable for the infringing actions of their users.

Everyone has the right to music.
The rich are too rich. 95% of the world is poorer than the poorest man in America.
No progress is being made towards everyone being able to be happy, just exploitation.

That's just it digby, it isn't possible. The RIAA will never stop the downloading of music, therefore it's useless to sue people for it. That's what brings me to the conclusion that all they want is money. They could care less about the rights of the musicians or whatever. It's all about the money, just as is about everything else in America. I mean dosen't anyone else find it the least bit idiotic that the RIAA sued a 12 year old girl?

Tio, your absolute right when you say that the record companies own the rights to the music. My question is how did they obtain those rights? How many artist have been screwed out of all but a few pennies of profit by these same companies that are now crying because they are being ripped off. Forgive me but the only people I feel sorry for are the people writing and creating the music, they are the only ones getting ripped off. Not the big music companies that do little or nothing to deserve the profits they are claiming they are loosing.