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.

Riaa are no charmers, but anyone who tries to defend theft sounds like an infiantile hypocrit to me. It is quite simple. If you illegally download music you are a thief. Don't try to justify it. If you get sued you probably deserve it. "yes" it is all about the money - so what? what isn't? Do you go to work everyday and expect to get paid? YES! How is owning rights to music any different? You don't have to like Riaa, I don't - but they are within their rights and it will probably work. The "regular" world of internet is about 2 - 3 years behind the porn side. The organizations that police copyright violations of porno pics cracked down on sites and people a while back. No different thatn riaa today. They won't get everyone, but they will do what they have to to try to protect their livelyhood.

None of this would have happened if....

Thousands and Thousands of people would have been able to pay a fair price for the Music That They Love.

So jbrooks554, it sounds like what you're saying is it's ok for the RIAA to target 12 year old girls who probably have no idea what the hell is so illegal about downloading music. Are you telling me you condone them sueing a 12 year old because she had music? Let me ask you, do you have any downloaded music on your computer? Or what if you were in the 12 year olds shoes and you were sued by the RIAA for something you probably didn't know was wrong, hmm? I'm looking forward to seeing your response now, enlighten me.

It's a sad fucking day when the stupid RIAA sues a 12 year old girl for downloading music, IMO. I will say that i think it's funny, but in a sad, sad, way.

I shudder to think of the logical extension of this argument.

Of course it's about the money. What else would it be about? No one is arguing that the RIAA has taken the role of the moral police to teach us that stealing is bad. They are protecting their business intrests the same as any other company. They are just getting a bad rap because they're easy to pick on and this is a very widespread fight. Are they wrong in their methadology? Yes and no. Yes, because they are alienating the very customers the want to purchase their music. No, because they have no other (legal) recourse of action.

Is it wrong to sue a 12 year old? This question is irrelavant. The RIAA is suing her parents. This is just a straw man designed to win a weak argument using distractionary tactics to pull at our emotions. The ISP was the parents name. No one is suing children for downloading music. They are suing the parents responsible for the actions of their children.

I truly wish there is a better way, but I can't find it. I've been in discussions for 4 years now about how this would all come to a head, and here we have it. This beast is of our own creation. We are reaping what we have sown.

The United States of America is a country which was born out of the idea that unjust and unfair laws should be challanged by the people of the land. If the avenues of the legal system protect unfair and unjust laws, the citizens have the right to pool their resources to have these laws overturned in manners outside of the courtroom. But this is a two-edged sword, because it also gives those who back unfair and unjust laws the same right to defend these laws, and as long as these laws are on the books, the courts will back them.
The methods for overturning laws start at the ballot-box, but also include using ones power of speech, free assembly, and of course civil disobeitience(sp?). I veiw the sharing of downloads a an act of CDO.

For me, the issue isn't about whether or not we have a right to share this music - but I'd have to agree with you, we don't really. That doesn't affect me, I don't listen to any of the RIAA's pap anyway so I couldn't care if the files are available to me or not. What I DO care about however is the well-being of the music industry, and let's face it - the RIAA are fuckers who milk people for all their worth, chew them up, spit them out and blow the earnings on hookers and imported cars. The RIAA don't actually have any use at all, most of their artists are filth - manufactured pop, and those who aren't would be far better off without them if they'd just open their eyes. Filesharing is a way to bring down these criminals, and it's working good, so keep it up. The way I see it, any artist who sticks with the RIAA is doomed, I couldn't care about them, times are changing.

This is the only argument I've ever heard that I can give any real credence to. In part I argee with you, but I can't justify stealing from artists whose music I enjoy to take potshots at an industry that won't really feel as much as they would a flea bite.

First you would be suprised about how much of what you listen to is in some way touched by the RIAA. Any label with more than two artists and a distribution area larger than their backyard will be registered with the RIAA. When we think of the RIAA we think of the megalabel conglomerates like Sony, Universal, AOLTW, etc. but that's not the only group with a RIAA membership card. Even the small indie labels are registered because that's just the way everyone does things. Every CD you own has an ISRC code implanted in the first two minutes of the cd. Part of this code is to point to the original owner (label) and can only be given by the RIAA. And my final point, artists have nothing to do with the RIAA because they are a trade orginazation of labels, not artists. If an artist wants to make enough money to feed his family, he is going to sign with a big label given the chance because they have the ability to pay more and put his stuff out in a bigger market which leads to more units sold, etc.

DownwardSpiral

You can't sue a 12 year old. The parents will have to answer for it. This 12 year old issue is just silly. You are saying that some laws are ok to break because you are 12? Can you give me a list of laws that your are exempt from just because you are 12? What if she was stealing bubble gum? Is that ok b/c she is 12?
I'm no fan of riaa - I think their strategies are "defensive" and these strategies don't usually succeed in business - I know this. But they are well within their rights and they will have some measure of sucess, much as the pornographers had some success suing copyright violators - I know this as fact.
You need to give me one single reason why it is ok for you, or anyone else to steal other's property - a real reason - not just the lame, infantile gibberish I hear from you and others. Don't say "umm, well, everyone does it so it should be ok and it isn't bad mmkay?". dumb, dumb dumb. dumb bunnies you are!
If you don't like the laws then change them and stop your whining and your illegal behavior.
I hope you publish something someday or sell photos or art, and I hope you have someone illegally use your stuff without permission or paying for it. Then you shouldn't sue them and you should not have any income and then you work for free and your kids go hungry. This is the real world. You can't just choose the laws that you think are good and expect to not pay the consequences for breaking the others.

To be honest, no. The CD is the only medium that music is sold on (save for a few copies on vinyl or tape), but the movie has a run in the cinemas. I'm not sure of the figures, but I'd say that's where the majority of a movie's takings are. The DVD is just scraping up the extra dollars after the cinema run. There aren't a lot of production costs in the DVD; you throw in a few behind-the-scenes and cutting room floor tracks, which already existed anyway, and spend a half-hour writing a few biography tracks on the actors, and then you ship it off. Easy. With the CD, the songs are written, the studio is booked, the mastering is performed exclusively to make the CD.

Like jbrooks said, it's the parents who are getting sued. But either way, are you saying 12-year-olds are above the law? A 12-year-old can shoot someone because they saw it on TV and didn't know it was illegal?
And in this case, the mother needs to take a fair bit of the blame. She obviously knew that her kid was downloading music, and should have known that that is illegal. If it were my kid, I would've sat down and explained to her that what she was doing was illegal, and that she should stop. Just like I would if she were in the habit of stealing bubblegum or throwing rocks at passing cars.

Sorry...I should clarify. We all have a right to music. It would be a tyrranical government which prevented any one of us from performing music. We have the right to make music, and we have the right to listen to music when the artist has given us the right to listen to it.
What we don't have the right to, is ownership of Metallica's latest album, for free. We don't have the right to own specific music. Artists have the right, when they create music, to demand that people pay to hear it, whether that means charging for a CD or charging at the door of a concert. And of they charge too high a price, then let them know they are charging too much by not buying the CD. But you don't have the right to own that track in some form without paying what the artist is asking for it.

If there is a label between you and the artist, or if that label is screwing the artist out of their money, that is between the artist and the label.

Re: Re: In defence of the RIAA
 

Agreed. I got APC's new album and most songs totally rock, it's one CD I will be buying for sure.

there's a certain inevitability to all this.
both sides will continue to pursue their own aims and ends.
technology eventually unleashes every genie in every bottle to roam free and wreak its own mischief for good and for ill...

By your argument, ARTele, it's also inevitable that child pornography will spread across the internet. Should we also not prosecute people who share child pornography?

TIO, I hate to break it to you, but not "all" record stores have listening posts - and even those that do don't always have the CD you want set up in the listening area. Try to get some snot-nosed high school employee to go out of their way to load one up for you sometime....it'll be an education, I'm sure.

As for the inferior product being pushed on the public by the RIAA, I agree with everyone who has stated the obvious: that the record companies could give a rat's-ass about our wants and that the only thing that matters is $$.

I don't know about you, but I find it highly suspect that it took Apple - a company which as far as I know doesn't have a single recording artist under management - to implement a per-song process which actually makes sense. When Napster suggested it, the record industry scoffed and stonewalled. When BMI announced they were planning a per-song downloading program, the industry was even more hesitant to take a stand other than "not gonna' work..."

But when Apple just went ahead and did it...and it worked...now everybody is scrambling to join in.

I don't download. I've never found it necessary as my friends and I - between us - have most of the songs I'm interested in listening to. So if I'm out with my pals, we're assured of a good musical selection just from the tunes we bring along. However, I for one can completely sympathize with some college kid who cannot fork out $20 continuously for the opportunity to get that song or two that they actually like - while having to suffer through the 10 or so songs that they'd rather puncture their eardrums than listen to.

In Wall Street Gordon Gekko said, "Greed is good."

Bullshit.

Apple actually went with what the customer wants. What's so hard about that? Keep in mind that these record companies spend millions annually to test-market, using focus groups and other test beds to gather the public's input on a variety of artists; would it really have been so difficult to use these mechanisms to gather some insight into this matter?

The RIAA has nobody to blame for this mess but themselves. If they had been more interested in maintaining and/or growing their customer base, then Napster, Gnutella, KaZaa and the other file-sharing systems would not have been such a disaster to them. Their stubborn refusal to see the flaws in their marketing process has created a subculture where the RIAA - and the lawmakers who toady to their lobbyists - is now "the enemy".

You doubt that last part? Take for example the case of the 70-something man who is being sued by the RIAA because his 12 year-old granddaughter downloaded music when she came to visit him. I'll grant you that this took place over quite an extended period of time, but still: there is a definite need for some restraint and insight on the part of the RIAA. That said, there is also a need for parents to teach their children right from wrong, and that entails dealing with issues such as this one.

It's a morass of pro's and con's. I for one refuse to wholeheartedly support the RIAA. They have their rights (bought and paid for, I assure you!) and so do those they would persecute - people who either cannot afford to shell out Money for Nothing or people who are tired of the pablum packaged around a decent song or two.

Would it make it any better if people just refused to buy any CDs? Bankruptcy is not an attractive alternative - if any of you RIAA Nazis are reading this......

......Think about it.

First off, the word you're looking for is prosecute. As in, "The people are being prosecuted because they broke the law."

The people who can't afford music do have their rights. But those rights don't include the right to music, any more than someone who cannot afford a ticket to the movies has a right to see Bad Boys 2 or someone who cannot afford a ferrarri has a right to own one of them either.

Yeah, if people voted with their wallets and stopped buying CDs, it would make a difference. Maybe then the RIAA would start up something like iTunes then, and I'd love to see it. But as long as people are illegally sharing music, it seems to me that the RIAA has a pretty secure stream of income through the courts.

And just for the record, I am a college kid who can't afford to fork out $20 for a CD. Even the good ones. So I listen to the radio or listen to the few CDs I do own. Sure, it's not as good as being able to listen to what I want, when I want, but then again, my $100 suit isn't as nice as a $1000 Armani. I have to live with what I can afford.

TIO, I chose the right word....persecute. The RIAA is issuing subpoenas and requiring ISPs to divulge confidential information based upon the supposition that there just might be an infringement. No actual proof is required on the part of the RIAA, and therefore.....

IT IS PERSECUTION

By issuing its subpoenas, the RIAA is able to compile information which it may have no intention of using in criminal proceedings in the present or immediate future. Even the U.S. Government is not legally allowed such latitude! So please tell me how this is not a form of persecution, when your personal information - I dare say even your identity - is given up to a group of individuals who may use it at some undetermined point down the road in a manner which does not have your best interests at heart.

.....Better yet, why don't you write down all the pertinent facts of your life - Name, Date of Birth, Social Security # (if you're in the U.S.), Credit Card number, address, telephone number, etc. - and send it to the RIAA. Give them a hand in their endeavor.

The film industry tried the same strong-arm tactic in the past when it filed a lawsuit against Sony over VHS's ability to allow consumers to duplicate their product, and the courts (wisely) came back on the side of the consumer. I guess with some better lobbying, it wouldn't have turned out that way back then, huh?

What you seem to have overlooked is that I would be perfectly within my rights if I were to buy the CD, make a copy, loan it to a friend (either the original or the copy - it makes no difference) and let them enjoy it. From the standpoint of the law, I've done nothing wrong. From the RIAA's viewpoint, however, I'm about two steps shy of Crimes Against Humanity. After all, I just shared a copyrighted product, and the end-user didn't pay for the creative product he or she is now enjoying.

And just for the record: I'm no longer a college-age kid, and yes - I can afford the CDs. I opt to buy only those works with enough songs I like to justify the cost of the entire CD; I don't download, simply because it's not my style.....and I don't currently own a Mac.....but I won't condemn those who do download.

Especially when the alternative is more of the same garbage we've been spoon-fed for so long.

So go to eBay, buy yourself a Mac, and start downloading through Apple's service. At 99-cents a title, it's a great value (and a hell of a lot cheaper than what the RIAA would demand of you).

[quote]per·se·cuteûr s -ky t )
tr.v. ·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing, per·se·cutes
1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother.

How are these people being oppressed? Harassed? Bothered?

The fact is what the RIAA is doing IS legal. If this girl or someone in here family was downloading and distributing music it was not legal. You do not even address the specific but paint everyone with a broad brush of innocence.
You are saying that the U.S. Government is not able to compile evidence against a person or persons and then decide if there is enough information to prosecute or even if prosecution is warranted? WOW! Their prosecution rate must be 100%!
I dare say (You say it so much I think I'm starting to like it, I dare say! ;) ) the person is not being persecuted just because their personal information is being gathered, especially if they are committing a crime!

As for whether they have the persons best interest at heart I do not read minds, and I assume you do not either, so stop lying.
What? That is idiotic! In the US a party is allowed to gather information to prosecute an alleged crime. The persons Name, date of birth and SSN are public information already anyway.
Blah, blah, blah….
So the RIAA is illegally using the laws to illegally prosecute people. I see…

Yes, Stud. A party is allowed to gather information so long as the intent is there to either prosecute in a criminal action or to bring the matter before a civil court for trial. However, the RIAA has already stated that they will not be litigating in every case.....yet they still gather the data in every case.

I could understand if the RIAA had to gather this information in order to determine the scope of copyright infringement on the part of an individual, but this can be determined by utilizing the user IDs or the ISP's terminal location information. So why would the RIAA need to compile data for people who don't fall into the criteria they've claimed to be using?

You work for those naughty little Nazi bastards, don't you?

And by the way, a SSN is something which is required to be given only to the IRS, to your banking institutions, and to your employer. I don't know where you got the idea that it's public domain, but it's also a Federal Crime for any of those recipients to divulge it without the permission of the SSN-holder. That's why when you apply for a credit card or a checking/savings account, they ask you to sign that little piece of paper which allows your SSN to be shared with credit reporting agencies and other portions of their financial enterprise.

Get a clue, Gomer. What part of "....to annoy persistently; bother." would not be accurately described by finding out from your ISP that you're being listed, researched, and potentially sued? Yes, the RIAA is not breaking the law with their actions....they sure as hell paid enough for that law to be written and enacted in Congress! Two years ago this would not have even been possible, and yes - they would have been breaking the law as it stood back then.

I for one have a hard time accepting that pre-teen children are capable of being fully cognizant of the ramifications their actions have, and as a result prosecuting them for infractions like this is asinine. But please, Stud....tell me how this is a just course of action: how can punishing someone who is not yet mature enough (or with enough life experience) to know the potential risks of their actions be anything other than diligence run amok?

Tell you what: you review your own life and the actions you've taken during it. If you haven't broken a single law (and jaywalking is included), then feel free to stand on your little soapbox and chide those of us who actually go out there and live in the real world. I will welcome your smug rebuttals with open arms and a smile on my face.

However, if you are like the multitudes out there who have broken a law or two, then by all means voice your opinions (I know I sure do, that's for sure!) but remember that scoffing at others is something which you're not really suited for, as you're pretty much in the same boat as everybody else.

The next CNN headline... "The rich get richer, and tools who serve them"

I do think that the RIAA is getting ripped off, but its kinda hard to feel sorry for them beacuse of all the musicians they have been ripping off for so long. Not to mention how they have been ripping off you and me. The music industry is out of control and they need to be stopped. How many small bands have been shut out beacuse they didnt fit into the pop culture that the industry has created? How much good music has been kept off the radio beacuse Britney Spears and The Backstreet Boys have a monopoly on radio time? I have spent a small fortune on CDs and cassetts in the past, pre-Napster, and I have been ripped off for long enough.
The RIAA is a corporate giant and the only way to stop them from pillaging and raping the "little guy" is by sheer numbers. We are 60 million strong and the RIAA knows it. This is why they are resorting to lawsuits against children, the elderly, and students.
The internet is a powerful tool and the 60 million people using it to speak up against unfair monopolies is a beautiful thing. Its not often normal people have a chance to defeat something as powerful as the RIAA.

I would rather donate to help pay for peoples fines for sharing music online than to pay even 50 cents to the RIAA for 100 songs. Its a matter of principle.

The RIAA already pays a lot of people to defend them. They don't need more defense.

How would they know what cases would be worth pursuing if they do not have the information?

Also you conveniently side stepped my other question that is are prosecutors obligated to prosecute EVERY case they gather information on? Why not?
Because they can. If it is illegal then you should complain to the local authorities.
See this is where you lose all credibility. No, I do not. I just do not think it is a good practice to start ripping people off because you:

A. Really want the product so you create some small justification to do so.
B. The person is not likeable. That reminds me of what happened in a little country called Germany around 1938-45. Also in the United States public opinion was used to create laws to steal from those dreaded Japanese Americans, or just "Japs" to racist b@stards like you, and steal property and items from them.
Do you know that the RIAA is seeking SSN numbers from ISP's? Hahaha!
You mean we should never prosecute criminals because it may "...annoy persistently; bother." The poor innocent child molester, rapist, murderer? Great move Einstein!
Intellectual property is a hard thing to understand. But when people's life's work is in the intellectual property realm it can mean their livelihood and the choice between producing music, movies, new medicines, computer programs, books…etc.

Justifying the theft of the intellectual property will be profitable to you in the short term. In the long term it will inhibit development and eventually hurt EVERY ONE.

But selfish people like you do not have to worry about that do they?
Well lucky for us they did not develop a time machine and go go back two years to do this!
Again, the girl will not be prosecuted. The parents will be. Do you even know if the girl was the one downloading the music or if the adults are making her a stooge?

I think you think this justifies your theft, so you WANT to believe it, but you do not know all of the facts.
Well if that was not happening I MAY agree with you.

But we do not know if it was the 11 year old girl, we do not know that she did not know what she was doing was wrong, we do not know why she, while living on the taxpayers dime, was not being supervised by her parents IF she was the actual one doing it.
I live in the real world. I may speed every once in a while but I DO NOT STEAL. And if I get caught speeding I don’t cry "But I'm only 22 years old!!" Stupidity at its best…
No, that is not true at all. In your immature mind you have just rationalized, murder, rape, torture, child molesting and a whole host of other crimes. If I get caught for speeding I pay for it, as this girls parents should pay for their crime.

I hear your words and see your pretty little face standing next to an oven as to huge German guards shove "one of those rich jews" (You know all jews were rich in Germany because they were ripping off good Geramans :rolleyes: ) who happens to be a woman, and happens to pregnant, down on the ground so the dog you are holding can eat out the fetus. :thumbsup:

She deserves it you know! :crazy:

Well, again, my last post summed it up quite nicely. I won't be buying the cd anyways, so they don't LOOSE money because of me downloading it.

Plain and simple. Stealing or not, oh well, but they aren't going to loose a meal over me downloading it.

All excellent points on both sides. I enjoy reading it all :thumbsup:

This thread should be renamed 'RIAA supporters unite!' because that's all most of you are doing, is supporting and defending a company of already rich bastards who are pissed because we are ripping off of them what they probably ripped off the actual artists in the first place. If they wanted us to stop downloading that badly, they would be doing anything they could to make the people happy to buy their music. They think that overpricing music is ok because they thought we had no other option but to buy from them, thus they get richer and we get ripped off. So finally some people get annoyed and create programs to download and share music. My question to you all that compare the RIAA issues to things like child porn, rape, 12 year olds shootnig people and the such is how the hell can you compare compyright infringement to murder, rape, molestation and everything else? These crimes are a lot worse than a damn copyright law. The RIAA issues don't even compare to murder and things, so don't compare this to those crimes.