Members Agreed Posted January 1, 2008 Members Share Posted January 1, 2008 It seems the RIAA is trying to go the direction of software. You don't own the product, you are licensed to use it. There's a tradition of that which goes back to ~1900, look at some of the stamps on very old music media. Same kind of restrictiveness they've lost in the courts over the past fifty years, trying to come back and grab it. This is not a comment specifically on this bogus story but on their tactics in general. Technically, it seems, they want your license to be restricted to private use. So I wonder if it is technically legal according to their crazy draconian lawyers to listen to music with a friend? Movies are licensed for various purposes - home viewing, public viewing, rental, etc., so it makes business sense to grab that power for music. Or at least it would if the RIAA wasn't a monolith on its last legs. Having lost relevance, now is a bad time to try to consolidate more control and power. They stand only to lose by fighting progress and consumer desires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 As Craig pointed out above, it turns out that the guy was sharing his collection. So it's just another of those stories about the evil RIAA that fly around the net and get quoted and requoted, but in reality it was nothing of the sort. There's some question there Dean. On one hand, the point could be made that what made the copies "unauthorized" in the RIAA's view was the action of putting them into a P2P "shared" folder. However, if you read all the articles, and the comments made by attornies representing the RIAA, it seems fairly clear that they consider the actual act of "ripping" from a CD you purchased, and putting that file on to a computer, iPod or other device for personal use is a "nice way of saying stealing one copy". From the Wired article, linked to above: ***** "The RIAA's website clarifies what it means when it says unauthorized copies. If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author MikeRivers Posted January 1, 2008 CMS Author Share Posted January 1, 2008 That will have no chance in court whatsoever, as precedence still counts for a lot. The ability of consumers to make copies of what they own for private, noncommercial use is well-established. So...if I copy a song to my computer, I'm "stealing"? What am I stealing? Do the record companies offer a service for putting music on a hard drive that I can buy instead of a CD? The Post didn't report the whole case. This wasn't about copying files to a computer, it was about music distributed over a file sharing network. This is a quote from a brief filed in the case: As demonstrated above and in Plaintiffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Corona Posted January 1, 2008 Members Share Posted January 1, 2008 Well, first point is mp3's are not really free. Most will agree many costs are involved from the musician working his or he fingers to the bone (blisters on your fingers anyone?) to the studio time to the instruments to the software to the hardware and so on. Now if some one is filing suit then it would only be fair to make sure that the someone passes on the settlement money to the interests involved ie: primarily the artists themselves. Now wouldn't it be news to see checks issued to the artists following the resolution of filesharing cases. I feel certain the most of the music shared was recorded before the mp3 format was common place. So I find it very doubtful that fair compensation is taking place. ITunes and AmazonMP3 both indicate people are willing to pay for ala cart download and album download. Therefore, "honor system" with payments direct to artists would certainly work. And I am also certain we need a new system of distribution by artists direct to downloadable format, bypassing the recording giants. Perhaps someone should create a new kind (addressing digital content) of trade group allowing musicians the opportunity to negotiate better arrangements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted January 1, 2008 Members Share Posted January 1, 2008 No matter how various lawsuits play out in court, they're alienating their customers and look like horses hindquarters in the process. They NEED to find new business models that WORK, and that compensate their clients (record companies and artists / writers) while giving consumers the products and features they want, with clear and fair (to ALL parties) rules. No they aren't. Their customers are pre-alienated because they all have developed a mythology that soothes their guilt for stealing on a massive scale. They have to think that the music industry is evil because then it's ok to steal from them. People who share your product on a p2p system or download those shared files are not your customers. They are stealing from you. No industry in the world would define peopel who steal from you as customers, even if they did actually buy something at some point. Watch the various threads that start up because of this case, and you'll see it at work. No one will even bother to figure out that this guy was breaking the law. They'll just go off on their usual anti studio rants and have yet another rationalization for stealing some more music tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted January 1, 2008 Members Share Posted January 1, 2008 Now if some one is filing suit then it would only be fair to make sure that the someone passes on the settlement money to the interests involved ie: primarily the artists themselves. Now wouldn't it be news to see checks issued to the artists following the resolution of filesharing cases. I feel certain the most of the music shared was recorded before the mp3 format was common place. So I find it very doubtful that fair compensation is taking place. I'd be willing to bet that they lose money on these suits. They aren't doing it to get reimubursed for the losses, which they never can do really. They are doing it to help people realize that they do stand a chance of getting caught and to reduce the likelihood of people doing it. Unless they get tens of millions of dollars out of some guy like this, which they won't since he wouldn't have it, they could hardly even break even for the costs of investigations, lawyers, and associated costs of the legal proceedings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted January 2, 2008 Members Share Posted January 2, 2008 I think the RIAA is pretty crazy for making those allegations. I rip some of my cds onto my hard drive, but all of those cds were purchased in record and retail stores. How the RIAA thinks they can overlook those purchases and say the music was stolen is kind of absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 No they aren't. Their customers are pre-alienated because they all have developed a mythology that soothes their guilt for stealing on a massive scale. I respectfully disagree. The people who DO buy music (those are the people I was referring to when I said "they're alienating their customers") see these heavy-handed statements that indicate the RIAA feels that ripping a purchased CD to a secondary device for personal use (their own computer, iPod, etc.) is technically illegal, but "we probably won't sue you over it", and may well decide they're better off avoiding the issue all together by looking elsewhere for places to spend their entertainment dollars. And there ARE other options (games, movies, indie artists / labels, free online streaming such as Pandora, etc. etc) available... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members scud133 Posted January 2, 2008 Members Share Posted January 2, 2008 i don't like companies that automatically assume i'm a criminal. last movie i went to, i had to check in my cell phone at the front and go through a metal detector to make sure i didn't have anything to record the movie with ....as if anyone would want to watch a movie divided into :30 sec cell phone clips anyway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members alphajerk Posted January 2, 2008 Members Share Posted January 2, 2008 i would demand a refund if i couldnt take in my cell phone... i dont leave the ringer on, but it is on vibrate because i do have children that might require an emergency exit [though hopefully that wont ever happen] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted January 2, 2008 Members Share Posted January 2, 2008 i don't like companies that automatically assume i'm a criminal. Basically this is the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted January 2, 2008 Members Share Posted January 2, 2008 No one assumes you are criminal, any more than having cameras in department stores assume you personally are a criminal. They are there before there are criminals. In the case of the music industry, unlike probably any other industry in modern times, there are more criminals than customers. So obviously they are very paranoid, as you would be as well if your industry was being threatened with destruction because it was being ripped off on a world wide scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cry Logic Posted January 2, 2008 Members Share Posted January 2, 2008 = = Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philbo Posted January 2, 2008 Members Share Posted January 2, 2008 A counselor I was seeing years ago used to say "If you keep on doing what you've always done, you'll keep on getting what you've always got". That's not always true... but continuing with actions that are obviously NOT working, and expecting the outcome to suddenly change, is a nearly classic example of insanity... Yep... When the boat is sinking, the first thing to do is stop rowing. They just don't seem to get it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fetishfrog Posted January 3, 2008 Members Share Posted January 3, 2008 No they aren't. Their customers are pre-alienated because they all have developed a mythology that soothes their guilt for stealing on a massive scale. They have to think that the music industry is evil because then it's ok to steal from them. People who share your product on a p2p system or download those shared files are not your customers. They are stealing from you. No industry in the world would define peopel who steal from you as customers, even if they did actually buy something at some point. Watch the various threads that start up because of this case, and you'll see it at work. No one will even bother to figure out that this guy was breaking the law. They'll just go off on their usual anti studio rants and have yet another rationalization for stealing some more music tonight. Bingo! The practice has become so commonplace that people don't even realize it's wrong to use p2p and steal. Now we have torrents and other methods and somehow they are right too. My biggest problem with the RIAA was summarized by Gene Simmons oh so well. For those who don't know his view, he basically said the RIAA sat on their butts in the early days when they should have been crucifying every digital thief they could get their hands on, and I agree. Imagine how commonplace downloading music for free from p2p sites would be if the first ten people who did it were just getting out of Levanworth today. My guess is, less common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted January 3, 2008 Members Share Posted January 3, 2008 The RIAA cannot do anything by itself. They can only sue people. To sue people, you have to catch them. p2p systems are designed to help people remain anonymous, so really only the most technically unsophisticated people probably ever get caught. And, even if they'd caught them, about the worst that would have happened is that they've been fined. And, back then, before this issue was known to be so serious, they probably wouldn't have gotten that big a fine either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted January 3, 2008 Members Share Posted January 3, 2008 No they aren't. Their customers are pre-alienated because they all have developed a mythology that soothes their guilt for stealing on a massive scale. They have to think that the music industry is evil because then it's ok to steal from them. People who share your product on a p2p system or download those shared files are not your customers. They are stealing from you. No industry in the world would define peopel who steal from you as customers, even if they did actually buy something at some point. Watch the various threads that start up because of this case, and you'll see it at work. No one will even bother to figure out that this guy was breaking the law. They'll just go off on their usual anti studio rants and have yet another rationalization for stealing some more music tonight. No... I'd say they are alienating customers. Why do I say that? Well... it's anecodal. But pretty close to home: I used to be super hardcore against piracy and stick up for the labels and even the RIAA. That is over. I've come to think that they are idiots who are so desperate to hang on to their hegemonic grip on music entertainment that they are screwing the entire music industry -- and musicians along with it -- into the ground. Just look at how quickly people were prepared to believe this rather distorted story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fetishfrog Posted January 3, 2008 Members Share Posted January 3, 2008 The RIAA cannot do anything by itself. They can only sue people. To sue people, you have to catch them. p2p systems are designed to help people remain anonymous, so really only the most technically unsophisticated people probably ever get caught. And, even if they'd caught them, about the worst that would have happened is that they've been fined. And, back then, before this issue was known to be so serious, they probably wouldn't have gotten that big a fine either. Perhaps, but they could have put the fear of god in them, could have made a difference, certainly better than doing nothing at all. instead, they waited. by the time they mustered the nut to go after napster, there were 30 sites out there, all doing it, some doing it better. Now the RIAA is viewed as an almost criminal organization from the consumer's point of view. i believe this is largely due to the fact that people just got used to getting everything for free for so long, they can't imagine it being any other way. it's human nature, and change comes at a price, especially when that price is paying for something you're used to getting for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LiveMusic Posted January 4, 2008 Members Share Posted January 4, 2008 Okay, I did some more digging and apparently, he's being sued for having copies in a shared folder for Kazaa. There's more info at http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=2851 .That makes more sense than suing someone because they put songs on their computers. That was my first thought upon reading the initial post. They were doing their lawyer thing but it was all about file-sharing... that was my thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted January 4, 2008 Members Share Posted January 4, 2008 Now the RIAA is viewed as an almost criminal organization from the consumer's point of view. i believe this is largely due to the fact that people just got used to getting everything for free for so long, they can't imagine it being any other way. it's human nature, and change comes at a price, especially when that price is paying for something you're used to getting for nothing. People paid for recorded music for like, what, 70 years, 60 years, something like that. But, within a couple years of the arrival of a means to steal it, they started stealing it. So why is it that the 'getting used to something' thing only works in one direction and in that direction a couple of years works more powerfully than 60 in the other? I'd imagine it's because they steal becasue they can, and in order to feel better about it they have to create a mythology of the evil music studios who eat human babies for breakfast. Then they are really stealing from the evil empire, not from the very artists whose music they are stealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted January 4, 2008 Members Share Posted January 4, 2008 I'm with Phil on this one. The RIAA doesn't care about artists or even music really. They care about "the Industry", and the existing industry model of making money from music is failing. Maybe music isn't about shipping boxes of plastic around the planet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted January 4, 2008 Members Share Posted January 4, 2008 How do you think that the industry pays its artists? It doesn't pay them with a fatted calf or something like that. It pays them royalties from the music that they sell. Since the studio and the artists they sign work for the same company, then a studio that is fighting against the theft of the music put out by that studio is obviously also benefiting the artists whose music is not being sold when it's being stolen. They obviously also have their own profits in mind, which they are REQUIRED to do as publically held companies. If I have some of my 401K invested in one of their companies, they are required to work to maximize their profit on my behalf. And fighting against the theft of the product they product is a fundamental part of that. And many people WANT a piece of plastic, I do. But for those who don't, that argument has long since ceased to be valid. They are providing their content online and have for some time now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted January 4, 2008 Members Share Posted January 4, 2008 But for those who don't, that argument has long since ceased to be valid. They are providing their content online and have for some time now. Exactly. And the RIAA should figure out how to add those people to their business model. If they took the money they spend on lawyers and advertising for preserving the past, I'm sure they could come up with something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted January 4, 2008 Members Share Posted January 4, 2008 If it was simple they'd have already done it. But it's not. And people just keep saying that they trying to preserve the past or stuck in a business model of the past. This drives me batty. They are all providing their content online now. They allow people to copy their content to their hard drives and players and don't try to stop them from doing that as long as they aren't sharing it. So how are they stuck in the past? They are suing people are sharing their content on the web. How is that stuck in the past? Is now old fashioned to try to stop people from stealing from you or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HKSblade1 Posted January 4, 2008 Members Share Posted January 4, 2008 I go with G Simmons take too. had they enforced this BS years ago, maybe something would have changed. A little too late perhaps?? I don't think so. Go after as many as possible and put and end to sites that offer those things. maybe not $200,000 fines, but $10g's and some jail time might be adequate. What do many not get here??? Sensationalize and mis-representation of the RIAA stance against piracy. plain and simple, some don't like that because to them it should be free. That devalues the artist. Plain and simple. But I also know "free" has devalued artists and their works. From software, to recording rights and ownership. What the RIAA has in agreement with artists is their own doing. If artists were taken advantage of they had bad lawyers or misguidance of what is required of THEM. So many worry about the poor artist getting screwed by the RIAA and they themselves have screwed the artist in their illegal activity. It was not enough the Industry battled and compromised with Napster and created means for cheap quality downloads now was it??? Free is free and anyone who thinks the artist reaps benefits from free anything??? well All I can say is the majority are NOT buying a cd from that artist after a listen. That's BS on their part. Fact is less than 20% of free transfers EVER buy the artists works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.