quote:A shy Manhattan schoolgirl who gets a kick out of nursery songs and TV themes was among 261 people sued yesterday for downloading music from the Internet.
Brianna LaHara, a curly-haired 12-year-old honor student who started seventh grade yesterday at St. Gregory the Great Catholic school on W. 90th St., couldn't believe she's one of the "major offenders" the music moguls are after.
The RIAA sure does know how to make themselves look bad. But, then again, it's all perfectly legal, unless of course we decide to change the law.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
When was the last time a company sued its target market and survived?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I'd love to see the big record companies destroy themselves over this. The technology is available for artists to market themselves directly on the internet. It would be great if things took that direction.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:The mother said she signed up for KaZaA, paying a $29.95 fee. "If you're paying for it, you're not stealing it, so what is this all about?" she asked.
Hmmmm.... I didn't knkow KaZaA charged $29.95. Wasn't that way when I was in college. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Seems like they would at least want to know WHAT the people were downloading before they sued them. It's not like people are actively trying to make money off of nursery songs and TV themes, are they?
Hmm... Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
Yes, the people that compose and perform them do it for FREE ...
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
Beren, it's a new program that they just started recently. I'm not sure what the benefits are, as I got tired of the viruses and slow downloads.
Before that, I used to use Kazaalite (which I can't get to from home anymore)
Posted by seriousfun (Member # 4732) on :
This is a really complex issue, but I can tell you a few facts (I earn my living from the music and movie industries, and I am a BMI affiliated songwriter).
Sharing a file on the internet is not theft (theft is loss of use).
Sharing a file on the internet is not piracy (piracy is theft for profit).
Piracy and bootlegging are a significant problem, yet the music and movie industries spend a fraction on enforcing these violations than they have begun to on suing file traders.
Yes, people do buy things they can get for free (air, water, light, and bibles are some of those). We have grown over the last century to believe that, for example, music is free, since we hear it for free on the radio (paying for it through higher consumer products costs), and I don't believe there is any value in changing that belief system.
The DMCA is a very, very bad law, and will inhibit creativity for generations to come even if it would be repealed today.
Copyright law was put into the constitution to encourage creativity and invention, and to prohibit government-imposed monopolies.
Copyright law was originally implemented with a limited time for the creator to profit exclusively from his or her creation (Thomas Jefferson wanted 14 years, he settled for 19).
Copyright exclusivity has been extended by congress to the present state where Walt Disney's grandchildren, and executives he never met, can profit exclusively from Walt's creations. This is just plain un-constitutional IMO and it can be argued that Walt was only re-packaging public domain stories anyway.
Thomas Jefferson said on this subject: "he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." Share the art, kiddies, and more art will be made.
The music industry, and to lesser extent the movie industry (movie studios have many more revenue streams back to them - live exhibitions in movie theaters, re-release on DVD, etc.) are failing business models, based on blockbusters and streaming as much revenue as possible to the bean counters and away from the artist.
There are three or four different plans that could stream enough revenue to the artist to make up for any real or imagined sales lost due to file trading. For example, the ISP (like AOL) is analogous to the radio station of yesteryear, and should pay a blanket licensing fee to existing Performance Rights Societies (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.) for redistribution to the artist, end of story; a blanket fee imposed by congress has already been proposed. If as little as 5% of people trading files on Kazzaa, etc. would send a voluntary $20 each, there would be more revenue than has been claimed to be lost by the music and movie industries.
Did you know that we already pay a fee for this purpose? Every blank CD labeled "Music" has 10 cents tacked on at wholesale just for this, and guess what: not a dime of this has ever been redistributed to the artist. The RIAA continues to steal egrigiously from the artist. This should, of course, not motivate anyone to steal a truck full of Madonna CDs on its way to Target and sell them, but the RIAA and MPA do not represent consumers or artists in any viable way, and have no authority to use our money (we pay for this in the form of higher prices for entertainment) to sue kids in their desperate ploy to retain the power and profit in this struggle.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
quote:When was the last time a company sued its target market and survived?
This is one company that I'd like to see take a dive and never come back.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
They will. I give it a decade, tops. This was a desperation move and I predict that it will only speed their already impending destruction.
Major label acts that would have been playing stadiums had they hit their stride 10 years ago are playing medium-sized clubs. The market is drying up. This suit is only going to dry it up more. Hopefully this means people will start turning to local independant musicians to get their fill, but then again, maybe not.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Regardless of what I think of file sharing, I really dislike the RIAA. Really dislike them. A lot.
Hobbes Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
There are a number of people complaining that artists will stop producing because they won't be getting paid.
Well, let them.
That's right, let them. My perspective is that the market is glutted with artists, many of whom have no real talent. The hype surrounding the major players, especially in music, jacks up art prices until almost anyone can get a small number of people to pay for their work and it will be enough to keep them going.
I believe we would really be better off with fewer artists--the most talented ones, who would make smaller but still quite rich profits.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Seriousfun, I'm using your arguements when I get sued.
Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
Same here, Synesthesia.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Lemme preface this. I don't download music for free from the internet. I never have. I don't want to. I don't look favorably upon the practice.
Now to some specifics:
quote:When was the last time a company sued its target market and survived?
So, people who have decided *not* to buy a product are included in your target market? I never really considered shoplifters as consumers before. It's an interesting concept. And it doesn't matter if you buy $6000 worth of clothes - if you then snitch another $100, it's still shoplifting.
quote:Sharing a file on the internet is not theft (theft is loss of use).
Funny, my definition of theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you. (My mind slips back to St. Columba and the Battle of the Book in Ireland on the slopes of Benbulbin.) Is identity theft loss of use? No, it's just someone else using what isn't theirs. If you want the music, or book, or game... pay for it.
quote:Sharing a file on the internet is not piracy (piracy is theft for profit).
Okay. I'm on board with this. Provided that you don't burn CD's for your friends and sell them. Or provided that you don't use your downloaded music in your job as a DJ, or somesuch.
quote:Piracy and bootlegging are a significant problem, yet the music and movie industries spend a fraction on enforcing these violations than they have begun to on suing file traders.
Which makes perfect sense. How many cassettes can a person copy from a live performance in an afternoon? Now, if they digitally recorded the bootleg, how many copies can be shared in the same period? What do I want to target - a thousand copies of my property sold on a streetcorner, or a couple million given away for free?
quote:Yes, people do buy things they can get for free (air, water, light, and bibles are some of those). We have grown over the last century to believe that, for example, music is free, since we hear it for free on the radio (paying for it through higher consumer products costs), and I don't believe there is any value in changing that belief system.
This is a specious argument. Just because someone is willing to pay for air, doesn't mean music should be free. I also challenge the idea that music has become "free" over the last century, just as I'd challenge that novels have, or artwork has, or movies have.
quote:The DMCA is a very, very bad law, and will inhibit creativity for generations to come even if it would be repealed today.
[sarcasm]I see how the restriction of free music traded wantonly over the internet has inhibited the creativity of countless past generations who did not have access to the technology.[/sarcasm]
quote:Copyright law was put into the constitution to encourage creativity and invention, and to prohibit government-imposed monopolies.
Yes, encourage creativity by protecting the creation. Artists could feel confident that their work would not be stolen or copied and distributed for free, so they could then feel safe creating work as a livelihood. I never knew, however, that copyright laws were passed as riders on anti-trust legislation. That's news to me. [/snarky comment]
quote:Copyright law was originally implemented with a limited time for the creator to profit exclusively from his or her creation (Thomas Jefferson wanted 14 years, he settled for 19).
Copyright exclusivity has been extended by congress to the present state where Walt Disney's grandchildren, and executives he never met, can profit exclusively from Walt's creations. This is just plain un-constitutional IMO and it can be argued that Walt was only re-packaging public domain stories anyway.
Preach on, brother. There should definitely be a time limit on protection. I don't think Shakespeare's relatives should still be making money off of Hamlet, in any universe.
quote:Thomas Jefferson said on this subject: "he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." Share the art, kiddies, and more art will be made.
I beg to differ. Taking a step away from music, ebooks are the next step for file swapping. There's little enough revenue in writing as it is - I'm not exactly keen on the idea that a novel I write can be distributed ad infinitum with nothing coming back to me. While this might not hurt JK Rowling now, had Sorceror's Stone been given away for free, she wouldn't have had the financial freedom to continue. She'd still be on welfare.
quote:There are three or four different plans that could stream enough revenue to the artist to make up for any real or imagined sales lost due to file trading. For example, the ISP (like AOL) is analogous to the radio station of yesteryear, and should pay a blanket licensing fee to existing Performance Rights Societies (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc.) for redistribution to the artist, end of story; a blanket fee imposed by congress has already been proposed.
Rock on. The problem is, ISPs are different than radio on many levels... and you don't need them to swap music. (and I got a good laugh from your reference to radio stations being "yesteryear")
quote:If as little as 5% of people trading files on Kazzaa, etc. would send a voluntary $20 each, there would be more revenue than has been claimed to be lost by the music and movie industries.
How altruistic. So, these people who have chosen *not* to spend money will now voluntarily pay after the fact? I'm afraid I'm a disutopian, then. Or a cynic. Likely both.
quote:Did you know that we already pay a fee for this purpose? Every blank CD labeled "Music" has 10 cents tacked on at wholesale just for this, and guess what: not a dime of this has ever been redistributed to the artist.
You've lost me here.
quote:The RIAA continues to steal egrigiously from the artist. This should, of course, not motivate anyone to steal a truck full of Madonna CDs on its way to Target and sell them, but the RIAA and MPA do not represent consumers or artists in any viable way, and have no authority to use our money (we pay for this in the form of higher prices for entertainment) to sue kids in their desperate ploy to retain the power and profit in this struggle.
So, taking a bunch of music that isn't yours and was originally intended to be sold for profit is bad, then? Or only because there's plastic involved? Is it wrong to steal plastic, but not what's recorded on it?
Here's an idea. Maybe the kids shouldn't have been downloading the music for free in the first place. Would the same tears be shed if the girl paid admission to toy museum and then walked off with a whole mess of the display figurines?
[/rant]
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
FC, the girl didn't think she was downloading them for free (she did say that they had paid for access through Kazaa and had assumed that it was covered under that rate). Granted, just because she didn't know the law doesn't mean that she's innocent (or however you feel about it).
Here's an interesting update: the RIAA has decided to let her off the hook in exchange for $2,000 in fines. Linky
I don't know how to feel about it. I think that the RIAA could possibly have gone overboard (but they've *never* done that before!). I'm glad that they're finally taking a PR beating for the heavyhanded tactics that they've been getting away with.
Best quote on the topic: "Are you headed to junior high schools to round up the usual suspects?" - Sen. Dick Durbin
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
The mother can sell the rights to her daughter's story to a movie studio. Then we can in turn download that movie from Kazaa when it gets made. Then the mother can sue US for violating her intellectual property rights. Oh, I love this country.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Flying Cow,
My point was that the people who download music files are the people that the RIAA wants to pay for stuff... suing them is not going to make them more kindly disposed. nor is it going to convince any of those other people that this is anything other than all-out war.
I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of internet file sharing... just saying that the RIAA's move is NOT going to solve their problem and is only going to speed their demise.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
I would think that if they really cared about their revenues, they'd try to work with some of the governments overseas where the CD's are reproduced illegaly (which is, in fact, actual piracy).
I read somewhere over the weekend that some countries have a piracy rate that's estimated to be about 40%.
Suddenly, Brianna doesn't seem as dangerous anymore...
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Actually, seriousfun's message is true for other fields as well. Similar things are being said about software design, especially since all software is, on a practical level, just a series of mathmatical operations and cannot be copywritten.
EDIT: Just so you know I'm not on crack or anything, there's an Open Source guru of some sort named Richard Stallman coming to my school soon and will probably be talking about copyright issues and how they relate to computer programs. Here's the message I got:
quote: Copyright developed in the age of the printing press, and was designed to fit with the system of centralized copying imposed by the printing press. But the copyright system does not fit well with computer networks, and only draconian punishments can enforce it.
The global corporations that profit from copyright are lobbying for draconian punishments, and to increase their copyright powers, while suppressing public access to technology. But if we seriously hope to serve the only legitimate purpose of copyright--to promote progress, for the benefit of the public--then we must make changes in the other direction.
Richard Stallman will explain how software patents obstruct software development. Software patents are patents that cover software ideas. They restrict the development of software, so that every design decision brings a risk of getting sued. Patents in other fields restrict factories, but software patents restrict every computer user. Economic research shows that they even retard progress.
EDIT-EDIT: Just because I am the ass that I am, I didn't recognize Richard Stallman as the creator of the Free Software Foundation (fsf.org). Well he is. Now I don't feel so stupid.
[ September 09, 2003, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by Livious (Member # 2326) on :
Nice post FC.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Yes, FC, good post. Well thought out. I disagree very strongly with it, but it was a good one. Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Didn't this one band in the eighties encourage bootleg copies of their songs on cassette?
And didn't Napster, when it looked like the Supreme Court was going to shut them down, issued a "buy-cott" of all the artists/bands that supported them?
How many CD-burners have been sold to the general public since their invention? What percentage are used primarily for music files, as opposed to non-music files?
Is a compromise impossible? What about a small tax on blank cds and cd burners?
When you pay $12-20 for a just-released music cd, how many songs do you actually enjoy listening to?
How big are the cds that record labels release? How many songs can they hold? How many do they typically have?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Warning: Stallman is a bit . . . dogmatic. Don't expect fair and balanced opinions from him.
He is, however, a well educated dogmatist, and one who doesn't lie. If he says something is currently true legally, it likely is. However, it can often be hard to pick out such statements among his views on what is true morally.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:When was the last time a company sued its target market and survived?
quote:I'd love to see the big record companies destroy themselves over this.
quote:This is one company that I'd like to see take a dive and never come back.
quote:They will. I give it a decade, tops. This was a desperation move and I predict that it will only speed their already impending destruction.
quote:I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of internet file sharing... just saying that the RIAA's move is NOT going to solve their problem and is only going to speed their demise.
Contrary to the opinions expressed above, I believe RIAA's tactic is actually going to work. If they continue to go after a significant proportions of the file sharers and if it leads to a lot of stories in the press about how Joe now owes thousands of dollars in damages and has to quit college and take a job as a dish washer, yes, I think that a majority of the file sharers will conclude it is not worth the risk. I know I probably would, and I am interested in hearing if you and your friends have reacted to RIAA's move by being more cautious in your downloading/file sharing.
Whether my predicted decrease in file sharing would lead to an increase in legitimately bought material, that is anyone's guess. I don't buy many CD's or DVD's. I do however use the internet to download and follow several TV-series to which I don't have access any other way. Due to out-dated Swedish copyright legislation, this is actually legal in Sweden, but that is expected to change at the end of this year. Would I wait and buy those TV-series when the DVD's are released? It is unlikely, at least if I did not get a chance to get addicted to them in the first place and taken into account my current economic situation.
So, in conclusion, I believe that when/if the copyright legislation begins to be enforced more stringently it may lead to a neglible increase in sales and a major loss in free entertainment. I am miffed.
[ September 10, 2003, 04:47 AM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Geoff...
My point wasn't that the composers of TV themes do them for FREE. The point is that you don't often see recordings of those themes for sale anywhere. Thus, they aren't ACTIVELY trying to make more money off of them.
Same with nursery rhymes, seems to me. But maybe I'm just not aware of the market out there for those songs.
I'm totally against these download services and downloading music for free. I also think this kid's mother just doesn't understand. I bet she means her $29.95 a month she pays for Internet access.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:FC, the girl didn't think she was downloading them for free (she did say that they had paid for access through Kazaa and had assumed that it was covered under that rate). Granted, just because she didn't know the law doesn't mean that she's innocent (or however you feel about it).
That's why parents exist. "No dear, just because we paid to get into this toy museum, doesn't mean you can take these toys home... or that you can smash them together as though they're yours... you paid to look around and play with them a little bit before leaving."
The girl is caught in the middle, really, because the parent was either a) ignorant, b) foolish, or c) negligent. Really, it's the parent who is on trial here... and the parent who settled for 2 grand. That's the real target, I think. Get the technophobic parents to stop their own kids, to stop paying the bills for Kazaa, and to monitor their kids' use of the internet.
...at least until they get to college, where the majority of illegality likely happens. But that's just like underage drinking. The parents who have prepared their children well don't have problems with their children's behaviors at college. I'd imagine the same would hold true for file swapping.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Seriousfun, might I ask what you do for a living?
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
how long do you think it will take for someone to write a distributed server (similar to opennap) which is secure? the RIAA seems to be suffering from the delusion that they can monitor whats going on indefinately. i agree with some of the poeple above, what the RIAA is doing is going to scare a lot of people, but i seriously doubt they will scare them into stopping their file sharing, i think they'll scare them into making a more anonymous and secure method of sharing files
they're fighting a war they can't win
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
OFF TOPIC:
quote: Warning: Stallman is a bit . . . dogmatic. Don't expect fair and balanced opinions from him.
That reminds me of the suit Fox News tried to file against Al Franken over the title of his book, Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them: A fair and balanced look at the right Funny.
[ September 10, 2003, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Tristan: exactly. The RIAA doesn't seriously think they can recoup losses through fines, they want to scare all the other filesharers from sharing files. The easiest way to avoid being targeted is to keep your publicly shared folder empty, which means less for other filesharers to grab. This move, along with their practice of flooding the hubs with botched or "empty" files of their new songs, is simply a way to make filesharing less convenient.
The $29.95 the kid paid was for the Kazaa Plus version, which has no ads and some extra features. So, basically, she paid for a more efficient muisc-stealing device
[ September 10, 2003, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Sho'nuff (Member # 3214) on :
quote:Brianna LaHara agreed Tuesday to pay $2,000, or about $2 per song she allegedly shared.
"I am sorry for what I have done," LaHara said. "I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."
Wow, this is so sad. Way to go RIAA, you really got her! Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
Actually, FC, Brianna herself was named in the suit - not her mom.
quote:It was unclear how Brianna's name - rather than her mother's - came to be listed as a defendant in this case.
I think this is just one of the reasons that the RIAA should step back and take a look at what they're doing.
Earlier this year, they were sending out form letters to colleges and businesses over mp3's that they found. Unfortunately, some were blatantly NOT RIAA protected files (as in speeches, songs that they own the rights to, etc.)
Then there's this, and the only response that the RIAA was able to give to the Senate about it was this: "Yes, there are going to be some kids caught in this, but you'd be surprised at how many adults are engaged in this activity," - Cary Sherman
Gotta love the way that they look at the problem right in the face there.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Anyone interested in some of the history and complexities of copyright should take a look at Copyright's Highway, by Paul Goldstein.
Posted by seriousfun (Member # 4732) on :
quote: Seriousfun, I'm using your arguements when I get sued.
I am not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV!
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
quote:Anyone interested in some of the history and complexities of copyright should take a look at Copyright's Highway, by Paul Goldstein.
Know where I can download that, saxon?
Posted by seriousfun (Member # 4732) on :
quote: Seriousfun, might I ask what you do for a living?
My company manufactures and sells high-end recording products, we own a recording studio, and I am a BMI afiliated composer. My living, including my yearly $1.56 from BMI , depends on the music and movie industries.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
Sush. The storm troopers will come after you for wanting to download something!
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
[ September 10, 2003, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by seriousfun (Member # 4732) on :
Thanks, SC, for the reasoned rant.
quote: So, people who have decided *not* to buy a product are included in your target market?
Actually, the people who buy the most blank media and download the most are the same people who buy the most pre-recorded music. From the 1981 WEA study to the 2003 Jupiter Media study, statistics on this are clear and conclusive. The downloaders are indeed the target market.
quote: Is identity theft loss of use?
The question is, semantically, is it "theft". Identity-borowers have twice pirated my identity and profited from it by obtaining credit fraudulently. The defrauded party is not really me (as long as this act does not prevent me from getting credit in my own name), but the creditor.
quote: What do I want to target - a thousand copies of my property sold on a streetcorner, or a couple million given away for free?
Actually, conservative worldwide figures put piracy (not downloading) at about $10 Billion, or about half of the entire music industry. Any reasonable organization devotes their resources to their biggest problems first.
quote:Just because someone is willing to pay for air, doesn't mean music should be free. I also challenge the idea that music has become "free" over the last century, just as I'd challenge that novels have, or artwork has, or movies have.
Historically, Homer read the Iliad for free and it was passed down the generations, the Troubadours sang their songs for free...sometimes they got paid for the performance, not to license use or transfer ownership of the art. Greek potters got paid to make a pot, not for their artistic statement. In a sense, the artistic component of all of these was not material, and was free.
Modern copyright got its start with the printing press, and typically the artist got paid once for the work (the reason why Dickens wrote serially for newspapers - to get paid!), and the printer had a monopoly with selling copies of the work. Jefferson wanted a copyright provision in the constitution to prohibit these monopolies, and to provide for a limited time for the artist to profit exclusively from their art.
Mozart had sponsors, but you had to be royalty or wealthy to then hear the music. Bach had sponsors, but you had to attend the right church to hear them.
Music is by its nature "free" as in unfettered. Compensating the artist for its performance or redistribution will remain a moving target as technology and society changes.
quote: we already pay a fee for this purpose? Every blank CD labeled "Music" has 10 cents tacked on at wholesale just for this, and guess what: not a dime of this has ever been redistributed to the artist.
You've lost me here.
The CD Consortium (Sony, Philips, etc.) extracts a fee of about 10 cents for each blank CD-R/W sold with the "Music" designation, by US law. This is distributed to the RIAA, and again, not a dime has made it to any artist. If you see these disks in the store they are no different than any other disks technologically, just more expensive because of this fee.
quote: taking a bunch of music that isn't yours and was originally intended to be sold for profit is bad, then? Or only because there's plastic involved? Is it wrong to steal plastic, but not what's recorded on it?
The record company does not create the music (except in the case of a Work For Hire, which unfortunately does happen - they pay the time for the composer to write the song, and then own it outright). They back the recording financially (less so these days with recording gear getting arguably more affordable), replicate it (duplicating the disk, printing the label, etc.), and market it. This is all paid from the musician's advance, so 92% of musicians do not make a dime from their recording after the advance has been paid back to the record company. The guy at 3M who invented the Post-It may not have been compensated with the patent, but he was paid his salary and did not have to repay 3M for their development, manufacturing, and marketing costs.
I see the RIAA and MPA as having a role in educating the public, but not in enforcing questionable law. It's a tough issue, because most of these copyright issues have not been resolved in any definitive way.
I see general internet users to pay slightly higher access fees to pay for trading of copyrighted materials, unfortunately.
I see people to continue to be people, with their flexible ethics and morality. I see technology moving forward, and any entertainment technology that will claim to be totally secure will soon be cracked.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
That is the difficulty. Any digital media that can be read by a computer can be copied to its hard drive. It's simply a matter of capturing the bit stream and having software to interpret it. Because of the nature of computer networks, I can't imagine an effective way of controlling a filesharing program, especially with open standards like Gnutella.
I agree with what (I think) seriousfun is saying, that we need to change our ideas about copyrights and distribution, rather than using ineffective tactics that will inevitably fail.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I don't think the object is to stop filesharing entirely. A firewall isn't meant to make a system impenetrable... just impenetrable to most. Most being the vast majority who are not extremely tech-savvy.
Right now, anyone can share music. It's easy. It has no penalties, even though you know it is technically illegal. It's like speeding down a highway with 20 foot high barriers on either side, so you know there are no cops sitting there waiting.
Locks are made to keep out the honest. You won't keep out anyone really determined to get in, regardless of what kind of lock you buy. A hardened thief will steal. No bones about it. The trick is getting the casual thieves to reevaluate what they're getting themselves into.
----
As to Homer and the rest. Storytellers throughout history have been rewarded for their service to society. They have been given food, place to rest.. some form of reward that allows them to exist and function as an artist.
To exist and function solely as an artist in this society is damn hard. Saying that artists should give their artwork away freely and without any hope at monetary reward is not going to inspire people to give up their 9-5 to become creators.
Art is never free so long as artists need to eat. Thinking that art will continue and grow if given away wholly for free is foolish. Why not abolish the NEA, force Sam Goody and all other distributors to give the artwork away for free, and encourage people to sneak into small venues and take up space that would normally be given to paying audience members. And let's not forget to leave not so much as a penny for the starving waitress trying to compose music on the side.
---
Are the record companies being unfair to the artists? Sure. Will big business ever be truly fair to the little guy? No. Does that mean we should play twisted Robin Hood and rob from the rich to give to ourselves? No.
Sharing music is not striking a blow for the artist. It's not being noble. It's not supporting art. It's not giving incentive to anyone to create more art. Or to fund the creation of more art. Or to pay for national and international tours.
It's kicking a tank. It's saying "I don't like that company, so I'm gonna steal from them"... which is tantamount to saying "I don't like CVS, so I'm going to steal a candy bar - they charge too much for them, anyway." It's being petty, and akin to anonymously keying someone's car after he cut you off in traffic.
Working to reform the music industry is a good thing. Trying to establish more fair business practices is a good thing. Saying "forget all that" and copying as much music as humanly possible onto your multigigabyte computer and justifuing it by saying "I'm getting back at the RIAA" .. well, that's a little childish, and more than a bit lazy, if you ask me.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
One last thing regarding the little girl. Regardless of whose name was on the legal papers, I can only imagine it was the mother who paid that $2000 dollars. So, she was the one targetted. And the one hit.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Heres a good question, has the RIAA done anything illegal in its methods of finding these people and monitoring their file sharing activity?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Stealing from RIAA just reinforces the idea that their properties have value, and makes them fight harder.
If you really, really want to force them to change their ways - as opposed to just getting free music - go get your music elsewhere. Get it from mp3.com, or buy it direct from the musician (easier and easier these days), or download it through legal venues. Support the people who make art without the dubious assistance of the RIAA.
CD sales were down 54% for the RIAA between June 15 (when the lawsuits were announced) and Aug 3, according to an AP story today. Scaring filesharers isn't bringing their customers back. I say we tell the RIAA to take a leap, we don't even want your stuff for free.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Another big way to hurt RIAA is to buy resold CDs. They don't receive profits from those.
Cheaper than Retail, too.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
quote: Locks are made to keep out the honest. You won't keep out anyone really determined to get in, regardless of what kind of lock you buy. A hardened thief will steal. No bones about it. The trick is getting the casual thieves to reevaluate what they're getting themselves into.
The analogy doesn't fit. To make the analogy work, the few (programmers, or the tech-savvy) would be making universal, open-any-door keys for the masses. Filesharing programs are easy, and have to be easy so many people will use it. A filesharing network isn't particularly useful if there aren't any filesharers. Thus, it is in the programmer's best interest to make a filesharing program easy.
Don't say that eventually security measures will be able to confront a sharing program, and make them hard to use, because I can't imagine that happening without making regular internet traffic impossible.
The internet defys intellectual property ideas all over the place. Intellectual property becomes fuzzy the moment it's exposed to the online medium, since it's freely available, subject to outside linking (as we do, constantly), copying, and, in some situations, alterable (as in the case of a Wiki). I forsee that the IP line will become fuzzier in the future, not clearer.
IP laws don't really fit with the paradigm of the internet, and maybe our government should take a long look at how we protect people's IP in an age of decentralized information sources.
I think that having intellectual property is important, and I'm against filesharing programs for the most part (there are some situations I think that it does more good than harm), so don't attack me personally for wanting to weaken IP rights (past threads I had been, and I was none to happy about it). I think they should be changed, not removed altogether.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Heres a good question, has the RIAA done anything illegal in its methods of finding these people and monitoring their file sharing activity?
Of course not. The Patriot Act took care of that for them. Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
quote: One last thing regarding the little girl. Regardless of whose name was on the legal papers, I can only imagine it was the mother who paid that $2000 dollars. So, she was the one targetted. And the one hit.
I want to know if all the music she had downloaded was the IP of the RIAA and its clients. If not, then the RIAA has no buisiness collecting money from copyright infringement for IP they don't personally control. If this is the case, and I'm really curious if it is, what could be done about it?
I know that I was vaguely threatened with a lawsuit by a daycare claiming "lost income" for an incident that I partially caused, but they themselves didn't lose any income. It was the parents of the children who attended the daycare that accumulated losses. The daycare was under the impression that it could sue me for the losses of someone else, which my lawyer (or rather, my mom's lawyer) said was absolute bollox. They daycare organization is still on my hit list for "people to make miserable when I get the oppertunity to do so without concequences" since they caused serious trauma to the relationship between me and my dad (he still thinks I'm wrong for not giving them money and I suspects he thinks I'm morally bankrupt, which isn't cool at all ).
EDIT: *rimshot* for Kayla
[ September 10, 2003, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by seriousfun (Member # 4732) on :
quote:Heres a good question, has the RIAA done anything illegal in its methods of finding these people and monitoring their file sharing activity?
The actions seem to me to be legal under the DMCA, which is OK to Ashcroft...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
They've done some things which were legally improper, but not illegal, such as filing subpoenas in courts without jurisdiction. They've stopped that in this latest round.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
Wheat, I doubt that the girl's family would have much (if any) recourse in the matter of being charged for IP theft since they can say that they're already being lenient on their family be only charging them $2,000 (you'd think that they would have been willing to work with them more on this).
One thing that I'm wondering about is the amnesty form that the RIAA was offering. From what it seems like, you could receive amnesty from the RIAA, but could potentially be opening yourself up to lawsuits from other groups (ie: MPAA).
Posted by DraKKenN (Member # 5512) on :
It seems I'll see something like that here in my country soon ... I don't know if it's the same in the USA, we have taxes on blank CD's so far...just in case you use it to burn music...wich from their point of view you surely will. I feel like paying a tax on blank paper because I'm going to use it to photocopy or print something...somewhere...someday.
OK, piracy is a bad bad thing to do as a hobby...but I guess privateering is not the answer.
And I still can buy music Cd's, 3 euros when the original Cd costs 30...I guess the guys who burn the 3-euros-Cd aren't worried by a 50 cents tax at all...but I AM.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, signing the amnesty form doesn't even protect you from being sued by the RIAA (that is, it's member companies, the ones that actually own the copyrights).
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
So...I buy a book, I let my friends read it, that's legal.
I buy a lawnmower, I share it with my neighbors, that's legal.
I buy a music CD, I share the music, that's theft.
Huh?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
If you buy a book and lend it to a friend, it's not photocopying infinite copies for them. That's illegal. Rightfully so. And you can't make cheap reproductions of a lawnmower, so that point is pretty moot.
But, you argue that making nigh infinite copies of a music product should be legal? If you lend out a CD, and your friend listens, and then you get it back (or your friend lends it to someone else), that's not a problem. You paid for one copy, and you have one copy. If you burn a copy for a friend, that's technically violating the copyright of the CD (which is printed on the CD jacket, usually). Much like reproducing a novel, or a comic strip, or a piece of artwork (without express written permission, yadda, yadda).
Now, you place that up for file sharing on the internet, and the number of copies is limitless. You are essentially allowing others to photocopy your books... and downloading music is essentially borrowing books from the public library to photocopy them for your own library. Illegal.
As to the lock analogy, I think you mistoook me. The internet makes it really easy to illegally download music. This is roughly parallel to a CD store not locking up at night, not having a night watch, not having any security cameras, and hanging a sign out that says "don't take these".
Vigorously prosecuting offenders creates a deterrent. "Don't take those or you'll get sued". It's a sort of "lock" to put on the store. Only those who have definite knowledge that what they are doing is wrong, and who are accepting the risks, will cut that lock off. Ideally, you'll have locks, magnetic strips, cameras, security guards, etc. Sure, if someone still wants to break in, they can. But it's harder.
I think the legislation is designed to make it harder, or less consequence-free. Five years ago, no one batted an eye at ripping music off the internet. Now? They bat an eye, and do it anyway. Maybe after some more cases like this, a few people will say "Maybe this isn't such a good idea" and finally "this is wrong."
As it is now, it's like that unpatrolled highway I mentioned earlier. Speed as much as you want, change lanes illegally, cut people off, drive with no lights on, unbolt your license plate. Why not? Because there are consequences, that no one thinks about. The highway patrols keep people in line... if just barely.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
So why not just make CD burners and so forth illegal? That'd solve the problem a lot more easily, and there aren't that many other uses for media copiers.
(Edited to indicate sarcasm for fugu's benefit)
[ September 10, 2003, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*presumes Maccabeus is joking*
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
I say downloading music is perfectly fine if youre not selling it to anyone. Of course, I say that as a person whohasnt downloaded a song in at least a year. Not out of respect for the RIAA, simply too damn busy for it. Which also mean I'm too damn busy to give a rat's dusty bum what the Retched Ignorant Assholes of America are shooting themselves int he foot with this week. My word. what the heck am i doing posting here. I should be in bed. I have to wake up and go to work in two and a half hours. gnite all.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Many college students smoke or have smoked marijuana (or however the hell it's spelled), despite fairly serious concequences if they're caught. It doesn't seem to stop them, I'm not sure that the vague threat of a lawsuit will, either.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Especially since you're a heck of a lot more likely to get caught with pot than you are to get sued by the RIAA. People know that there's a chance they'll get killed every time they get in the car, right? But college students still take long road trips, or go out driving just because it's fun...
I really don't see these scare tactics affecting any but the most technophobic, naive parents out there. "Oh, Johnny, you'd better not download music! You'll get thrown in jail!! And wait, the media is also telling me you can't eat butter, because it causes obesity! No, wait, now you can't eat margarine, it'll give you cancer! Back to butter! No, margarine!"
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The thing is, that doesn't make smoking marijuana legal... nor does it make reckless driving any less of a problem. The "everyone else is doing it" defense is weak.
There are quite a few who don't partake of marijuana in college because they either see it as wrong, or their peer group does, or they don't want to risk the consequences (urine tests, anyone?)
And the fear and knowledge that driving is dangerous causes many to drive more safely, obey the posted speed limits and adhere to driving laws.
So, why are you throwing out any laws that have to do with regulation of intellectual property? Just because they're not convenient for you? Granted, laws are only there for those who consent to be governed... but penalties are there for those who don't. If you choose to break the law you know to exist, you can't easily complain about paying the consequences.
If you're against the law, work to change the system. Don't just flagrantly break it without paying it any mind. This country is suffering from a severe lack of ethics... or maybe the world is.
I wonder who started it.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Note that I have not said, "I download music, just to show those RIAA bastards!" I use filesharing programs on a very limited basis, and usually to try out something before I buy it. Regardless of legality, I don't think it's morally questionable to want to know what the rest of a CD sounds like,and not just the singles. Other uses include obscure but non-reserved material such as system files, freeware utilities, source code, language references, and OGL material for D&D.
I have never said we should dissolve IP laws altogether. I'm saying that current laws are fundamentally inadiquate at doing what they were designed to do--make sure artists make money. With the wide availability of free music, regardless of legality, artists make less money. I don't think anyone's going to disagree with me there.
So how do we fix it? Do we allow the RIAA to use quasi-legal tactics, bullying, and scare tactics to frighten the consumer public in line? Or do we take a look at how our IP laws are designed, and reimplement them in a way that reflects the decentralization of music distribution caused by file sharing programs. Artists will be protected and still make money, filesharers will get a transparent fee and an easy way to exchange media.
I used the example of marijuana to show that inflicting penalties on a relative few is not a deterrant, or at least not an effective one. I know that there are those who chose not to use marijuana (myself included), but the fact is that a great many do. There are some who may not use filesharing clients for whatever reason, but despite harsh punishments a great many still use filesharing programs to violate IP.
EDIT: I also don't enjoy being referred to as lacking in morals. Please attack my arguments, and not my character.
[ September 11, 2003, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
To me it's a moral issue, as most everything is. The artists own their work, morally. If I write a poem, it's MINE. I feel that is it. I feel that Radiohead's music belongs to the band, morally. Really, an artist's work is like their child or something. They love it and are protective of it. No other position makes sense. And it's up to the ARTIST to decide what constitutes fair use. Just as I would not say to someone I loved, "I love you therefore I am going to force you to do stuff against your will", I would not acquire the music of an artist I loved in a way they didn't approve of or agree to. To me that's very much like rape, in an odd way. It's just up to the artist. Whatever they say goes.
If I buy a CD then I will keep a copy on my computer too. I'm gray on all the zillions of things I've bought the vinyl records to, because I no longer listen to vinyl records. I've bought several copies on vinyl of Meet the Beatles, for instance, now broken or damaged or stuffed in some chest somewhere and forgotten. Is it okay for me to download those songs now? I haven't but I suppose I might.
The legal issue is not really important to me. The moral issue is. What is the moral issue to you?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, I don't download music, but I have used Kazaa to get copies of all the D&D books -- hate paying $30 each for those things, and if someone is going to go to all the trouble to convert them to electronic, I might as well reward their efforts.......
I think I read yesterday that in the 12-year-old girl case, a local radio DJ there had made a raised the $2000 to reimburse the mom for the settlement they had to reach...
Farmgirl
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
And there we go, copying entire books because someone doesn't want to legally pay for someone else's hard work.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Cry me a river!
Steal and suffer the consequences.
If a green grocer sets their fruit stands on the sidewalk, I guess it makes it okay to take a couple of apples every now and then. I mean, you're just sampling! And it's sooooo unfair to have to pay your hard-earned money to take just a little bit of what has obviously been put there for sweet, little you (TM).
I have absolutely no sympathy. What I want to see, however, is these folks who are now getting popped turn around and sue Kazaa and Napster for getting them into trouble.
[ September 12, 2003, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
quote: Well, I don't download music, but I have used Kazaa to get copies of all the D&D books -- hate paying $30 each for those things, and if someone is going to go to all the trouble to convert them to electronic, I might as well reward their efforts.......
That, IMO, is wrong. Not just in my opinon. No matter how you cut that, it's wrong. I download only the Open Game Liscence material for D&D (which can also be found at www.opengamingfoundation.org and I think also at www.community3e.com). Downloading an entire book that you don't own deprives Wizards of the Coast (and other OGL publishers) of money, money they really need. The RP Gaming community is a woefully bankrupt and many companies release books on shoestring budgets, hoping they'll do well so that they can maybe turn a profit. I don't even have to think very hard to name a handful of RPG companies that have died in the last 5 years, despite having a great product.
quote: If a green grocer sets their fruit stands on the sidewalk, I guess it makes it okay to take a couple of apples every now and then. I mean, you're just sampling! And it's sooooo unfair to have to pay your hard-earned money to take just a little bit of what has obviously been put there for sweet, little you (TM).
So you're saying, as a consumer, I have no right to see what I'm buying before I buy it? Would you buy a car without test driving it? I know I wouldn't. I don't have that kind of freedom with my money (given that I'm a broke unemployed college student with no credit). How is buying a CD any different? If you say I still have that music that I havn't paid for, well, I don't. I delete it if I don't like it (why would I keep it, it's bad music!?).
The Grocer's Stand analogy doesn't really work. I can assume that all pears taste roughly the same, or at least are somewhere on the sliding scale between "bad pear taste/less pear-like" and "good pear taste/the exemplar of pear-like". I can't assume that all CDs that say they are of the same genre taste the same, though. Just because it's got a techno label doesn't mean that it's even on the same plane as the techno CD I bought last week*.
In the simplest terms, if I can't test drive a car I'm not going buy it. Similarly, if I can't test drive a CD, I won't buy it, either. If I'm not buying any CDs, how is the artist making money from me? Which is better in the end? Buying CDs while stepping a little bit into a moral/legal grey area and rewarding artists for the work I approve of, or buying no CDs at all?
Don't get on me by saying, "It's legal to test drive a car." I know that. I'm making the comparison that I want to know what I'm buying before I buy it. If I don't know, I don't buy. And if I did, and I bought CDs I didn't like, I would effectively be rewarding artists I didn't approve of. How does that lead to the growth of the styles I enjoy and the shrinking of styles I don't like?
*I didn't buy a techno CD last week. I don't like techno.
Edited for stupid grammatical errors. And for:
While I think it might be enjoyable to watch Kazaa and Napster get sued, I don't think these people have any case. They broke the law, whether they knew it or not. The program they used had nothing to do with it. There are legal uses for Kazaa (such as downloading OGL material!), they chose to use it toward blatantly illegal means.
[ September 12, 2003, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Idle curiosity, since I don't have an mp3 or a dvd thing that you can burn stuff on, so. . .
Can you copy songs onto your computer from internet radio stations? If so, why not just do that?
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
I've never seen any programs that let you do that. That doesn't mean they don't exist, though. Any bit stream that's being pushed out your speakers can be captured and sent to a file, it's just figuring out how.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
So, all we need to do is create the program and we can make millions! Sweet.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
(( duly chastized ))
Okay, I see your points. And if it makes you feel any better, although we usually originally get the books on Kazaa, many times I have ended up going out and buying them as well, (at a later time) because I don't want to be chained to the computer in order to read them (and it would cost as much in ink/paper to print them out than it would to just BUY the things.
However, the computer copies are great for looking up specific references in more of a hurry....
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
If you're generating characters, there's a Java character generator out there, too. I've forgotten the name, but I'm sure if you google Java and Character Generator you'll find it. You can download book-specific modules to generate charactes, even if you don't have the book. In the program none of the book's text is listed, but there are page numbers to reference it. Often enough you can get by without the book, especially with things like "Improved Fortitude". This does not violate any copyrights because game mechanics cannot be copywritten, only text.
Sorry for foaming a little at the mouth about that, but there are a group of RPG companies that I love to death and that never seem to do very well. I don't know what I'd do if they died off and all that was left was the all-powerful (but not particularly amazing) d20 system.
[ September 12, 2003, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
So Wheat, the songs you like, you delete them to?
Tsk, tsk, tsk... no matter how gray that area looks to you, you're still stealing.
Yes, you may be a broke college student (my heart bleeds not in the least) but what about the broke musicians who are looking to make a living off of their hard work? How about those that are hoping, working and striving to get a recording contract from one of the companies you are blatantly ripping off?
It's not a slippery slope, it's a big old cliff.
Maybe this example will help you see it yourself in your own terms. You bust your butt on a term paper. You've researched your heart out, you've written and re-written, edited and printed it out. You've put your blood, sweat and tears into it. And you pull a solid and well-deserved A.
After you turned it in, though, a grad assistant photocopies it and starts putting it on their website as a perfect term paper for sale. Or maybe they just give it away free and make money off the on-site advertising.
How do those apples fit you? Your work ripped off and given out. And the grad student just smugly smiles and says, "Whatcha gonna do about it, chump?"
And yes, the D and D books really tore into me. I've written for gaming companies and I'll tell you, it pays darned little, but it's all they've got. Maybe you're looking at TSR/Wizards of the Coast and saying, they're the big dogs, they will always be around. Guess what? It's not going to happen.
You see, they were bought by Hasbro, a traditional toys and games manufacturer that looks at a heavy and steady bottom line for all of their products. TSR must be a money-maker or they will be cut. That's why they released version 3.5 of the rules, even though version 4 was scheduled already for next year. Sales started to lag on the core books and something had to be done to meet the revenue requirements.
TSR, great company in its day, has been bought by Wizards and then by Hasbro. Unlike some other gaming companies, if it starts to go South on them, it will not be spun off and returned to the gaming world at large. It will just be quietly packed away, along with the d20 system, and it will disappear. You wouldn't believe how close that already is to reality.
But hey, download those books for free. Kill off the golden geese.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Most of the d20 gaming system is open source, so to speak. Freely copyable. Many of the rules are available online, with open licenses to copy. Many of the gaming materials for D&D and other games are published under this license, and are also freely copyable (and even modifiable). What is and isn't is clearly marked.
And it is not stealing in any legal or moral sense of the word. It is civil copyright infringement (it's not even a criminal act, like all stealing is. It does become criminal if one distributes in a very large quantity, but not until then). Morally it's not even particularly like stealing, either, though it's still wrong (in most cases). However, if one already owns the gaming materials, reference materials generally constitute fair use, for instance.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: How about those that are hoping, working and striving to get a recording contract from one of the companies you are blatantly ripping off?
But if they really wanted their music out there, all they needed to do was put it on Kazaa...
[ September 12, 2003, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
quote: So Wheat, the songs you like, you delete them to?
No, I don't delete them. I go out and buy the CD so it's legal and morally acceptible for me to have them!
I wasn't saying I don't have the money to buy CDs, I'm saying I don't have the money to buy cars. The problem is, if I spend all my money buying CDs because half of them I don't like, then I'll never have the money to buy a car.
quote: Maybe this example will help you see it yourself in your own terms....
A better way of designing this analogy is that I'm selling my A-graded term paper and I find someone else just giving photocopies of it away. You're right, I'd be pissed. I don't see the problem if someone wants to come to me (or the other guy, even) to pick up a copy and read through it to see if they want it or not, as long as they give it back. Why is that a problem? I certainly won't have a happy customer if they buy my paper titled "Unreality: An Unreal Nework Description" which they think is about some kind of crazy existentialism when it's actually about the client-server network structure of Unreal Tournament. My A-graded paper will quickly net them an F.
Amazon.com allows you to stream the tracks from some CDs on their web site. This isn't a problem for you because it's allowed by the record company. The record company is no doubt thinking that people who've heard the music will want to buy the CD and improve sales. This is morally correct for you, because of the record company mandate. However, my self-governed preview is not moral because it doesn't have the record company's approval, even though it is, in effect, the same thing and uses the same logic.
I think, and this is just venturing an opinion, that you're angry at people who consume and consume and consume free illegal music. I understand why, since taking so much without contribution is more than just morally questionable, it's just wrong. I think that since am at the fringe of that group, you see me as an effective target for your frustration, even though I use filesharing programs as a sit-at-home way of going to Wal-Mart (which is some miles away and rather inaccessable) and scanning a CD under the little barcode-thingie and listening to the CD there.
[ September 12, 2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:However, my self-governed preview is not moral because it doesn't have the record company's approval, even though it is, in effect, the same thing and uses the same logic.
The samples available on Amazon are just that, samples. Not the entire song. Just a taste. If you want to sample the music first, an option that simply wasn't available for the first 80 years of recorded music sales (apart from radio play), get down to the store. Most big music stores will let you listen to cds first, there are headphones set up for this purpose.
I'm not sure why, but you seem completely blind to the fact that walking away with something that doesn't belong to you is stealing, no matter what your eventual intentions are. It doesn't matter. If you grab something from a store and walk outside with it, fully intending to go get your wallet out of your car to pay, you will get nailed for shoplifting.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Not true. Full songs can be listened to.
quote: I'm not sure why, but you seem completely blind to the fact that walking away with something that doesn't belong to you is stealing, no matter what your eventual intentions are. It doesn't matter. If you grab something from a store and walk outside with it, fully intending to go get your wallet out of your car to pay, you will get nailed for shoplifting.
I know it's stealing. What you seem to be completely blind to is that I end up a happy customer for knowing what I'm buying and the record company ends up happy because it gets money that it otherwise wouldn't (because I'm buying CDs as opposed to not buying CDs because I don't buy CDs unless I know what I'm getting).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It's just up to the artist. Whatever they say goes.
Hmmm.... well how about if I say everyone who reads this post owes me $1, to compensate for the effort of me writing it?
Or for that matter, if I paint a mural on my wall, do I have the right to demand that passerbys not look at it without paying?
The truth is, once an artist releases a song or any work to the public, they lose some say over what happens to it. People can hear it and repeat it to their friends and share it. For instance, if I hear a poem I am free to remember it and repeat it to my friends, who can in turn repeat it to their friends, regardless of what the author wants me to do. That's just a fact of life about information - once it is out people can share it and take part of it, even if the creator wants them not to. It's not rape at all, but rather the sort of spreading of ideas that allowed civilization to come about in the first place. The creator, of course, has the right to refrain from even sharing their idea or work with the public, but once they have the cat is out of the bag.
We can pass laws to try and restrict this if we want to promote the production of certain sorts of works, but at a certain point these laws become counterproductive - and we really ought to change them.
And I mean, really... do you REALLY think I'd have a right to demand that $1 from everyone who read this post of mine, and declare that those who refuse are criminals?
[ September 14, 2003, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Tres, you're oversimplifying. Sure, you can tell friends about that poem all the live long day. Can you post it on your website on the opening page without permission? No. Can you read it aloud at coffee houses around the country or perform it on stage? No. Can you even use a line in a research paper about poetry without footnoting it and giving who wrote it? No.
It's not so much the idea itself that's the problem, but the distribution of such. The owner of th at poem may object vehemently to its use in a pornographic magazine, perhaps, or may feel that having it read on the radio would cheapen it. It's that author's right to restrict distribution - it's why you need "express written permission" to reproduce anything.
As for the mural example, you actually tripped yourself up. Sure you can charge admission to your house to allow people to see it. Or you can cover it up with a curtain, and charge people to view it. That's your prerogative. That's how museums make their money. You'd essentially be making your house a museum.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Sure, you can tell friends about that poem all the live long day. Can you post it on your website on the opening page without permission? No. Can you read it aloud at coffee houses around the country or perform it on stage? No. Can you even use a line in a research paper about poetry without footnoting it and giving who wrote it? No.
Well, legally no, but morally I think the answer to all of these (except the last, which is a matter of giving credit not distribution) should be yes. There is really no significant difference between these and telling my friends the poem, and it only seems like there should be because we are used to the law being set up that way. The law should be changed accordingly.
quote:Sure you can charge admission to your house to allow people to see it. Or you can cover it up with a curtain, and charge people to view it. That's your prerogative.
That's exactly right, and that's what musicians did for years, more or less. The only thing that changed is that the internet essentially made their "curtain" see-through.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
No, morally (or ethically) the answer should still be no. It's not your work. You have no right to distribute it, post it, publish it (on the web or otherwise), reproduce it, exploit it, profit from it, or otherwise. At least not without the express permission of the owner... and, quite often, not until you pay the owner some form of royalty or license fee.
It's not a matter of credit. You are benefiting from their product, and they are not. You are essentially getting something out of their work without passing that benefit along to its rightful ownder.
As for the curtain analogy, when it becomes transparent it's time to find a new type of curtain - not time to take it down. When your clothes get holes, it's time to buy new clothes... not say "oh well, I guess I'll just go naked".
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:No, morally (or ethically) the answer should still be no. It's not your work. You have no right to distribute it, post it, publish it (on the web or otherwise), reproduce it, exploit it, profit from it, or otherwise.
It always comes down to this. I say yes we do have these rights (as evidenced by the fact we can share it with friends in various situations that are equivalent), and someone else says no we don't (and hence claims that those situations are in someway different from these other situations). Then I ask why we don't if we are allowed to share in the situations I gave. Then a bunch of differences (it's on a small scale, or there isn't any physical copying going on, etc.) are given and I claim those differences aren't significant to the issue. Then we get stuck.
So, I'm not sure where to go from here. The problem is that we don't have any fundamental, agreed-upon rules from which to argue about ethics.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Kayla asked: "Can you copy songs onto your computer from internet radio stations? If so, why not just do that?"
Yes, you can. However, one of our radio stations had an explanation for why they could no longer afford to stream their station on the Internet. It had something to do with the record companies, and copyright laws. They took it off their site, dagnabbit.
Also, I have mentioned this before, but there are bands who ENCOURAGE trading of their live music. They allow tapers to tape their live shows, and they are OK with people distributing them using a SHn format, Bitstream, and another one I can't remember.
My husband trades live music. He has a lot. He never copies the studio cds, and we always buy cds of the bands we like. Plus, we pay thirty bucks to go see our favorite band, whom we found due to someone giving us a cd. Thus, the band makes a whole heck of a lot money on us by letting us trade their live music, because we want to see them live.
It is interesting, because the first reaction people have when I give them cds is, cool, I am going to buy one of their studio cds, which one do you suggest?
These are mostly jam bands, but heck, they are making out very well on this process. I am sure the big labels don't allow it, though.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Tresopax, is there truly no difference in your mind between telling a poem to some friends and putting it where millions of people can download it? Really? There are an awful lot of things that are okay (or forgiven) when done on a small scale that are definitely not okay when done on a massive scale.
I'm not even arguing this on a legal basis, even thhough the law currently favors my position. I'm arguing it on an ethical one. The artist did the work, they deserve the benefits. You did not create the work, you don't. Passing it around to a few friends acts more like advertising for the artist, nothing works better than word of mouth. Using it in your own work, or putting it where anyone in the world can get it for free benefits everyone except the person who created it. How is this fair? How is this just?
[ September 14, 2003, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:(Wheatpuppet) I know it's stealing. What you seem to be completely blind to is that I end up a happy customer for knowing what I'm buying and the record company ends up happy because it gets money that it otherwise wouldn't (because I'm buying CDs as opposed to not buying CDs because I don't buy CDs unless I know what I'm getting).
First, I have no problem with people who admit they're stealing. I can deal with an honest crook. It's the justification to make it seem okay that bugs me. And I'm not blind to the advantages that listening to music first does for you and the music company. My point was that I didn't care, because not everyone has your integrity. We can't legislate just for the people who play fair.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tresopax, is there truly no difference in your mind between telling a poem to some friends and putting it where millions of people can download it? Really?
No, I don't think there is. For one thing, once my friend has it, he can tell it to his friends, who can tell it to their friends, and so on until millions of people have heard it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But it will lose something in the telling. And your intent was to tell it to a friend. A personal thing, that despite your speculation will likely not affect the artist's income. Making it available to the world - and I mean that literally - provides a perfect copy of the original, with the intent to make it unnecessary to buy.
I believe we've danced this dance before, with the same outcome. I strongly suspect that copyright laws will change in the next 20 years, if only because enforcing them may become impossible. But I have to wonder what will happen when all art, all music, all writing, all movie-making becomes work-for-hire. And I don't know that I would want to continue writing if I had no rights over how they were presented and distributed.
If you can come up with a way to make sure that what I create stays intact and correctly attributed, I can bend on the rights for distribution. Otherwise, not a chance in hell.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Useless contribution to music piracy thread #4,239:
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Just because this whole debate pisses me off...
So, Tresopax, if you spent, say, $100,000 recording an album in a studio and then I took the CD, put it on Kazaa and millions of people downloaded it but no one bought it, you'd go "La la la. How wonderful! All this sharing with friends!"
Or would you say, "Bloody hell, how am I going to pay for the studio costs now that everyone already has the music?!?!"
If you read this and say, "Wow, what a stupid and simplistic example" then you'd be right. It's almost as stupid and simplistic as your entire argument.
DISTRIBUTING MILLIONS OF DIGITAL REPLICAS OF COPYRIGHT MATERIAL IS NOT THE SAME AS READING A FEW FRIENDS A POEM.
Maybe file sharing should be legal, at the moment it's not. Grow up, accept responsibility for what you're doing and get off your bloody high horse.
Done like a dinner.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Someone stick a fork in him.
Really, your argument has no sense of degree. What's the difference between telling someone a song and making it available instantly for countless millions? About the same as getting a splinter in your chest and having a spear rammed through it. Or possibly getting a friendly jab in the arm from a buddy and getting an uppercut from Lennox Lewis.
Telling someone a poem, or creating a mix tape for a girlfriend, or photocopying an album cover for your wall is all pretty much in that "fair use" domain, I'd imagine. Then again, I'm totally talking out of my butt when it comes to actual legal matters regarding copyright.
When you put something up on the internet for free downloads and copying, you are, whether you like it or not, becoming a distributer. You are performing the same role as the record company, or publishing company, or art gallery, but you are doing it without permission and not charging anything for it. More importantly, you're not giving anything back to the artist, or even asking their permission.
Some artists are cool with free distribution. Others are not. It's not your decision, though... it's theirs.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Whether or not file sharing is stealing is not an issue where degree should matter, though. To say telling a friend a poem is fine whereas sharing a song file with strangers is stealing, is like saying stealing a warehouse full of toys is stealing but just shoplifting one is perfectly fine - on the grounds that the store would not be hurt by losing just one.
If we are talking about degree, you could make the argument that both sharing the poem and the mp3 are stealing, but that sharing the mp3 is stealing to a greater degree - slightly stealing you might say. The problem is, sharing a poem with a friend is not "slightly stealing" or anything like that. It is not stealing at all.
Ethics,
If I were in that situation, I'd probably respond much closer to the first case than the second. Most likely I'd say "Yes, they like me! Now how do I make a profit?" If I can produce music that millions of people will bother to download, I'm quite the success as a musician. I'd probably be famous enough to do well at concerts, with merchandise sales, etc. I'd much prefer to have the immediate CD sales to pay for the recording too (and this would probably lead to inferior recordings), but I believe those are just the rules of the game.
But at least give me this man.... You really needed that head-into-wall smiley they just added. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well, technically, it's performing without permission...
Everything is a matter of degree. Everything. Especially when it comes to the law. If you stole a dollar from me you would have committed a crime, but it's probably not worth my time trying to track you down to punish you for it. If you posted my bank number and PIN on the Internet you have made it possible for anyone at all to steal from me, and even you might agree that there's a crime that needs stopping.
Degree is everything in law, and in punishment.
Please listen to me. I'll type slowly. When you recite a poem for a friend, it's technically distributing it without permission. BUT, on that small scale it operates more as advertising for the works of the author. Unless you are capable of reciting everything the author did, if your friend enjoyed the poem you recited he would have to go buy the author's works to get more of the same. If you stick it online and someone reads it and likes it, it is entirely possible that thanks to other filesharers he can go right ahead and download everything the author wrote, for free. Right now it is possible to get nearly every book OSC ever wrote, in text format, without paying him a dime. Tell me, how long do you think he'd be able to keep writing were this to continue?
You have offered no method of paying him. I don't see him going on tour and selling t-shirts. You have offered no method of ensuring that his works remain unaltered, or that his name stay on them.
You have, in short, offered nothing but the belief that you should be able to enjoy the work produced without paying for it, and you seem remakably resistant to the notion that this might hurt the artist and prevent him from creating more art.
[ September 15, 2003, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I realize it could hurt the artists and harm their ability to produce more works, but I can't change what I think a person can and cannot do with music just to help the artists, any more than I could change my views to help consumers get music cheaper. The parameters are what they are, whether its harsh or not, and we have to work around them. Somehow we have to figure out how to get authors paid knowing their works can be shared as files. I'm not too worried because I think few people want to read books on their computer screens. I'm more worried about the gaming industry and what this could mean for them.
[ September 15, 2003, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Finally. "I know it's going to screw artists but I don't care. All I care about is getting stuff for free." Nice one, bruva.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well, that wasn't at all what I said if you'll give me a fair reading. I said I know it could screw the artists, but that's the way it is and we have to accept it. I said nothing about wanting to get something for free, which doesn't factor into it any more than the wants of the artists do. It's just a matter of the reality of what people are and are not entitled to do.
The fact is, sometimes people are entitled to do things that could screw over other people to some degree or another in some way. Fortunately, I think we can find plenty of ways to minimize the damage in this case.
[ September 15, 2003, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
So, what you're telling me is that you think file sharing screws artists, but rather than try to work out ways to prevent it from screwing artists, you want to change the laws so that the artists won't be being screwed legally anymore?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
No, I think file sharing sometimes screws artists somewhat and I would love to find ways to prevent it from screwing them, but I also think it is something people are entitled to do regardless and hence the law should be put in agreement with that.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Ok. Just as long as we're clear on how you know its screwing people but think you should get to do it anyway.
Cool.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Kinda like Drake and Morgan ripping off the immorally-but-legally thieving&murdering conquistadores: the worst part was that the privateers didn't sink all of the Spanish shipping.
[ September 15, 2003, 03:04 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
It's more like changing the channel when ads come on the TV. It's screwing over the advertisers (who will pass it on to the TV station), and if everyone did it completely we would have no TV. Nevertheless, we still are entitled to do it.
[ September 15, 2003, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
How is that comparable? We don't pay for the TV shows, the advertisers do. And they know they're taking a chance that no one will watch or remember their ads. But the people who made the show you're watching got paid.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
They only got paid because many viewers did not exercise their right to change the channel and paid for the program they were watching in ad-watching time. Had they all started not watching ads, the advertisers would stop paying the networks and the creators of the TV programs would not be paid - they would be screwed over by viewers trying to get TV without ads. That was the whole issue with TiVo.
Similarly, musicians continue to get paid, despite file sharing, because not everyone listens to mp3s instead of CDs. In the hypothetical case where everyone did, those artists wouldn't be paid - screwed over by listeners who want music without having to pay.
The point of the comparison is this: Sometimes you're entitled to do things that could screw over others to some degree.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
A question.
I've not read this entire thread yet so this may have been covered. If so I apologize.
This follows along with 'ownership', music etc....
Karaoke. Thsi medium was created for the sole urpose of allowing others to sing along/perform without vocals from the original recordings. You bought the CD with the musical score YET, according to the RIAA/Labels etc, you cannot play this without paying then yet again, and again, and again.... where does that end? Is that more morally right than file sharing? They got paid for their product for petes sake. Yet they want to keep on geting paid. and paid, and paid from the very same copy you already paid for. Doesn't the fact that you paid for it in the first polace give you license to use it as intended? Since this IS the sole purpose of what you bought the CD for AND the labels know this, put it out with that very intention.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
quote: by Tresopax It's more like changing the channel when ads come on the TV. It's screwing over the advertisers (who will pass it on to the TV station), and if everyone did it completely we would have no TV. Nevertheless, we still are entitled to do it.
There was an interview some time ago by one of the head honcho's at Turner maybe 2 years ago that hit on this very thing. According to this guy, when you skip commercials you are stealing content and he wants something done to 'those thieves'. Very militant guy that was.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Similarly, musicians continue to get paid, despite file sharing, because not everyone listens to mp3s instead of CDs. In the hypothetical case where everyone did, those artists wouldn't be paid - screwed over by listeners who want music without having to pay.
But that ratio is changing, which is the whole problem. The theme of your posts seems to be that as long as at least someone is still paying for music, you shouldn't have to.
quote:The point of the comparison is this: Sometimes you're entitled to do things that could screw over others to some degree.
Ah. Well, that explains it. I don't agree with this. It may sometimes be necessary to do something that screws someone else over to some degree, it might be convenient, it might even be untraceable or unstoppable, but I do not believe that you are in any way, shape or form entitled to do so. That, to me, smacks of offensive arrogance and disrespect for others.
[ September 15, 2003, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well, you better make sure you watch those commercials then.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Why? I'm under no obligation to.
If an advertising agency buys space on a billboard, I am not required to stop my car and look at it. All that has happened is that the ad agency paid the owners of the billboard so they can place their ad there, in the hopes that I might look at it and consider them favorably when I'm out shopping. That's all.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
The fact that you're basically arguing for your right to screw people over is somewhat amusing. If it weren't so frightening that so many others feel the same way you do.
And that's the real problem. If you said to me, "I don't care if I screw over artists", that's fine. It's one person. But when ten, and a hundred, and then several million people say to themselves "it's okay to screw over artists"... well, then the artists get fed up of being screwed all the time... or they end up not being able to create anything anymore.
The ratio *is* changing. More and more people are feeling that it's okay to download *anything* for free. Hey, it's on the interent, it should be public domain, right? Wrong. That's like saying "it's in a magazine, it's public domain" or "it's on television, it's public domain" or claim any other information transferrence medium becomes public domain.
As for your comment about people not wanting to read books on a computer... eBooks are becoming more and more popular... as are eBook readers that are roughly the size of a hardcover. They're basically the literary version of mp3 players... and they will usher in a new era of stealing from artists, and this time from artists who *don't* have the money to spare.
---
No, the law should not be changed to accommodate those who feel it's their right to screw other people over. There should be *more laws* to *prevent* those people from screwing over anyone they feel like. Such as the laws that protect people from fraud. Or from theft. Or from any number of other things. Just because thieves think it's their right to screw over the little guy, that doesn't mean it is... or that it should be.
You're promoting anarchy, you realize. Anyone who wants to do something can - the laws be damned. Again, laws only keep the honest people honest... the dishonest and unethical don't care one whit about them.
Posted by wieczorek (Member # 5565) on :
I don't understand Flying Cow. (I really don't, I'm not being stupidly sarcastic, as I very often and against my will end up doing) I don't understand what you mean by saying that published works on the net aren't public - for the taking, in other words If someone downloaded music or a poem from the net and then claimed that they had made it, then that's grounds for a lawsuit. I apologize if I'm missing the obvious Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
*blinks* Read the thread, it might help you understand basic copyright issues. Essentially, books, etc. have copyright in them held by a person or entity. Sticking that book up to be available on the net without the permission of the copyright holder is a violation of that copyright. You're NOT ALLOWED to put it in public domain without their permission. Surely this is blatantly obvious?
If someone decides they WANT something they wrote to be available online, THEY can make that choice and post / distribute it online. Kinda of like the way people can't sleep in your house without your permission...
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Oh, if you're talking about things published exclusively online - like an article for an online zine - then yes, they are available free of charge. But if the person asserts their copyright on that article, then you can't publish it on your website.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm just butting in and pointing out that the public domain and being available in public are two very very different things.
The only (major) ways a work can go into the public domain are if it is a government report (this is more specific a category than it sounds), if the copyright holder(s) place it in the public domain, if the copyright expires, or if a court orders it put in the public domain.
The public domain is a free for all zone. You can do whatever you want to with a public domain work. Absolutely whatever (though if some of the elements of the work are subject to other intellectual property laws, such as trademark, you have to be a little careful: you can still use them, but your ability to make derivatives is restricted by the trademark or other right).
For instance, if the Bono copyright act had not passed, Steamboat Willey (a very early Mickey Mouse-esque cartoon by Disney) would be in the public domain. One would be able to make copies of that work, distribute copies of that work, and generally do whatever one wanted with characters in that work. The one exception would be with certain likenesses of the main character (and this would only apply for derivatives, not for distribution of original in whole or in part), because those likenesses are near enough the likeness of Mickey Mouse to infringe on Disney's trademark.
Putting something up in public implies no right to distribute a work (except those ephemeral "copies" implied by the method of distribution, such as at caching servers).
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Yeah, what he said... And I was too lazy to type / explain.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
Can anyone address my question?
More to the point:
quote: by Ethics Gradient
*blinks* Read the thread, it might help you understand basic copyright issues. Essentially, books, etc. have copyright in them held by a person or entity. Sticking that book up to be available on the net without the permission of the copyright holder is a violation of that copyright. You're NOT ALLOWED to put it in public domain without their permission. Surely this is blatantly obvious?
Back to my question, apply that to Karaoke CDs. Those are made with the express purpose of putting it out in 'public domain' so to speak. Yet the Labels want to continue charging for it ad infinitum.
They (the labels/RIAA et al) want their cake and to eat it to and screw us, the consumer out of every penny. Their hands aren't exactly clean here either. Two times that *I* know of they've been caught with their hands in the price fixing cookie jar. That doesn't justify 'stealing', but it does at times make it understandable why the attitude of today is so prevalent.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
No, karaoke CDs do not put the music in public domain.
The publishers of those CDs pay license fees to the copyright holders to use the songs. The reason the RIAA asks for a continuous license is because the purchase by the end-user (say, a bar) generates income for that user. It's essentially a royalty fee.
[ September 16, 2003, 03:19 AM: Message edited by: Ethics Gradient ]
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
I'm not a bar nor do I make any money yet I'm expected to continue paying the RIAA/Label.
Royalty fees my big toe when one doesn't garner income from it. Just a way for them to squeeze people more.
Bars don't generate true income from it either. Not in the sense they are charging customers to listen like the 'stars' do in concerts.
If that were the case then there could be NO music in bars, stores, or anywhere else because stores make money from sales of things other than music. The business of a bar isn't to provide music. Its to provide a drinking/socializing atmosphere. Bars have TV's but you don't see the NFL suing bars for having Monday Night Football on.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Actually, Bookwyrm, you might want to read the fine print at the end of Monday Night Football, or listen to what the announcers say very quickly near the end:
"Reproduction or rebroadcast of tonight's Monday Night football without the express written consent of (insert both team names here), the National Football League, Monday Night Football and ABC is strictly forbidden."
And they will sue, all of them. That's why you never see Sports Bars touting "Come and watch the greatest football games of all time!" Also, most of the chain sports bars actually do pay a licensing fee to show those broadcasts since they are done for promotional purposes. The local mom and pops sports bars often aren't hunted down and asked for payments, but there are lawyers who do travel from town to town explaining the situation and leaving a bill behind.
And yes, they do that with music, too. Generally it's done by ASCAP, a songwriters/producers association. That's why so many places, especially chain stores, use Muzak or their own broadcasting. The rights are covered by the fees they pay to Muzak or to their own "in store radio station."
A retail store or restaurant can be hit by ASCAP (and have it stand up in court) for simply playing open broadcast radio from the local AM/FM station where their customers can hear it.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
Yet another sign of how well the RIAA checks it's facts before suing people:
quote:Six record labels including Sony, BMG and Virgin have withdrawn a $300m lawsuit against a 66-year old woman sculptor who, it turns out, has never used file sharing software.
The RIAA said Sarah Ward was sharing 2,000 songs through the KaZaA P2P network exposing her, at $150,000 per offense, to $300,000,000 in penalties. But not only had she never downloaded a song, but as a a Macintosh user, she couldn't even run the KaZaA software, which only runs on Windows.
With characteristic bad grace, attorneys for the RIAA members reserved the right to harass the woman in future:
"Please note, however, that we will continue our review of the issues you raised and we reserve the right to refile the complaint against Mrs. Ward if and when circumstances warrant," wrote Colin Zick, attorney for the record labels, the Boston Globe reports.
Having attacked naval cadets, students, young children and now innocent senior citizens, the music business appears not to fear the consequences of its litigation. However, it can't afford too many more cases of mistaken identity.
Good thing they "caught" her sharing files on Kazaa...
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Why did they think that she had, do you know?
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
The article didn't say. One guess is that the ISP may have screwed up the identity of the person using the IP at that time.
Other than that, I know that they've got bots that they've used in the past to scour servers for possible (as in any word contains something from a title that they own), and they got beserk without checking it out first (there was a school that owned a title that the RIAA told them to delete).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
).![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
Cry me a river!![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)