The RIAA sees the face of evil, and it's a 12-year-old girl...

[Nerull]

My reply on another thread.

Yes, the little guy always gets hurt in the process. That's the way it works. The guys at the top will always pass the buck down the chain to save their own butts. Just look at Enron; a lot of people lost everything, yet the former president of the company has a new mansion in Florida. Do you really think that the guys at the top are suffering from this? Of course not. They will do what it takes to maintain their lifestyle, even if it means hurting others to do so. Yes, the piracy is hurting the industry, but do you see guys like P. Diddy (or any other top executive, for that matter) changing the way they live their lives? Of course not. They will do whatever it takes to take care of themselves, mainly because in their position they have the ability to do so. They interviewed Michael Jordon one time, and asked him "what is the best thing about being Michael Jordon?" His answer: "I'm in control." The executives are the decision makers, thus they have the ability to make the decisions that will benefit them, even at the expense of others. CNN a couple of months back reported that, despite the poor economy and high unemployment in the American market, that executive perks and bonuses had gone up significantly. The people who end up suffering? Guys like Chewbacca, who are stuck in the middle.

The market has changed, the technology has changed, but the guys at the top of the industry are established and really don't want the change. They took forever to adapt to the change, and now it is out of their control. So, they are trying to reinforce the old status quo, by playing the "heavy" and going hard core against pirates. However, one thing about American society (and the posts that I have seen on this thread only prove it in my mind) is that people do not like the heavy. The rebel is held much higher in this culture than in others, ever since the origins of this society (i.e. liberating themselves from an empire that they viewed as domineering; that is the view in America, no offense to the Brits!). People in America tend not to like heavy authority, and will go along with the heavy handed presense only as long as they hold it over their heads. It's the whole "speeding driver slows down for traffic cop" syndrome; you slow down only as long as the cop is in sight, and as soon as you are past you speed up again. Illegal downloading is down, but nowhere have I seen a report stating that there has been a major increase in legal downloading. In other words, those that download illegally are just cruising, waiting for this to blow over. And, by playing the heavy, they are only increasing the animosity towards their industry, and that will not help in boosting their sales back up. They are coming out as the bad guy, especially when you go after children.

They aren't going to stop illegal downloading; if they had reacted quickly when the technology was developing, they could have curtailed (not stopped) illegal downloading. But the genie is out of the bottle now; you have as much chance of stopping illegal downloading as you do of having all countries that have nukes give them up all at once. They are only slitting their own throats in the long run.

Oh, and per CNN, the head of Grokster is paying the girl's $2,000 fine. He stated that it was disgusting what the industry is doing. More fuel to the fire.

[Larry_OHF]

Related web news about our little topic here.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/0...ave/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/interne....ap/index.html

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

They aren't going to stop illegal downloading; if they had reacted quickly when the technology was developing, they could have curtailed (not stopped) illegal downloading. But the genie is out of the bottle now; you have as much chance of stopping illegal downloading as you do of having all countries that have nukes give them up all at once. They are only slitting their own throats in the long run.

You can say that again!! If they had cut a deal with Napster or Audiogalaxy to licence the music for a modest fee or a percentage of the profits then all sides could have won. The P2P developers would have made money off of their programing code and the RIAA could have still gotten paid for their products as well. It would have been a win/win situation. With 40 million people downloading songe, chargeing just $20 a month would amount to more money in a month that Bill Gates makes in a year.

[Faceman]

As for artist reactions:
The German band "Die Ärzte" which was my favourite band when I was a teenager has reacted in a way I find most pleasing.
+ They have supported a fan project where you can download EVERY live-bootleg server-based. Simple motto: "If we don't get the money nodbody does"
+ They make often bonus tracks available for download. Once they did it with a whole Live-Album.
+ They have started their own record label and dropped CD prices
+ If you buy the Album you get a coder for hidden part of their website with more information and fan-related stuff (one/person)
+ They have upped prices for their concert tickets which were incredibly low before (around 10-15 EURO, now it's 25).

Their arguing:
Concert tickets were so cheap because they loved going on tour and sometimes not even made a profit from it. Now that people have started burning CDs they are going to make their profit there. If people like their music and them they'll buy the (cheaper) album and go to the (more expensive) concert and will pay the same as before. People who like them but don't buy the album get a worse fan-treatment and have to pay more than before for the concert tickets (which they can't download ).
BUT
They also emphazise that they are able to do that because they've made so much money with their music in the first place. They're at the end of their career and are now making much more with merchandising. They however do tell all their fans (and I know some people who listen to them, one guy even stopped smoking because the lead guitarist told him to [img]smile.gif[/img] ) to support new and exciting bands by buying their music instead of downloading it.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: So if you work all week and your employer says he's only paying you for half the week because you won't LOSE any money, just not gain, is that fair? What they LOSE is potential sales using it without paying for the privilege is stealing it IMO.

If that would happen the unions would lobby for changes immediately. And that's the error in your comparison Cloudy. Well it's not an error made by you, it's an error made by the recording industry. File sharing is a unique oppurtunity for them to increase sales. But no! Computers? What's that? [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img]

Chewie, did you ever look into the possibility of selling your music as mp3s instead of on CDs? [img]smile.gif[/img] Do you know if anyone has looked into it?

[Bungleau]

Originally posted by Luvian: There is a huge difference, and it's the reason so much people don't mind digital piracy. If you take money out of my wallet, or take my car, then I lost something, even if you had no intention to buy a car in the first place.

True. That's theft. I think we agree.

But if you come over to my house, scan the cash in my wallet and then print it, then I lost nothing. If you also manage to "scan" and "print" my car, then good for you, and I lost nothing. If you make a copy of the monalisa, then good for you, and the original is still in the museum, so good for them, too.

Aside from the fact that scanning the cash would be counterfeiting, and scanning and printing the car would be industrial espionage, as generally practiced, I don't see where the "good for you" logically flows. Are you condoning theft at this point by saying that since nothing is physically taken from you and you still have possession of the item, it's okay? Seems to me that identity theft leaves you in possession of your identity, so good for you and the identity thief?

BTW, I believe that somewhere in here is the dividing line between those who accept piracy and those who reject piracy. That line is whether or not you've created something that's being stolen. If you haven't, then you don't see what the big deal is. If you have, then you realize that every bit counts.

I've written a technical book which has sold some $6,000 worth of copies. There may be pirated copies out there already; should I not worry about those, since I'm not getting hurt?

If I tell you that every purchaser of the book is also a candidate for some additional services I can provide, or a software product I sell, then one stolen book, priced at $60, means the lost *opportunity* for more than $8,000 in revenue. One additional customer is worth more than all the money I've made from the book, and that's measuring the revenue. Measure the profits instead, and one additional customer is worth two to three times what I've made on all the books. Not exactly victimless, is it?

Now if you were planing on buying those, but didn't because you got them for free, then yes, you did hurt the people who made them, by denying themy our money. If you had no intention of buying them, but made a copy because you could, then the makers didn't lose anything, since they would not have gotten your money otherwise. Now, if you start making multiple copies and selling them, then you are hurting the makers, as you are denying other people's money, as they were willing to pay for it, but paid you instead.

Sorry, but I don't buy this logic.

If you made a copy because you could, then the makers (and the whole supply chain) lost out. They may not have gotten your money otherwise, but you have taken advantage of their product without paying them for it, or without having permission to do so. It doesn't matter that they still have the original. If you go to the library and photocopy a book, that's a violation of copyright law, even though you left the original in the library.

If you copy and then start selling, you're violating copyright laws *and* distributing counterfeit merchandise. So you're doubly wrong.

This is the reason so much people justify digital piracy as ok. As long as they don't sell it and had no intention to buy it, they are hurting no one, as they aren't removing anything from anyone, and they are denying no one their money, as they had no intention to buy it in the first place.

Agreed. People also used to justify the fact that the world was flat. Didn't change the truth, though, did it? You are hurting someone, you are removing something from someone, and you are denying someone their money. Your intent to purchase or not is completely separate from whether your theft is legit or not. It isn't.

As long as the opponent to digital piracy fail to aknowledge this, there will never be any real progress made in the fight against piracy. It's like trying to fight AIDS, but without admitting people are having sex. It just won't work.

I think we agree here. I believe that the industry is behind the times with dealing with the piracy issue, and the current actions highlight that they're trying to force everyone back to the old model, which won't work. The cat has been let out of the bag, and it won't go back in.

What I believe the industry needs to do is to make it easier for folks to download things legitimately. I know there are the current couple of solutions as cheap as 99 cents a song, but my vision would be along the lines of a CCLI license, where you pay an annual fee and can use whatever you like, so long as you report it. Imagine if they set a price of $40 per year, download what you like? They'd get more money from me than they would otherwise, and the few folks who would download excessive amounts of tunes would likely be outweighed by the folks who download few tunes.

But that would kill the CD business, they'd say. My response is to add more value -- make the CD offer more than just the music. Add video footage, simple games, website access, graphic art, lyrics... more than just the music. And watch what happens.

Digital piracy is now a part of our society just like using drug is. The only way to make things change is by sencibilisation. Unless you are willing to put in jail millions of people. You can't stop piracy by telling people "piracy is bad" just as you can't stop drug using by saying "drug is bad".

Just because drug use is part of our society doesn't mean everyone does it. And it doesn't mean that we let it slide since "everyone" is doing it. Likewise, allowing piracy to continue because it exists is not exactly the most logical thing to do. It may be the easiest, but it's not the most logical. What needs to happen is to change people's attitudes, and on that point, I think we agree. I also don't believe it will happen by saying "don't do it, it's bad". I believe that you have to name everyone who gets hurt, and make sure the thief knows who they're stealing from and how.

I also don't think it will work completely. Just like locks are there to keep honest people honest, anyone intent on stealing songs will still do so. But I'd like to think we can keep more of the other folks honest.

[ 09-11-2003, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Bungleau ]

[RevRuby]

Originally posted by Ziroc: Personally, I own every single CD I have an MP3 for. (or my wife does).

this sounds great, right? ok...so you guys own thema ll, so does a firend of ours. saying of ocurse that if you own it you have a right to have it on your comp. i agree, but...thhink about the used-cd stores. ok joe buys hottest cd out there-$20. copies it to his hard drive. then takes it and sells it to used-cd store. he did own it when he copied, but now he has most of his money back. is that illegal? some ppl, like myself (altho i don't do it, if i had $20 right now i'd buyy milk), would think of this. it is different from file sharing, except that his beast friend, mike, might want it, and he is in college three states away. normally joe would lend it to mike and mike would make a tape copy, right? but joe has already re-sold it, and has it on his hard drive, so he uploads it to mike. well not only does mike not have to suffer with a bad tape copy but now his girlfriend can have it too, because she has the cd burner that gave him his own copy so she just one for herself. this is the small scale of p2p filesharing, right? this is what happened before napster and kazaa.

i don't think a lot of this is right, morally, but i also don;t feel it is illegal. as some have mentioned artists are now putting out 1 or 2 hit singles per cd and the rest is crap! the only way to avoid it is to stick with indie lable ppl who write for the love of music not money, or so it seems from my point of veiw.

anyway it is totally null and void from my point of veiw cause i don't have $20, i have $.92, i will go back to reading and if i get a suit from riaa i'll deal with it. personally tho i think if ppl want music to sell they should make better music. the poor quality of their product is what hurts them, and those down the line selling it. jmho

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by RevRuby: quote: Originally posted by Ziroc: Personally, I own every single CD I have an MP3 for. (or my wife does).

this sounds great, right? ok...so you guys own thema ll, so does a firend of ours. saying of ocurse that if you own it you have a right to have it on your comp. i agree, but...thhink about the used-cd stores. ok joe buys hottest cd out there-$20. copies it to his hard drive. then takes it and sells it to used-cd store. he did own it when he copied, but now he has most of his money back. is that illegal? some ppl, like myself (altho i don't do it, if i had $20 right now i'd buyy milk), would think of this. it is different from file sharing, except that his beast friend, mike, might want it, and he is in college three states away. normally joe would lend it to mike and mike would make a tape copy, right? but joe has already re-sold it, and has it on his hard drive, so he uploads it to mike. well not only does mike not have to suffer with a bad tape copy but now his girlfriend can have it too, because she has the cd burner that gave him his own copy so she just one for herself. this is the small scale of p2p filesharing, right? this is what happened before napster and kazaa.

i don't think a lot of this is right, morally, but i also don;t feel it is illegal. as some have mentioned artists are now putting out 1 or 2 hit singles per cd and the rest is crap! the only way to avoid it is to stick with indie lable ppl who write for the love of music not money, or so it seems from my point of veiw.

anyway it is totally null and void from my point of veiw cause i don't have $20, i have $.92, i will go back to reading and if i get a suit from riaa i'll deal with it. personally tho i think if ppl want music to sell they should make better music. the poor quality of their product is what hurts them, and those down the line selling it. jmho [/QUOTE]Well, I've never sold any of MY CD's and never plan to [img]smile.gif[/img] . I actually buy older rare CD's on eBay (stuff in the UK that the USA doesn't sell). These are not used either, they are brand new, shrinkwrapped with the holographic seals intact. (they have an eBay store setup).

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by RevRuby: this sounds great, right? ok...so you guys own thema ll, so does a firend of ours. saying of ocurse that if you own it you have a right to have it on your comp. i agree, but...thhink about the used-cd stores. ok joe buys hottest cd out there-$20. copies it to his hard drive. then takes it and sells it to used-cd store. he did own it when he copied, but now he has most of his money back. is that illegal? *snip*

When it comes to audio CDs I have no idea, but when it comes to PC games it is illegal due to the rather sneaky user end agreements. It's like buying a house and then be told you can't renovate it. "Yes you own the house but not what's inside it". Ahh why did we have to "invent" lawyes?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by WillowIX: Chewie, did you ever look into the possibility of selling your music as mp3s instead of on CDs? [img]smile.gif[/img] Do you know if anyone has looked into it?

Yes, there is an initiative called ECHO that would bring special kiosks to retail locations where a person could download MP3s into a palyer or possibly even burn there own mix CD right there in the store. Many major retailiers have joined forces behind this initiative, but so far nothing has materialized beyond a bunch of talk. I have heard of other similiar projects in the test market phase but I have yet to see anything viable.

I get the feeling the industry wants to grow up with the times, but is having a shaky time doing it. Old habits are hard to break I guess...

[ 09-11-2003, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]