Judge orders ISPs to give into Music Industry bullying

[notyoueither]

I guess that cars ought to have stuff on them that automatically reports if someone is speeding (30 over the limit is a felony). The car is enabling the person's felony so the car company ought to report it right? What a ridiculous statement. The ISP should not be made to do anything.

Do people never tire of ludicrous analogies with cars? Cars don't record anything but milage. Car companies do not have access to those recordings. ISPs do have a lot of control over who uses their services, how they use it, and who they are when they misuse it. Should ISPs not have cooperated with the recent child porn investigations?

Nothing is lost. What has been stolen?

Opportunities to derive income from intellectual property are being stolen everyday. The point is not the individuals recording, or re-recording for their own use. The issue is the file sharing networks and the people who make a wide range of recordings available for others to download.

First; when you download an MP3, you don't steal anything, you copy it.

Again, the issue is the people making large libraries available to the general public, not the people making their own MP3s and sharing them among friends. There is a very large difference.

I'm against stealing music, but the RIAA think we live in Nazi Germany. The measures they want enforced are draconian. Fortunately, their chances of success in the long term are slim. They'd be better advised to join the internet revolution than to continue to stick their heads up their asses.

Draconian? It seems they are targeting the sources of the files, not the consumers. During prohibition, the police went after the sources of the booze, not those who drank (for the most part). Were they draconian?

Yes, they could do a number of things better, I am sure. However, the fact remains that the copy rights belong to them and the artists, not the people putting the libraries on line. It is up to the artists and their agents as to how their intellectual property will be used and distributed. It is up to them if they wish to go after people who illegally distribute their property on the internet.

First you have to explain why downloading a song from the internet is stealing anything. "Stealing" music would entail taking someone else's work and claiming it as your own, or trying to make money off of someone else's recording (what Albert Speer does).

Downloading a song for your own listening pleasure isn't stealing anything. It is no different than taping a song off the radio.

That would be incorrect. Smoking pot is against the law. Not many cops will give you a serious problem over it though. Selling pot? That's another matter. Illegal distribution is almost always regarded as more serious than illegal use.

That is so in this case. The article is somewhat inflamatory. It says download in the opening paragraph, but later on the real issue is the people making the files available.

During a contentious court hearing in October, the judge lamented ambiguities in the copyright act, saying Congress "could have made this statute clearer." At the time, the music industry said a ruling in its favor could result in warnings to scare Internet pirates into taking their collections offline.

...

The case arose from efforts by the recording association to track down a Verizon customer who was freely sharing copies of more than 600 songs by well-known artists.

This seems completely reasonable to me. I doubt they would have a problem with friends sharing MP3's among themselves (and if they did, no judge would listen to them). The problem for them is when you get file sharing networks and people undertaking wholesale distribution. The problem is when the theft of their 'products' becomes endemic. I'd be looking to the courts too.

Look at it this way. If such 'sharing' is not a problem, and if there is nothing wrong with violating intellectual property rights, where is the end of it? In some markets, computer software is not supported at all by the developers because theft of their products is so wide spread that the companies write those markets off. In those markets you can buy anything you want on CDs in the local markets, only it's all stolen and the police and courts will do nothing. So, what is the harm? Not much if just you use it. Plenty when distribution of the stolen products is accepted and everyone uses it.

And yes, I think theft is the wrong term btw. Bootlegging is probably a better term. How big a deal is it for a 16 year old to have a beer? How big a problem is it to make a habit of supplying 16 year olds with beer? See the difference?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Again, the issue is the people making large libraries available to the general public, not the people making their own MP3s and sharing them among friends. There is a very large difference.

Thats not the issue at all. The RIAA's position is that 'fair use' does not include you copying a CD you've purchased hence their extensive efforts to prevent any copying at all or where you can even play a CD. The RIAA is doing everything in its power to ensure that you do not have 'fair use' of a product you've paid for.

I'm against stealing music, but the RIAA think we live in Nazi Germany. The measures they want enforced are draconian. Fortunately, their chances of success in the long term are slim. They'd be better advised to join the internet revolution than to continue to stick their heads up their asses.

Draconian? It seems they are targeting the sources of the files, not the consumers. During prohibition, the police went after the sources of the booze, not those who drank (for the most part). Were they draconian?

If all the RIAA was after was the pirates who sell illegal CD's I'd agree with you, but thats not what they want. How's about their brilliant idea for legislation (that was supported by a number of congressmen) that they should be allowed to monitor what's present on every HD. If they are succesful with their attack on the ISP's, the ISP's will have to monitor every download, every email. We dont allow the intelligence agencies that power but you seem to think its reasonable that the RIAA has that power. So yeah, I'd call their attempted actions draconian.

Yes, they could do a number of things better, I am sure. However, the fact remains that the copy rights belong to them and the artists, not the people putting the libraries on line. It is up to the artists and their agents as to how their intellectual property will be used and distributed. It is up to them if they wish to go after people who illegally distribute their property on the internet.

I agree. But consumers have 'fair use' rights to products we have purchased. In the end the RIAA is gonna fail in their attempts to maintain complete control of their product in the face of new technology, just as the big TV networks did in the 80's. Please note that the income losses to the RIAA through piracy have been blown way out of proportion and are less than 5% of the 4 billion that these liars claim. Add into that equation the losses to their revenue caused by their own actions such as the badly conceived and designed copy protection that has annoyed many customers.

[mactbone]

600 = 12 * 50 = 50 CDs

That means that if I were to put my 60 odd CDs on my HD and share them I would be considered in serious violation of this. Ridiculous.

I've bought more CDs because I've discovered bands that the radio never gives airtime. If I wanted to hear the same 40 songs all day long I wouldn't own as many CDs as I do. Anyways, I think they're just being stupid and obstinate about the whole thing. They should try to use sites like MP3.com to help their sales and regard those sites as radio stations. In addition thy need to stop pushing their crap onto radio stations because they may get a few more sales in the short term but in the long term everyone gets tired of that **** and changes the dial, therefore they lose consumers.

[-Jrabbit]

Also the RIAA is looking like a fool when they try to blame napster and kazaa for falling record sales.

Under the guise of "protecting artists," the RIAA is striking out at anything and anyone they feel they can bully into submission. It was ever thus...

The simple fact is that technology has made the RIAA mission and function ("greedy middlemen" I believe one of you stated ) obsolete. Another simple fact: the big dip in record sales coincides with the END, not the growth, of Napster. There is ample evidence that file sharing created at least as many record sales as it cost.

That's why more and more artists are taking control of their own careers, marketing their music through direct sales at concerts and on Web sites.

Yes, intellectual property is compromised through file sharing. But the discovery of fire compromised personal safety. (Hey, at least it's not a car analogy...)

The artists just want to be fairly compensated and remain in control of their IP. That's fair and just, and I wish I had the answer to it.

But the RIAA is a relic of times past, working on a business model that stopped making sense more than a decade ago. The fact that a new CD (often recorded in a project studio) costs more at retail than a movie (often costing $100MM to produce) is ample evidence that they are perpetuating a system based on waste and greed.

In general, artists don't make a nickel on their projects until the record company has recouped its costs. Those big advances are a loan against the costs of recording and marketing that can't be paid off without a legitimate hit. So most groups have to tour and sell T-shirts to survive.

RIAA, the record companies, and the copyright orgs are fat, lazy bums who survive through exploitation of kids who just want to make a living making music. Twas ever thus.

Blaming ISPs, sharing technology, and end users for their problems is a classic case of the guilty attempting to stand as the accusers -- the pot calling the kettle black.

Are artists being wronged? --Of course.

But this case does not address the Many Ways in which it is happening.

[BustaMike]

Like a good car, a good analogy can be used for a long time...

[Dis]

I am worried about this. I can't take the chance of being caught.

Here's my idea: download every song ever made before they start cracking down.

wonder how long that will take.

[Goingonit]

The RIAA has no idea what they're doing. Case in point: downolading an album off any of the mainstream subscription music services costs US $9.99 (I found). That's CDN $15.50 for me! I can get lots of CDs for cheaper than that. And using the Internet actually reduces their costs significantly.

For a CD, they actually do have packaging and shipping costs, plus the retail outlet has markup of its own; however, the incremental cost per album download on the Internet is bandwidth + royalties: it can't be more than $1.00, and that's a very liberal estimate. Do they expect me to believe that they spend 7 bucks US on marketing per title per copy? That's ridiculous!

If the music industry expects anyone to buy from them, they need to be willing to actually charge a price that people will pay, which has to be pretty darn low considering it's faster and easier to get the same product for free.

[BustaMike]

There was an editorial in PC Mag a few months back that suggested the price of a retail CD should be about $1.14. That would cover all the necessary costs of producing the CD and would pretty much eliminate piracy since CD's would be so cheap. If you don't like it you only wasted a buck, not $15.