p2pnet - rss feed: The Gnu and the RIAA’s worst nightmare
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- The Gnu is helping to take on the RIAA and in the process, the RIAA’s worst nightmare is about to come true.
The one major element missing in virtually all the RIAA cases has been the lack of examination of RIAA so-called expert witnesses, the notable exception being Ray Beckerman’s grilling of Dr Doug Jacobson, whose expert testimony he reduced to rubble, with more to come.
Beckerman was, to an extent, able to do this with help from the online P2P communities, with Slashdot and Groklaw to the fore.
Now the Free Software Foundation has stepped in to help establish an Expert Witness Defense Fund for RIAA cases.
The killer is:
Contributions to the fund are entirely tax deductible.
Donors, says the FSF, will also get a listing on our ‘Thank GNUs’ web page for donations of $500 or more (if desired), the satisfaction of supporting the defense of the RIAA lawsuits and, definitely more importantly, the deep and heartfelt thanks of not only the P2P community, but also RIAA victims who before this innovation were forced to watch the likes of Jacobson attempt to snow technically ignorant judges with junk science.
Says Beckerman on Recording Industry vs The People:
1. The sole use of the funds will be to pay fees and/or expenses of technical expert witnesses, forensic examiners, and other technical consultants assisting individuals named as defendants in non-commercial, peer-to-peer file sharing cases brought by the RIAA, EMI, SONY BMG, Vivendi Universal, and Warner Bros. Records, and their affiliated companies, such as Interscope, Arista, UMG, Fonovisa, Motown, Atlantic, Priority, and others.
2. The Fund will be advised by Ray Beckerman, the author of Recording Industry vs. The People, along with a group of selected attorneys acting as advisors. These attorneys will submit payment requests to the Fund, based upon their views as to which cases are most deserving of assistance, and in what at amounts, and at what time.
3. Among the criteria to be considered in making recommendations to the Fund will be the following:
A. The importance of the case to critical legal issues.
B. The demonstrated commitment of the defendant, and/or of the defendant’s attorney if the defendant has an attorney, to seeing his or her case through to conclusion, and to fighting for important legal issues.
C. The facts and circumstances of the particular case.
D. The level of investment made by the defendant, and/or by the defendant’s attorney if the defendant has an attorney, in time, money, and labor, in defending the case.
E. The legal posture of the case.
F. The need for assistance.
G. The need for technical expertise in the case.
H. The quality and commitment of technical expertise which may have been contributed to the case.
I. The competing needs of other cases.
J. And other similar factors.
4. Defendants, or attorneys representing defendants, who request funding for experts or technical consultants, should send requests by email to Ray Beckerman, the subject field reading “Technical Expert Funding Request”.
So don’t just stay tuned —- DONATE!
Here again is the link: https://www.fsf.org/associate/riaa
Jon Newton - p2pnet
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for the download, and here for details. Click here or here to learn how to by-pass censorship in your area.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Can I get a Huzzah?
November 19th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
my next job will be paying me upwards of 200k a year with little to no expenses. i plan to donate around 2-5k a month to this fund
November 19th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Also: Down with the MafIAA!
November 19th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
It’s about time somebody did something to stop this legalized extortion.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Hillbilly, do you have to extort your boss to get paid for the work you do? If your boss took your work and simply refused to pay, would you be extorting your boss to take legal action that tried to get you properly paid?
The world’s gone mad. Anything that can be stolen, now apparently must be free. I hope the RIAA keeps trying to get us paid properly. My income is down to less than half since 2004 and falling. We can’t figure out how to sell our music. More to the point, perhaps the internet should find a way to take YOUR check each week. I wonder if you’d feel guilty trying to get paid for your workweek, then.
I doubt it. You all have moralities that take on the shape of the container of the day. Today’s shape? Online theft. You have no principles. It’s FINE as long as its not YOU being harmed. The lure of something for nothing has created thieves for all of human history. Your thieving is nothing new. Only the medium is.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Hollow statistics mean nothing. “My income is down to less than half since 2004 and falling” - what was it to begin with?
Maybe the RIAA is ripping you off - maybe they’re using all of this so-called piracy as an excuse.
You want to know how to sell your music - it’s really simple. Give it to people for the price they’re willing to pay. MOST people would be glad to give you *something* for the tunes, they want to support their favorite artists so they can continue to enjoy the music. However, if it’s too expensive, they won’t pay you because they feel like they’re getting ripped off.
And RIPPED OFF is what the RIAA has been doing to all of us for years. When CD’s came out they were $16 each… The prices were supposed to drop as technology, etc. got better… They never did. Consumers got assraped for years. Now we’re returning the favor.
I’d suggest that you start putting out clips of your music - 1 min each - which actually demonstrate some decent part of the song - not just some bullshit 1 minute “warm up beginning” and at the end say “Hey - for the whole song, no DRM, high-quality bitrate, come to my website… Low cost songs available”…
Here’s my pricing structure too:
$1 brand new - to 6 mos on market
$.75 for 6 mos to 1 yr on market
$.50 for 1 yr to 5 years on market
$.25 for 5 to 10 years on market
$.10 for 10+ years on market…
So if you want to keep your income high, you have to keep producing new product - just like copyright is supposed to work. And you still get something decent for residuals over time as well. As a bigger bonus - so-called piracy will drop because people will shell out $.10 for the song they lost on their hard drive (or whatever) rather than going to their friend and asking for a copy (who will then say “buy it you cheap bastard! it’s ten cents!”).
p2p is free advertising… use it to your advantage and free yourself of the RIAA - all they do is make crappy loans at crappy rates….
November 20th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Just kidding this actually is a spam message
November 20th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Realist obviously doesn’t work in the industry and has no comprehension of the cost to return ratio of new work. It’s one thing for technology to change the distribution model; quite another to facilitate larceny. The recording industry over the years built an expensive infrastructure of facilities and touring equipment, producers, A&R men, musicians, arrangers, conductors, public relations and marketing folks, sound engineers, graphics, we all need to be paid…and they went out and they found great artists who were NOBODY’S until the talented people working for the record labels guided them. In a civilized culture we pay the price or we pass, but nobody with a brain justifies theft but a criminal. Your pricing structure wouldn’t keep me in guitar picks and you don’t know what you are talking about.
You have your facts wrong, too. 62% of Radioheads legal downloads paid nothing, and 100% of their illegal downloads paid nothing, that over 80% freeloader rate. I’m a studio and tour guy and 70% of my income is royalty from the albums I’ve played on. My yearly income is just over half what it was, my wife works and we are living on savings for now. Every time you steal an album you fuck me and my family. The best thing Congress and the industry can do is retain copyright regs, enforce them vigorously and raise punishment until the larceny stops. That’s exactly what is happening—the Democrats are leading the way– and you can bet no new music will be invested in until this bullshit stops. Who invests hundreds of thousands to get a band going when assholes like you suggest pennies a track? Maybe YOU should work for pennies. What industry survives this kind of systematic looting?
You are killing new music and braying out your ass. You’ll see.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
It’s hard to comprehend the logic when an otherwise intelligent person says they were “assraped” for years while paying whatever the cost was knowingly and willingly. You COULD have simply not made the purchases, right? Music is not medical care or food. There’s a disconnect of intelligence here that doesn’t ring true. Everyone knows that in a capitalist system, we vote with our purchases or not, but with respect sir, we do not steal. That is lowlife. If we want the price of cars to come down, we don’t buy them until the cost softens, but we certainly don’t STEAL them. If the automotive industry was beset with a thieving frenzy like this right off the lot, where does the R&D money come for next years models? THAT’s why new music will eventually fade under this new distribution of rampant theft. The very people who claim to love music are destroying it.
Look at it this way: If this were the nation’s supermarkets being systematically looted daily and the farmers going unpaid, any political party with a respect for the law and a conscience–Democrats or not— would enact legislation to place armed guards in every supermarket and require the food be PURCHASED. PAID for. The food is not there to be stolen, sir, it’s for SALE. The RIAA/FBI/CONGRESS are doing the best they can for musicians everywhere. Downloaders really are freeloaders. REAL music fans have always put their money where their mouth is. The rest of you are rubbish.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
He’s right you know. Music was invented by the music industry, and if that fails, there will be no more music. Humankinds musical talents will instantly dry up as soon as people can’t make millions of dollars on it.
I intend to donate to this fund, and if that means I will have fewer dollars to go towards CDs, then so be it.
November 20th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I think they put out too many shitty CDs by any new artists then can get their hands on and expect the consumer to pay $16 for a CD. If it’s good people will pay for it, if it’s not then they won’t. Why would someone put out $16 for a CD that they only listen to it once. It’s rare that a CD of 12 songs being all good, most likely you get 2 to 3 songs or so that one may say it’s good. SO they are really charging $16 for about 3 songs. Even well know artists suffers from fluke albums. Those 30 secs of sampling are crap like Realist says. Record label determines which song are “top hits” before the album release anyways
November 20th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Aaron, I think you are smarter than that. Music will always be made. But Radiohead was FAMOUS after the industry publicized them for 10 years and STILL almost nobody paid anything and those that did paid barely 50 cents a track. For RADIOHEAD. How’s a little band supposed to get started? NOBODY is willing to pay while it can be stolen.
The next “Radiohead” is playing in a bar somewhere and they may even have a webpage to offer their stuff. But they can’t afford studio time or a producer. They certainly can’t get the money up to record. Not professionally. They can’t afford the PR campaign that breaks them out. No label is going to back them if they can’t actually SELL anything. And they certainly can’t tour. WHO pays to see bands that don’t even have an album out? The next Radiohead”, and YOU’LL never hear about them. Never, because they have no money behind them. That’s the point.
If you are so smart, why not offer up a paying model that actually DOES keep new music coming. Right now the best minds in the industry know perfectly well, “If its good, people will pay for it.” is one big lie. So you tell me smartass. How do YOU intend to learn about new music when the web is littered with gah-zillions of garbage bands and no infrastructure to support the truly good ones? Do you really—seriously—think “word of mouth” over years and years will spread the word like a $1.2 million dollar ad campaign?
You don’t understand basic business either. Maybe you really AREN’T that smart.
November 20th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
So, you’ll donate to an organization that supports copyright infringement but you won’t simply pay for what you take and eliminate this whole mess in the first place?
You people are fucked in the head.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
FriendOfMusic, Jonathan Coulton seems to be doing quite well for him self. He even quit his day job some time ago, and he’s still going strong. Just because you don’t think it can happen, doesn’t mean it can’t.
ConscienceCalling, I don’t believe that this project supports copyright infringement. What it will do however is keep average persons accused of copyright infringement from getting run over by the multi-million dollar industry.
So, I ask you: How can you give your money to an organization who has a history of repeatedly harassing people it knows are innocent, ripping off artists, and doing everything it can to erode the rights of consumers?
I believe we are in the middle of a revolution, seeking to overthrow the current ruling power (RIAA) and replace it with a government more friendly to its citizens (customers). Unfortunately, revolutions are messy things, and there are always innocent casualties (artists). That’s just the nature of war. Big evil governments (corporations) don’t give up power easily, and some people are bound to get hurt. However, after the dust settles, the citizens can end up much better off than they were before.
So, should one buy CDs, or support those fighting against the RIAA? It all comes down to the question, whose side are you on?
November 20th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Aaron said “It all comes down to the question, whose side are you on?”
How about the law? Is that a good place to start? Infringers are not being run over by a multi-million dollar industry Aaron, it’s the courts and our legal system. We are not in a “revolution” and you’ve been reading too much Marie Antoinette French history. The recording Industry works like every other industry and their business model is legal whether you like it or not. I’m on the side of the ARTISTS and it would be nice if you were too. But instead you offer your cash to an organization sworn to defend infringers and refer to “messy revolutions” with “innocent casualties” as if they were regrettable collateral damage. This is business you idiot, stealing is not business and war has nothing to do with this. We are family’s with lives and we just want to be paid like everybody else. “That’s just the nature of war.” You sound like fucking Rumsfeld.
First, the RIAA is not the recording industry. They are a lobbist taking fees and getting rich from this free for all. You can’t hurt them and not paying doesn’t touch them in the least. They are being PAID well to take this heat and their fees don’t fluctuate with sales.
Second, I’m a working middleclass musician and downloaders are stealing my stuff and really screwing ME in the process, with some asinine romantic notion they are “sticking it to the man.” They aren’t. The RIAA only wins within this battle and the recording industry has very deep pockets. They will lobby Congress and wait this out until the enforcement is so strict and the punishment so draconian that only Joan of fucking Arc would commit suicide by freeloading a copyrighted file. Congress is passing bills left and right. ISP’s are being held accountable, so are university networks. The internet is being ruined. The FBI is blanketing the network and it used to be cool and free. YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW. What choice does the government really have? Do you really think in such adolescent terms that you are going to require the hand of the United States government to enforce only the laws that are popular with students so they can steal their favorite songs? Get real.
If you were genuinely thoughtful and adult about this you’d realize your romantic revolution only happens in Congress, to get the laws changed if you want to steal my stuff and fuck up my life’s work with true impunity. Until then you sound like spoiled Socialist children. “Big evil governments (corporations.)” boo-hoo for God sake. Steal it if you want, Aaron, but suck it up when you get caught and you will. THAT MUCH is inevitable. Then YOUR life is fucked up, too, and you’ve no one to blame but yourself. Like FriendOfMusic said, REAL music fans have always put their money where their mouth is” and downloaders are freeloaders.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Radiohead is beside the point. The point is that the RIAA will take you down whether you are guilty or not, hence, they should be fought.
However, if you guys want to talk about Radiohead, lets do so. Did Radiohead lower their costs enough to make millions on those that did pay (despite those that didn’t)? I think they did. The Wall Street Journal actually ran an opinion piece saying that they were making too much money.
These music industry wisdom posts are useless. They you just enough information to be misinformed.
A reasonable post on Radiohead would take into account their costs, their revenues, their advertising benefits (in other words the intangible asset created through pr), the pleasure of avoiding the regular music industry and a meaningful measure of the risk they took by incuring those costs without knowing who would buy. This measure would have to then be compared to the return on invested capital expected in projects of similar risk. After those calculations are made, one can determine whether the millions they did make were adequate to justify the business model. (and don’t forget to include depreciation on their equipment and taxes when determining relevant cash flows)
Please respond Gregory and Friendofmusic, I’d love to know how you estimate those cash flows, the relevant cost of capital (determined by the business risk) and the depreciation rate on the equipment used (which effects replacement and taxes).
November 20th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
What is this fake discussion? Shut up, please!
Music has been distorted by the “music industry” in a way that they decide which music reach the people, the quality of the music is not a factor. And the “artists” are no longer doing any piece of art, they just do whatever make a dollar in return. “Artists” that do it as a job, without passion. There are very few real artists in the world.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Once again, the point is that innocent people are railroaded.
However, Gregory, it might be that people no longer want your music. Could you tell me your bands name so I can listen and find out if you suck?
November 20th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Gregory said:
“How about the law? Is that a good place to start?”
Not when the law is wrong, or being abused by the RIAA.
“The recording Industry works like every other industry and their business model is legal whether you like it or not.”
Many other industries might disagree with you there; how many industries make a habit of suing their customers, single moms, little kids, ETC.? Also, does legal = moral?
“I’m on the side of the ARTISTS and it would be nice if you were too.”
I think most people are on the side of the artists, as I am. The difference of opinion comes from what we believe will be most beneficial for the artists. You seem to believe that propping up the current business model will be healthy for music. I disagree. However, in addition, I an on the side of the consumers.
“But instead you offer your cash to an organization sworn to defend infringers and refer to “messy revolutions” with “innocent casualties” as if they were regrettable collateral damage.”
So, you seem to be saying that everyone who is called an infringer by the RIAA is guilty as charged. They deserve no opportunity to defend them selves? The RIAA has the big bucks, the person being sued probably doesn’t, and so whether they are innocent or not, the RIAA is likely to win by virtue of the fact that they can hire all the experts they want, and the accused can hire none.
This organization is not handing out get-out-of-jail-free cards. The only thing they are doing is giving accused persons a fair chance to prove their innocents in court, something which the RIAA seems to want to deny them.
And yes, I do find the current situation regrettable for artists. They’re caught in the middle, and I think the only way they can minimize the damage to themselves is to stand up for the people that pay them, I.E. the customers. Unfortunately, that hasn’t seemed to happen.
“This is business you idiot, stealing is not business and war has nothing to do with this.”
I stand by my analogy. I believe that this fight has many elements which are similar to a war. I won’t get into the argument of stealing verses infringement here. But I would point out that stealing has always been a part of business, but more relevant to our conversation, copyright infringement has always been a part of business.
“We are family’s with lives and we just want to be paid like everybody else.”
I can appreciate that. But I would ask, are the needs of those persons wrongly accused by the RIAA any less valid? I want you to be able to make a living. I want every hard worker to be able to make a living. But some people can and some people can’t. Some artists will find a means to thrive in this market, and others will not. I just think we disagree on whether or not your ability to make a living is a result of downloading.
“First, the RIAA is not the recording industry.”
Do I really need to explain this? If the big recording companies disappeared, so would the RIAA. You can’t separate one from the other. saying that the RIAA is not the recording industry is like saying that Mark David Chapman didn’t kill John Lennon. Well, its technically true, he didn’t. His bullet did. Yes, but who ultimately controls the bullet?
“Second, I’m a working middleclass musician and downloaders are stealing my stuff and really screwing ME in the process, with some asinine romantic notion they are “sticking it to the man.” They aren’t.”
Are you sure? Could it not in fact be that you are being screwed by outmoded business practices and a record company that is spending millions on suing your fans and potential fans?
“The RIAA only wins within this battle”
I don’t see how.
” and the recording industry has very deep pockets. They will lobby
Congress and wait this out until the enforcement is so strict and the punishment so draconian that only Joan of fucking Arc would commit suicide by freeloading a copyrighted file. Congress is passing bills left and right. ISP’s are being held accountable, so are university networks. The internet is being ruined.”
Ruined by whom? If someone is splashing at a pool party and really annoying the other guests, should the host solve the problem by taking a dump in the pool so no one can swim?
What bills are being passed left and right? Which ISPs have been held accountable for downloading?
“The FBI is blanketing the network and it used to be cool and free. YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW. What choice does the government really have? Do you really think in such adolescent terms that you are going to require the hand of the United States government to enforce only the laws that are popular with students so they can steal their favorite songs? Get real.”
No one knows how this war will ultimately end, but to answer your question, the government has a few choices. It can do nothing, it can be the policeman of the RIAA, or it can change the law. I don’t think anyone can say with any amount of certainty which will ultimately happen, though I have my opinion, and, unsurprisingly, it doesn’t seem to coincide with yours. Just like no one knew what the government would ultimately do regarding prohibition.
“If you were genuinely thoughtful and adult about this you’d realize your romantic revolution only happens in Congress”
To get back to the original topic, it can also happen in the courts, and that’s what this is all about.
“if you want to steal my stuff and fuck up my life’s work with true impunity.”
I am genuinely curious. Do you believe that a world in which sharing music is completely legal is a world in which artists can’t make a living? Is there no other business model that can work for you?
“Until then you sound like spoiled Socialist children. “Big evil governments (corporations.)”boo-hoo for God sake.”
Lol. You’re right, that did sound a little socialist. Would you be shocked to learn that I really don’t have a problem with most corporations, even big ones? I just don’t like evil ones. I guess I’m funny that way.
“Steal it if you want, Aaron, but suck it up when you get caught and you will. THAT MUCH is inevitable.”
The odds are strongly against it, but I’m prepared for even that remote possibility.
“Then YOUR life is fucked up, too, and you’ve no one to blame but yourself.”
Perhaps.
“Like FriendOfMusic said, REAL music fans have always put their money where their mouth is” and downloaders are freeloaders.”
Perhaps. Or perhaps people just don’t like paying other people to sue them. Perhaps by calling fans freeloaders and thieves, you are alienating them your selves.
Instead of defending a failing business model, especially one which has screwed artists over for years, would it not make more sense to attempt to generate a new one? When the car came along, a lot of wheelwrights fought just as hard as you are now. However, the smart ones became auto mechanics.
Folks in the music industry (I believe, or maybe the MPAA) have said that “its hard to compete with free,” (I’m paraphrasing). My response to that would be “tell that to the bottled water industry.”
Finally, would you be surprised to learn that I would like to pay for my music? I really would. But I am not prepared to pay what the industry is asking, nor am I prepared to support the industry in any way. This may be hurting the artists I enjoy in the short term, but I feel by propping up the industry as it stands, I am doing artists more harm in the long run than I am by downloading. It may just be the lesser of two evils.
November 21st, 2007 at 12:12 am
If you think a band can’t record its own album on the cheap, then your insane. Any band with about $2000 and a fair good sound proof room can make a home studio these days. The cost of editing software and computers to do it are dirt cheap. I know that even some well known bands have recorded stuff for records on their freaking tour bus and you can’t tell me that wasn’t cheap to do, and it sounds good enough for 99% of the people out there. This whole high cost of making albums is crap. Also a true musician plays because of his love of it, and not because of a paycheck. Taking away the few million dollar rock stars won’t cause music to dry up, any more than closing art galleries has made painters quit painting. The musicians got along fine long before there was a music industry and they will get along fine long after the music industry stabs itself it in the heart.
Also ask any newly signed band who pays for all that publicity, and everything else that goes into making a record. Its called an advance against the artist’s earnings. Most bands are lucky if they break even on a big record deal, a few bands have ended up owing the record companies for making their records. The average band makes about $0.05 (5 cents) per CD/record sold. Now tell me again how bad it is for bands, who make most of their money from touring? The only real musicians that make any money are the studio musicians who are in on the scam with the record labels who get paid reguardless of how a record does, and aren’t liable for any of the costs involved in promoting a record. The big names and studio musicians are the ones who cry foul and don’t want their gravy train to end.
November 21st, 2007 at 1:23 am
Hey I worked in the concert industry and no one was worse to the artist or stole more from them than the record company s! So put that in your pipe and smoke it. Pro bands isn’t pro record company’s at all!
November 21st, 2007 at 2:33 am
ducks, wind, dude. all we are, yo.
far bigger fish to fry kids…people are stahvin’..
backpack midscale explosive devices are currently being sold for pretty decent prices in countries no longer in the top running for economic status, politicians with wide bathroom stances are tapping their feet eagerly in a stall somewhere whilst pollinating family values next day…and we fiddle and talk about music?
Think about truly grand things, like instead of arguing w/ each other, how delightful you negative ninnies would feel to cook that person who disagrees with you and enjoy their liver w/ a fine Chianti.
there’s magical truths waiting for you starting with your taste buds once you see what life can really offer. yum!
November 21st, 2007 at 7:04 am
Aaron said:
“Also, does legal = moral?”
No. Not always. But morality varies widely from culture to culture while law is specifically written and constantly adjusted to reflect the values of the society it represents. Unless you intend to overthrow the United States government, citing your concept of morality as justification to circumvent law gets you nowhere but in serious trouble. If you want the same protections under the law, you must respect them and seek to change them properly. Even you know that.
“I am genuinely curious. Do you believe that a world in which sharing music is completely legal is a world in which artists can’t make a living?
Fair question. So far the answer seems to be no, not if money doesn’t change hands at some point. At some point the “purchaser” must somehow pay and the seller must somehow receive. We see no trend towards any model that pays as long as it can be obtained at no cost. ISP’s can identify copyrighted material and there is talk in Congress for putting the purchase price right on your ISP bill each month with the evidence that you took it, whether you like it or not. It’s also very possible that the internet will be blanketed with advertising to pay for this so that it becomes a pathetic digital version of radio or television. Big brother will step into a crime wave, that much is certain, and we all had higher hopes than that. Your generations legacy to the internet may very well be that since we could not rely upon your sense of fairplay, armed guards were placed at all the entry and egress portals to limit daily looting. So sad.
Your general arguments are thoughtful but a few are misleading, Aaron. The wheelwright being eclipsed by the automobile is especially off the mark. That was totally fair, ethical and inevitable. The marketplace simply had no more use for the wheel and it properly faded. My “wheel” is the music I make and bring to market. My wheel has not been eclipsed and nothing has taken its place, in fact everyone wants it just the same as always and do not forget, it could always be stolen, too. Always. Only ONE THING has really changed, the missing societal pressure to not publicly shoplift it. Now we shoplift at home and the odds of being punished have fallen so many now view taking without paying as an acceptable risk. That’s really all that has changed if you think about it. The government allowed the wheelwright to go out just as it should, but it will not likely allow digital shoplifting to become a new business model when so many people are harmed by it. We’ll see.
The government is also not the “policeman for the RIAA”. Any industry being systematically looted via technology would expect and garner the same attention and eventual protections as entertainment is currently receiving. This is about movies and books, too. Laws of accountability are being enacted in Congress as we discuss this and the ISP’s are beginning to be tollgated everywhere because of this free for all and that’s a shame.
You asked:
“Are the needs of those persons wrongly accused by the RIAA any less valid? Oh, absolutely not. Everyone is fully entitled to full protection under the law, you, me, even the recording industry. The court system has moved at a glacial pace precisely to be fair to all parties involved. This has been going on since NAPSTER was found illegal a long time ago. Subpoena power was achieved via a court case all of its own. Valid evidence has held up in case after case after case. The RIAA has been so effective precisely because they have been meticulous in due process and unlike the downloaders, they are pursuing this along strict lines. People are complaining the same way we complain about speed traps on the highway, that’s all, and you can pay your fine or take your chances in court there, too. It’s almost exactly the same and single Mothers get speeding tickets, so I don’t see your point. Shoplifters are no longer “customers” Aaron. The RIAA is not suing our “customers”. Our CUSTOMERS go to iTUNES. By comparison to the legal work of the RIAA on our behalf, downloaders are like rioters smashing store windows in a self-entitled frenzy. Why do you think Congress is listening?
Ironically, Aaron, the actual history of the RIAA has been quite thoughtful and very delicate. They invested millions out-of-pocket in education about how copyright works. They issued only warnings for years but very few listened. Conviction and punishment began very, very lightly and has been in synch with the volume of the stolen goods all along, just like any other crime wave. Jammie Thomas received meticulous due process every step of the way and she chose as her right to see what a jury thought. Her conviction and her $225,000 fine was by a jury of her peers, not some vigilante judge. Downloaders understand that there are effective means to change the laws just as there are ways to purchase ethically. Jammie just wanted possession for free and for the moment, she found a means to do that and so she took it without paying until she got caught. And she was punished for it by a jury. It’s not that complicated.
And you said:
“I do find the current situation regrettable for artists. They’re caught in the middle, and I think the only way they can minimize the damage to themselves is to stand up for the people that pay them, I.E. the customers. Is there no other business model that can work for you?”
We have not seen one, no. In literal fact, we no longer HAVE “customers” and they DON’T stand up for us. Not so far, anyway.
Prince tried and was roundly shafted. He actually believed his fans would support him directly if he cut the industry out of the middle but instead his fans ransacked everything he offered online for sale for almost 7 years until he realized the new ethical climate we are in. Google his activities now. He feels scaldingly betrayed by his “fans”. We all do.
Radiohead is another example I mentioned earlier. That band and their management are trying to put a positive spin on a remarkable and humbling disaster. Radiohead worked their ass off for well over 22 months and created a pretty damn good album and to everyone’s surprise, THEIR fans fucked them, too, publicly and famously. Anyone who points to the million plus they earned online for almost 2 years work has to first ignore the 7 or 8 million they would have earned under a signing bonus model and the usual $1 or $1.25 a unit. Divide it back after tax and the guys in Radiohead were paid like high school retail shop clerks. It’s not even a living wage for five guys after almost 2 years work and within the industry, they are embarrassed.
But they are already quite wealthy. Perhaps more to the point of Radiohead, Aaron, they were only able to even try this after the “evil industry” invested millions in them for well over a decade making them wealthy, international superstars. To many of us, what Radiohead tried to do after accepting the industry benefits reeks of hypocrisy and they surely got what they deserved. They’ll make a bit of it up on a tour. New bands who have not enjoyed the industry behind them won’t be so lucky. We won’t be hearing from them at all.
So there is our dilemma.
We make it and sell it and you simply refuse to pay for it as long as their are ways, ethical or not, to get it for nothing. It’s your certainty to your right of complete possession and enjoyment by taking without compensating that is the betrayal and the logical disconnect in your thinking. I live music, I love music, it’s been my life for a long and until now, happy career. Now my wife and daughter and I are being cheated everyday. And probably, sadly, internet tollgates, top-heavy legislation and a drenching of advertising and law enforcement will be the result. We don’t want it. You asked for it. And Prince knows you better now.
November 21st, 2007 at 7:59 am
Blah blah blah. The funny thing is, the fans are giving the musicians a FAR WORSE DEAL than the recording industry ever did.
Hahahahahahaha.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I can’t seem to post comments more than a few lines, so can’t follow up.
November 21st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Here’s a link to my reply: http://pastebin.com/m4798c70a
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:26 am
Are RIAA attorneys allowed to refer to “copyright infringement” as “theft” in court? Could a technical argument be made against it? Like by arguing the illegality of referring to one crime by the name of another crime.
November 25th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
To Friend of Music and Gregory:
Am I a freeloader because I only want to buy one CD instead of having to buy two or three so it works on all my disk players, my CD ROM and my CD player? Am I a freeloader because I want to be able to make my own mix from music I bought, just for me to be able to listen to? Am I a freeloader because I feel that once I buy the CD, I should have the right to listen to it as I see fit? According to your soulmates at the RIAA, I am one. Even though I’m spending the money, because I don’t want to have to spend $50 instead of $17 so one CD can play in all my players. Well guess what people, if not wanting to go bankrupt listening to music makes me a freeloader, I guess I just won’t buy anything or listen to anything. And I’ll tell all my friends and start a drive. By making someone like me a freeloader, you lose all meaning of the word.