RIAA lies and disinformation: II
p2pnet.net news:- The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is currently on a bloody minded rampage against students across America, but it’s not above cynically using them to tout its lying message that file sharing is ruining its owners, Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG.
Like most of the material emanating from the RIAA and employees such as Mitch Bainwol, Cary Sherman, Jonathan Lamy and Jenny Engebretsen, that’s pure hogwash.
To digress, as I posted on Wednesday, my regular morning duties include deleting the latest spam comment arrivals. Like the RIAA, the spammers are sneaky bastards and they send their garbage to stories going way back thinking I won’t notice them.
Today, while I was cruising through the database, a genuine post caught my eye. It was submitted yesterday by former (and for all I know, current) student Justin DeRosa who, under the better late than never heading, picks up the thread on an article I’d featured, negatively, almost 2 years ago.
Published as a San Jose Mercury News special, his piece was headlined, DOWNLOAD DANGERS: IT’S EASY, INSTANT, ALMOST ADDICTIVE, BUT FILE-SHARING CAN COST YOU PLENTY.
It was brought to my attention by an angry local reader who’d emailed, “Ostensibly written by a local high school student, it was the only item on a full page usually given over to teen topics and (again - ostensibly) written by and for teens. The article floated on top of a highly professional graphic created by two staff artists. The graphic was a stylized ‘Crime Scene’, replete with yellow tape warning not to cross, etc.”
The RIAA, MPAA, IFPI, BPI, BSA and all the other entertainment and software cartel ‘trade’ organizations, “drone on and on like dripping taps, ceaselessly spouting their tired messages that file sharing is ruining their multi-billion dollar businesses and that they’re very reluctantly being forced to sue their customers into buying ‘product’,” I said, going on:
“They own the mainstream print and electronic media and consequently, their messages, and the messages of their fellow corporations, bolstered by media-carried PR pieces repeated by the gullible, appear everywhere as though they emenate from reliable sources. And most people have been meticulously trained to believe that if it’s in the papers or on the air, it must be for real.”
Among other things, in an observation that would have done credit to an RIAA scribe, as I remarked at the time, “Over the years, the RIAA has sued thousands of people for illegal file-sharing,” said DeRosa. “Almost all the defendants in these cases have settled out of court for thousands of dollars. Even if the file-sharer were to go to trial and win, he or she would still have to pay lawyers’ fees. Thus, simply being targeted could mean losing thousands of dollars.”
But, “Actually, relatively few of the defendants have ’settled’,” I noted, pointing out a reality that’s as true now as it was then.
Back to the future, says DeRosa in his belated response to this now somewhat elderly story:
As the author of the Mercury article, I must say that you’re quite an idiot. You take one example of a situation that rarely happens (an artist giving away his work for free) and centralize your whole argument around it. Distributing copywritten works without the author’s consent is against federal law, regardless of what you’d like to think. I personally think it’s bullshit, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong about it being illegal.
If the author distributes his own work onto P2P, then he’s giving copyright consent. Duh. This never happens though, and if it always did then these lawsuits wouldn’t be happening, because artists would be OK with kids downloading their work for free. Surprise, they aren’t, and they don’t like it when you do it. The RIAA is in fact being a huge faggot about enforcing copyright laws, but they’re a business and they’re trying to stop losing money to the internet (and failing). In a free market society this is what you should come to expect from any corporation: Assholery.
Still, P2P users (myself included) who download music are doing something wrong, so get off your high horse about getting free music and warez off the internet. Regardless of the corruption of the RIAA, we still shouldn’t be doing this shit you self-righteous assholes.
Anyone who actually read the article closely can detect the implicit disapproval for the RIAA, but everyone jumps on the dick anyway saying it’s RIAA propaganda because it tells the truth about copyright law. Fags. I love how you all claim misinformation about this crap but have no evidence to state the contrary.
In his original story, DeRosa also makes a series of statements headed The Lowdown on What’s Legal in which he says:
Here’s a summary of what’s legal and not, according to the Music United Coalition, a music-industry group:
WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL
Uploading copyrighted files (such as music MP3s) over an instant Messenger or a P2P file-sharing network
Downloading copyrighted materials you don?t own with peer-to-peer Software.
Burning CDs of copyrighted material and distributing them, even for Free.
Hosting a copyrighted file for download on a personal Web site.
WHAT’S PROBABLY OK DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES
Burning personal backup CDs or making cassettes of albums you own to preserve the original copy.
Importing music from CDs you own onto your hard drive for personal use.
Putting legal music copies on a portable music player such as an iPod or a mini-disc player.
WHAT IS COMPLETELY LEGAL
Purchasing MP3s from licensed online stores such as iTunes or subscribing to a legal service such as Napster or Rhapsody.
Downloading royalty-free or non-copyrighted music and other files.
As I observed then, “The Music United Coalition DeRosa cites as an authority is in fact yet another cartel propaganda organization.”
Said another Readers Write:
WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL
- Uploading copyrighted files (such as music MP3s) over an instant Messenger or a P2P file-sharing network
- Downloading copyrighted materials you don?t own with peer-to-peer Software.
- Burning CDs of copyrighted material and distributing them, even for Free.
- Hosting a copyrighted file for download on a personal Web site.
This claim is simply, absolutely false. It’s bogus legal advice, and in my opinion, someone could/should get in more than a little bit of trouble for making it.
What about music that the artist chooses to make available via p2p, for people to disseminate as they wish?
Copyrighted? check.
You don’t own it? check.
Via p2p? check.
Burning a CD from them? check.
I have real doubts that this is a case of polemic sloppiness on the part of the RIAA. Rather, I think it’s a continuation of the RIAA’s campaign to shut down an efficent, alternative means for artists to distribute their music to a mass audience. It’s about a group of mega-corporations filing frivolous lawsuits against those who aren’t in a position to defend themselves in order to maintain their market. In other words, what the RIAA is doing is itself illegal, and certain people employed by them should pay bigtime for it.
Their minor caveat under “what is completely legal” regarding “downloading royalty-free music” simply doesn’t make up for this kind of misinformation. They’re trying to shut down p2p, period.
No wonder the RIAA’s using “student journalists” as a front to disseminate such false propaganda.
I asked the EFF’s (Electronic Frontier Foundation) Jason Schultz for his thoughts. He said:
The simplest thing to say is that this person is not a lawyer and appears to have no legal training,” said Schultz. “Nor has he identified any source for his information.
Thus, believing his take on the law would be like trusting him to diagnose whether or not we have cancer or heart problems without a medical degree.
I’m sure Mr DeRosa is well-meaning, but I think if he wants to contribute to the conversation about file sharing, he should report on what he and other students are doing factually and not opine on the state of the law.
To do otherwise is misleading and poor journalism.
Stay tuned.
Jon Newton - p2pnet
Also See:
rampage against students - Answer or else, RIAA tells universities, June 6, 2007
deleting the latest spam - Putting spam back in the can, June 6, 2007
2 years ago - RIAA lies and disinformation, September 27, 2005
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local politicians. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance. Don’t just complain. Do something!
June 10th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Hes completly wrong…
P2P isn’t legal to download copyrighted works, that much is true. However its also not legal for the riaa to bring a lawsuit against someone for doing so. (ref us copyrightlaw sec 1008)
July 18th, 2007 at 4:15 am
How can I be “completely wrong” and also right about the illegality of downloading copywritten works? You dumbasses never fail to impress. See one of the perks about writing for a real publication like the Mercury news is access to important resources, like lawyers. A lawyer was consulted about the accuracy of this article before publication, which he approved. But you know Jon I’m glad you went to such a credible source on this issue, a P2P cartel mob boss is exactly who I would ask “Is my music stealing legal?” This Schultz guy sounds like a total douchebag; notice how he didn’t address jack shit except for the writer? That’s called ad hominen, argument against the man. Fuck him.
Listen though: Fuck both the RIAA and the self righteous P2P assholes on the other end of the spectrum. You’re just as bad as the RIAA in that you distort the law to your tastes just as much as they do, and you’re three times as self-congratulating.
I almost can’t get over how delusional you all are about what you’re doing. You’re not some fucking revolutionaries for getting free music and movies. Let me lay it out for you how capitalism works: people exchange services for money, with which they can purchase others’ services. Copyrights are put in place to make sure that people are paid for their services, and so others don’t use the result of their efforts for their own personal gain. You guys would be the first group, the ones who get services without paying for them. For some reason you idiots have tricked yourselves into believing that what you’re doing is not only legal, but beneficial to the industries you steal from. “INCREASED DISTRIBUTION LOL!” Shut the fuck up, it’s distribution they aren’t being compensated for.
No one is “forcing” you to pay for the product of music, as no baker is forcing you to pay for bread. If you want bread, you can buy it. If you want music, you can buy it. If you don’t want to pay for either you can steal them, but don’t give yourself a fucking pat on the back for it.
July 18th, 2007 at 4:39 am
Well reasoned, articulate comment posts are always such a pleasure to read ;p
Cheers!
July 19th, 2007 at 5:01 am
Any time sugar