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.

Hahahahahahaha.

“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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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?

You people are fucked in the head.

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.

I intend to donate to this fund, and if that means I will have fewer dollars to go towards CDs, then so be 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.