It’s illegal to rip CDs: RIAA
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s RIAA is now trying to claim making MP3s from personal music files and putting them in a shared folder is in and of itself a copyright infringement!
On page 15 of its brief on Atlantic v Howell:
“It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies … Virtually all of the sound recordings … are in the ‘.mp3′ format for his and his wife’s use … Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies’…”
So posts Recording Industry vs The People, quoting from the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) online document.
Interestingly, the fact RIAA ‘expert witness’ Doug Jacobson’s abilities have been seriously called into question notwithstanding, the Big 4 ‘trade’ organisation is still using him to present testimony.
“Each of the 11 sound recordings on Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Complaint were stored in the .mp3 format in the shared folder on Defendant’s computer hard drive, and each of these eleven files were actually disseminated from Defendant’s computer. (See Jacobson Decl. ¶ 6 and Exhibit 1 thereto.). says the court paper.’
Definitely stay tuned.
Also See:
Recording Industry vs The People – RIAA files supplemental brief in Atlantic v. Howell; argues personal copies ripped to computer are unauthorized, December 10, 2007
Want to help p2pnet stay online? Please click here.
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
December 11th, 2007 at 10:01 am
lol! ill rip, convert, pee on, sh*t on, break, give away my CDs all i want. Its my right, its everyones right.
If they want their CDs to stay their property they cant sell them, when they sell the CD they transfer ownership over the product to the consumer, the consumer now owns the product he has payed for, and he does what he wants with his product.
The same goes for every item that is sold, be it a car, a PC or a table. you can give them away, you can sell them if you no longer want them, you deside what you do with your possesions.
If i want to rebuild my car to a monster truck im allowed to do so, if i want to convert my CD to Mp3’s im allowed so, if i want to make my swiming pool into a desert with tiny LEGO soldiers in it, i can do so.. (i havent btw), if i want to convert my pillow to a flying machine i can damn do so! even if its impossible.
Their pulling **** from ther a**es imo
December 11th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Sorry RIAA the court said otherwise when you tried to kill portable mp3 players (like the Ipod):
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=riaa+diamond+multimedia&btnG=Google+Search
December 11th, 2007 at 10:44 am
You can rip your cd’s but you can’t place them in a shared folder. if you want to sell an original CD you can but you MUST delete all ditial copies of that CD. when you sell a car you don’t sell a copy of the car AND keep the car. you sell the whole car and all rights to use that car. you can’t buy a cd copy it/rip it and return it to walmart and keep the digital copy. same principle3 with selling a cd privately. it’s not fair use to keep a digital copy and sell the CD while retaining a copy of the music
December 11th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I can however, buy a vine from a nursery, take a cutting, root it, and sell or give it away. I still bought the vine, and now, my friend also has a vine. Doing this is perfectly legal (at the present time). I’m happy to see that possible copyright infringement has not been called, “stealing” by anyone posting comments here.
While copying the vine and its genetic material is not yet illegal, behemoth agricultural corporations such as Monsanto are trying to take even that right away from people. Companies like that are now saying that the code that produces life is now patentable and able to be copyrighted. From whom did these companies license the code with which they play with? From the Creator? IF they did not pay the Creator for the use of His code, where do they get the right to produce a derivative work?
December 11th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
“You can rip your cd’s but you can’t place them in a shared folder.”
Another RIAA troll.
I’ve been coming to this site since it started, or close to it, and I find it encouraging that the labels are now finding it necessary to post comments here.
They must be worried and they should be
December 11th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
“You can rip your cd’s but you can’t place them in a shared folder.”
Blabbity, blah-blah-blah.
By the same logic, I can’t leave my books or magazines lying around the office near the photocopier.
Same damn thing, and people’s habits aren’t going to change.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
“Another RIAA troll.”
Nope. I am just a guy who used to use Frostwire and other P2P app’s a LOT and I would if I felt that
I could get a consistant answer as to it’s legal status for the type of music I would like to download.
I read up on P2P every day and am intrested in a fair and legal solution to the quandry of music and P2P (not p2p use for already legal downloads of indie stuff etc) but P2P for the big label music i enjoy.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
No problem and no confusion if you’re in Canada. Here, download to your heart’s content as long as it’s for your own use.
Of course, Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG are spending a fortune on lobbying and other efforts to try to change things so Canadians can get sued for Fair Use along with Americans, and other people elsewhere.
Meanwhile, your comment DOES read like an RIAA puff-piece
And when was the last time you copied a car?
Cheers!
December 11th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
The problem is when something ephemeral like intellectual work is called intellectual “property” – other problems stem from this.
When you take a car away, the owner no longer enjoys it. When you copy files, the originals are still where they were.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
“When you copy files, the originals are still where they were.”
not according to the cartels. thats stealing and youre a criminal if you do it and youre taking the bread out of the mouths of thousands of starving music industry workers and musicians.
but not lawyers
December 11th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
ask wal-mart if you can buy a CD, copy it and bring back the original. you get a free copy they keep the original? wal-mart doesn’t work like that
December 11th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
It seams like some did not like to car analogy, so I have something for you.
You buy a painting that you like. The painting is very popular, so you want to carry it around with you. Of course you can’t carry the painting around with you because it’s not practical, so you take a photo of the painting and use it as the wallpaper for your PC or Phone.
As time passes, you sell the painting, but keep the wallpaper on your PC/phone. You do not have the gratification of owning the original painting, and the replica that you do own, is not the “real” thing, and thus does not have any value to itself- you can’t print out a copy of the painting, and try to make money off of it, or it will be a forgery.
So, by having a wallpaper of a painting that you once owned, are you damaging the artist? Does the selling of the painting mean that you must destroy not only all copies of the wallpaper version of the painting along with any other photos that may have the painting visible in the photo?
Now, replace painting with CD/DVD etc… and wallpaper with ripped copy of CD/DVD. Any copy of the original, no matter how good of a copy it is, is still a copy with no monetary worth (unless you try to burn it to a disk, and sell it to a 3rd party- in which, you are finally breaking the law).
food for thought…
Just my two cents
December 11th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
It’s always amazing and discouraging to realize how many morons there are out there downloading and copying with not a clue to what copyright even means, or how it works, or why in fact YOU DON’T “own” the music when you purchase your right to have and enjoy a copy of it. It’s not even remotely like the ownership of a car. What imbeciles. Read the law and do your homework to understand it so you can deliberate here intelligently or just STFU.
It’s enjoyable to watch the RIAA lawyers methodically take you pathetic bunch of pizza delivery boy whiners off to court. It ain’t gonna end with YOU getting the upper hand, THAT’s for sure. Not while the Feds, law enforcement and the RIAA boys are all thinking alike and until you trolls figure out a way to change the law, that’s always gonna be bad for you. Download and don’t get caught? A little pilfered music and an ethical breach. No big deal. BUT. Get caught? Settle up with your checkbook or YOUR life is now in the shitter right where it deserves to be. Sleep tight.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Please wake me up when this bullshit is over.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:18 am
“It ain’t gonna end with YOU getting the upper hand, THAT’s for sure.”
The people have and always will have the upper hand.
No one NEEDS the RIAA… but they sure as hell need everyone else.
If the growing contempt and dwindling profits don’t kill them off, it will come when this generation of harassed and terrorized students become the law makers and judges of tomorrow.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:29 am
Why don’t we just lower the copyright term to one year?
It would end a lot of problems, wouldn’t it?
All of you RIAA trolls will end up with nothing as a result of acting like jerks. Besides, I would like to see HELLywood starve for a while.
I think all of us P2Pers should start to advocate for limiting the copyright to one year. There are more P2Pers out there than there are RIAA lawyers.
December 12th, 2007 at 4:10 am
[quote]
cyberscan Says:
December 11th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I can however, buy a vine from a nursery, take a cutting, root it, and sell or give it away. I still bought the vine, and now, my friend also has a vine. Doing this is perfectly legal [/quote]
actually, no. many varieties of plants are patented and it is illegal to propagate without authorization.
but i agree it is a crock and the whole patent and copyright law is way overkill and should be limited in scope and by time limit with a expiration that is reasonable.
December 12th, 2007 at 6:30 am
Copyright expiration severely limits investment and entreprenurial risktaking, because the payback is too short. Who invests guh-zillions in new ideas without promise of protected profit later on? What are we? Socialists? Do you REALLY want Congress deciding what movies or rock bands are to be funded??
Congress won’t change that law and as this generation of filesharers matures, they too will see the benefit of inducing capitalist creativity through the promise of return on investment. Young people often just don’t see far enough out ahead to comprehend the results of their actions.
I like the French model, instead. The consumer should always have the right to break the law if they see fit and the legal property holders should always have the right to defend their property. Setting up file matching software at the internet service providers is a quick easy step and would slow things marginally compared to all the heavy p2p traffic that is already clogging the network. And you are warned twice, too, TWO WARNINGS if you are infringing. NO nasty surprises. And then you are finally blocked accessing the internet anymore if you can’t stop yourself from breaking the law.
It’s simple. Like everything else, it’s just “behave yourself or be banned”. It’s clean, too. And it’s fair until society figures out a way to compensate creative content over years to eventual profitability without copyright.
December 12th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Mouthbreather said:
“lol! ill rip, convert, pee on, sh*t on, break, give away my CDs all i want. Its my right, its everyones right. If they want their CDs to stay their property they cant sell them, when they sell the CD they transfer ownership over the product to the consumer, the consumer now owns the product he has payed for, and he does what he wants with his product.”
OMFG!! NO WONDER this world is all effed up. What a looneytune. This issue might be a whole lot clearer if people like this would get their heads outta their azzes.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:39 am
@ Sam I Am
Copyrights were intended to protect the artists (musical, literary, etc) from other people claiming the work was their own. It was not intended to provide record companies, lawyers etc with a paycheck. The artists deserve to be respected, acknowledged and compensated for their works of art not these executives and lawyers who had nothing to do with the creation or origin of the works of art. Mark Twain in his wisdom called the publishers pirates, he tried to create a way in order for his works to be kept under his name and his legacy not to be owned by the publishers forever. Copyright is not intended to provide executives and lawyers with million dollar paychecks, luxuries and expense accounts. And that is what this is all about. It is not and never has been about the artists. It is about the execs and lawyers afraid of losing their lifestyle and funding. The artists do not get compensated properly with their royalties and it is a known fact that many artists have had to pay for expensive audits and lawsuits to get their proper royalties.
Get off your dinosaur.. CORRUPT feds, law enforcement, government, lawyers and RIAA and their associates deserve to be stomped into the ground and left to die. It is not moral or something to be proud of to be associated with such people.
btw.. did you not steal that name from a very famous and I am sure copyrighted book?
December 12th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
@Sam: you’re the moron for not thinking deeper about your post. Had you thoroughly thought about it you might have realized two things:
1. “downloading” a song file is not illegal (in America) regardless of what you or the RIAA/MPAA might try to keep pushing on the masses.
2. the “fair use” provision of the Copyright Act clearly and unequivocally states that the PURPOSE for the use of a copyrighted item is what’s important.
3. and just for kicks, there is no law that says “making available for download” is illegal either.
The travesty of all of these extortions/threats/trial is that no one has brought this up yet. I am fully legal to “illegally download a song file” [RIAA words] and publish a website that contains a portion of that song file and even create a derivative work based on that song file (can you say “sampling”?) without paying royalties and without paying the RIAA for doing so. That is the law. Zero ambiguity. Thus, without a trial that seeks the facts behind the REASON a file was downloaded and showing how it was USED illegally, there can be no basis for a lawsuit related to downloading song files. In fact, there is not even standing to file a lawsuit in the first place since there has to be a law broken in order to bring charges. Sheesh. And the Sony Bono Copyright Extension that went into effect was a farce, a travesty of the law, and should never have been allowed to go through except that Disney paid off certain congress members to get it passed to protect their income from the Mickey Mouse empire. That is also a fact.
“He who has the gold makes the rules” (at lease in America)
December 12th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Wow, UrbanLawyer has 2 new aliases.
December 12th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
To Keepn it real who said:
Copyrights were intended to protect the artists (musical, literary, etc) from other people claiming the work was their own.
This is perhaps the most ill informed statement made in this forum so far. Really folks, you have to understand the law if you are going to break it or discuss it, or both. Copyright had and has virtually NOTHING to do with unauthorized claimants. That’s an entirely different section of the law. Copyright deals with licensing, the one-time license to posses and enjoy according to very clearly defined limitations. You don’t strictly “own” something that you purchase a copy of. Is this hard for you? Copyright limits duplication, it addresses unauthorized distribution, it is precisely why filesharing is and has always been illegal under the law. Why do you think the courts are listening?
(The person who wrote: 1. “downloading” a song file is not illegal (in America) regardless of what you or the RIAA/MPAA might try to keep pushing on the masses…….is clueless, and doesn’t understand the intent nor the limitations of copyright at all. Stop posting. Go back to school. Learn something, anything, before you type again.
“It was not intended to provide record companies, lawyers etc with a paycheck.”
Record company executives, lawyers et all are all working in support of the artists. The artists hire and sign with THEM but nobody puts a gun to the artists head to sign and agree to share profits. They sign because it has always been in their best interests and they recognize this. And you know what? After the RADIOHEAD debacle, they realize this even more clearly now. RADIOHEAD was roundly fucked by their so-called “fans”. The shared $2.36 (on average) a download amongst five band members who worked for two years, before management and publicist fees, before taxes. If there was ever a ringing endorsement why artists need the RIAA, THAT was it, and don’t think the artists haven’t noticed. The industry is working to GET ARTISTS PAID again. Why do you think so very precious few have left the industry? The lawyers are working to GET ARTISTS PAID. BECAUSE behind the scenes, THE VAST MAJORITY of ARTISTS ARE BEGGING THEM TO.
The really amazing thing is you filesharers are fucking the artists in a different UNIVERSE from the contracts of the industry at large. That’s why extremely few, 6? maybe 10 acts TOTAL?? have left the RIAA. Everyone else is staying put because YOU don’t pay anymore and they believe (as I do) that they deserve to be paid if you take their work. But to say the service providers (like the execs and legal staffers) who help guide and form these careers are not entitled to compensation is ridiculous, no? That’s like saying a Union shop steward has no right to take a salary off the dues of labor. That’s like saying your boss has no moral or ethical right to profit from the work you do for him or her. We live and work in a capitalist society. Just grow up and learn to profit from it for yourself, instead of resenting someone else who acknowledges the system and works it better than you do. If the artists didn’t need the kinds of services the RIAA provides, there would be no RIAA. Anarchists get no where in a mature culture. Nor should they.
“2. the “fair use” provision of the Copyright Act clearly and unequivocally states that the PURPOSE for the use of a copyrighted item is what’s important.”
“Fair use” allows for sampling, reuse in the creation of a new (but derivative) work with proper attribution, additional copies of that CD for the country house, the other car, the boat, the iPOD. All this is sanctioned by the industry. A copy here or there has always been the case and was never a problem because the vast majority of all possessions originally resulted from sales. And the artists (and support staff) got paid. Now nobody gets paid.
And really folks, this is the point:
Anyone who can’t make the distinction between “Fair Use” and a free immediate download of the full collected works of The Rolling Stones in seconds at NO COST to anyone…..after years and years of education paid for by the RIAA, richly deserves to to sued to oblivion. There is no excuse to possess and enjoy music or movies you didn’t pay for. No excuse. Period. There never was. If you don’t like the product or its price don’t buy it but don’t take it, either. End of story. I’m proud to be associated with trying to stop this blatant theft of artist’s work.
And one last thought:
Jammie Thomas’s lawyers already tried all the crap you suggested here. It was bullshit then and it’s bullshit now. That’s why the jury rejected it. (Not a lawyer. Not a judge. A jury.) And to bitch about paying off public officials is just so adolescent. When the rulings are what YOU want to hear, “Justice has been served.” But when your prizefighter loses the match was “fixed”, right? When your football team doesn’t cover the spread the losing team “threw it”. There is a system here. It’s easily the most fair system on the planet. Be smart and learn to work within it or be like Jammie and work your fat, thieving ass off the rest of your life to pay the fine a JURY handed to you…..and see if we give a shit. We’re going to fight this stealing until Law enforcement is like a blanket and the penalties are SO RUINOUS that you finally get it and go back to paying for it. OR DOING WITHOUT IT. Like any other business. And don’t think we don’t have the resources, either. So far the industry, the court system, the federal judges and the legislature, jury’s of your peers and the artists are all thinking alike. 99% of ALL creative artists are pulling for us behind the scenes because WE are the best hope they have to begin to be paid something again. They SEE how YOU TREAT THEM, they want our help and they are getting it.
And the use of SAM I AM really is “Fair Use.” I’m not copying, uploading and giving away millions of copies of the collected works of Dr. Seuss at no payment to his beneficiaries.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
” Record company executives, lawyers et all are all working in support of the artists. ”
Nope.
They work for themselves.
More and more artists are speaking out about how the labels have
royally fucked the artists, time and time again.
” The artists hire and sign with THEM but nobody puts a gun to the artists head to sign and agree to share profits. ”
Since for years, the labels were the only way to be heard ( since
after all, they ARE a cartel, a monopoly ) on the radio ( they have full
control of terrestrial radio, and soon satellite ), there wasn’t much of
a choice. A virtual gun to the head, as it were. Sign with us, or never be
seen or heard.
The internet changed that.
” After the RADIOHEAD debacle, ”
Debacle, really ??
Funny, RadioHead, and most others ( at least those not affiliated with the RIAA )
see that .. debacle .. as proof positive the labels aren’t needed.
” The shared $2.36 (on average) ”
Yup .. that might be true but …
With a label, they MIGHT get 15c per cd sale .. minus studio fees, marketing fees, etc …
all stuff the label charges back to the band, ya know.
That 2.36 was all theirs.
No fat guy in a suit getting a cut.
all .. theirs.
That’s why the labels are DESPERATE to paint it as a ‘debacle’ .. a failure.
” That’s why the jury rejected it. (Not a lawyer. Not a judge. A jury.) ”
Not entirely true.
The judge basically ordered them to find her guilty, regardless of the total lack
of evidence.
It will be overturned.
Adolescent or not,
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are REAL good it’s a duck.
” you finally get it and go back to paying for it. OR DOING WITHOUT IT. ”
Yup, thats what most of us ARE doing ..
Doing without it.
OR … buying it second hand so the labels get no more.
It’s called a boycott.
The boycott is hurting them.
But since they control the media, that truth will never see the light of day.
” 99% of ALL creative artists are pulling for us behind the scenes because WE are the best hope they have to begin to be paid something again. ”
Actually, they are pulling for us.
They have to do it behind the scenes or the labels will punish them.
But, you know that.
” WE are the best hope they have to begin to be paid something again. ”
But without you, they have the best chance of getting paid at all.
That’s the truth.
Time to stop feeding the troll …
You can’t fight stupid — Ron White
December 12th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
” 99% of ALL creative artists are pulling for us behind the scenes because WE are the best hope they have to begin to be paid something again. ”
LOL this must be – pull numbers out of my ass – day or sumthin.
Anyone can make up a number. direct us to the sources you got that. heh, fact
from.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
http://www.rapcointelpro.com
” Here’s an example of a relatively fair record deal for a new rap group with some clout in the industry and a terrific negotiating attorney:
ROYALTY RATE: 12%
We’re going to assume that there are 3 artists in the group, and that they split everything equally. We’re also going to assume that they produce their own tracks themselves, contributing equally.
Suggested retail list price (cassettes) $10.98
less 15% packaging deduction (usually 20%) =$ 9.33
gets paid on 85% of records sold (”free goods”) =$7.93
So the artists’ 12% is equal to about 96 cents per record sold. In most deals, the producer’s 3% comes out of that 12%, but for the sake of brevity, in this example the group produced the whole album, buying no tracks from outside producers, which is rare.
Let’s assume that they are a hit and their record goes Gold (although it is rare that a first record blows up like this). Let’s also assume they were a priority at their record label and that their label understood exactly how to market them (which is also rare). So they went Gold, selling 500,000 units according to SoundScan (and due to the inaccuracies in SoundScan tracking at the rap retail level, 500,000 scanned probably means more like 600,000 actually sold–but they’ll only be accounted to for the 500,000 SoundScan verified units instead of what actually has sold).
GOLD RECORD = 500,000 units sold multiplied by 96 cents = $480,000. Looks like a nice chunk of loot, huh? Watch this: Now the label recoups what they’ve spent: the cost to make the record, independent promotion, 1/2 the video cost, some tour support, all those limo rides, all those out of town trips for the artists and their friends, etc.
$480,000
-$100,000 recoupable stuff (recording costs)
——–
$380,000
-$100,000 advance
——–
$280,000
Still sounds OK? Watch… Now, half of the $380,000 stays “in reserve” (accounting for returned items from retail stores) for 2 to 4 years depending on the length specified in the recording contract. So the $100,000 advance is actually subtracted from $190,000 (the other $190,000 is in reserves for 2 years). Now, there’s also the artist’s manager, who is entitled to 20% of all of the entertainment income, which would be 20% of $380,000, or $76,000. Remember, the artist is the last to get paid, so even the manager gets paid before the artist. The attorney is entitled to 10% of the upfront value of the deal, which in this case was $200,000, so the lawyer made $20,000 the day the contract was signed, which the artist pays back now out of royalties.
So the artists are in debt to the label yet their album went Gold, and they are experiencing some pretty good fame and perceived success. Unless they are making money in other areas (shows, mostly) they are completely broke. In two years when the reserves are liquidated, IF they’ve recouped, they will each receive another $63,000. IF they’ve recouped. Guess who keeps track of all of this accounting? The label. Most contracts are “cross-collateralized,” which means when the artist does not recoup on the first album, the money will be paid back out of the second album. Also, if the money is not recouped on the second album, repayment can come out of the “in reserve” funds from the first album, if the funds have not already been liquidated.
Even if all the reserves are paid in our example, each artist only actually made 38 cents per unit. The label made and/or recouped about $7 per unit. This example also doesn’t include any additional production costs for an outside producer to come in and/or do a re-mix, and you know how often that happens.
So each artist in this group has received a total of about $96,000 ($63,000 on the back end and one-third of the initial $100,000 advance). After legal expenses and costs of new clothing to wear on stage while touring, etc, each artist has probably made a total of $75,000 before paying taxes (which the artist is responsible for– remember Kool Moe Dee?). Let’s look at the time line now. Let’s assume the artists had no jobs when they started this. They spent 4 months putting their demo tape together and getting the tracks just right. They spent another 6 months to a year getting to know who all of the players are in the rap music industry and building a local buzz while shopping their demo. After signing to a label, it took another 8 months to make an album and to get through all of the label’s bureaucracy. When the first single dropped, the group went into promotion mode and traveled all over promoting the single at radio, retail, concerts, and publications for free–unless they had a radio hit as their single, in which case they began getting some show money for about half or a third of the dates they performed. This was another six months. The record label decided to push three singles off the album so it was another year before they got back into the studio to make album number two. This scenario has been a total of 36 months. Each member of the group made $75,000 for a three year investment of time, which averages out to $25,000 per year. In corporate America, that works out to be $12 per hour (before taxes). “
the labels are really great eh ?
December 12th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
hat 2.36 was all theirs.
No fat guy in a suit getting a cut.
all .. theirs.
The “fat guy”, Dreddsnik, made RadioHead who they are. For well over a decade “the fat guy” poured millions into Radiohead without any guarantee of return on investment. Without the fat guy, they’d still be a great bar band from Oxfordshire that YOU’ve never heard of.
Over the years an expensive infrastructure of recording facilities and touring equipment has been assembled: producers, A&R men, musicians, arrangers, conductors, public relations and marketing folks, sound engineers, lighting personnel, graphics, you name it. Very few bands ever earn back the money the industry invests in them and everybody has a right to be paid. The product is for sale, it’s not for pirating.
RADIOHEADS return on investment was disastrous. That’s why no one is clamouring to try it again. Their management is trying to put a positive spin on a humbling catastrophe, so bad that they had to sign a conventional label agreement anyway to try to recoup their losses. Radiohead worked their ass off for well over 22 months and created a pretty damn good album and Radiohead was fucked by an average of 80% of all downloaders. For every legal download of IN RAINBOWS, there were 2 illegal p2p downloads. The illegals paid nothing, and only a little over a third of the legals paid ANYTHING at all. That’s over an 80% freeloader rate. According to TECH DIGEST and other industry sites, “Radiohead took home an average of $2.26 for a copy of the album.” After management and publicist fees, then the balance split off for taxes and then what’s left divided up among the five band members, one of the best bands in the world was paid for two years work by their “FANS” for In Rainbows at about the same rate as a person at the front desk who answers a phone. While they earned millions on Hail to the Thief. There is no “market” anymore because freeloaders are not “customers.” Customers don’t get sued, freeloaders do. And only acts who have first benefited from industry publicity and million dollar support campaigns can earn anything at all by touring.
Perhaps more to the point of Radiohead, they were only able to even try this after the industry invested millions in them making them wealthy, international superstars. And their fans still embarrassed them. To many of us, what Radiohead tried to do after accepting the industry benefits for years reeks of hypocrisy and they surely got what they deserved. Don’t expect this stunt from anyone else, anytime soon.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Okay, this whole mess is tl;dr and I stopped at the car analogy post.
Dear sir,
You’re a fucking idiot.
“Intellectual property” is not “real property.” The creation of an “intellectual copy” of something is not the same as the creation of a “real copy” of a tangible item such as, oh, I don’t know…A CAR.
When I duplicate, bit for bit, a compact disc’s pattern of pits onto a hard disk platter as a pattern of magnetic flux, I am not doing the same thing as tearing down a motor vehicle, reverse-engineering the entirety of that vehicle, producing identical components, and assembling the newly produced components into an exact physical real-world tangible duplicate of the original car.
Please note that the terms TANGIBLE and PHYSICAL, when discussing things on a scale at which an ordinary human can interact (not some guy with a scanning tunneling microscope) are NOT APPLICABLE TO ANY FORM OF DIGITAL MEDIA. The TRANSMISSION MEDIUM may be TANGIBLE and PHYSICAL, as in a CD, cassette, 8-track, DVD, hard drive, USB flash drive, et cetera…but the CONTENTS of that media ARE NOT TANGIBLE and THE RULES OF PHYSICAL PROPERTY DO NOT DIRECTLY APPLY ANYMORE WHEN ON THIS LEVEL. A stream of data can be duplicated without any significant effort at all (see the UNIX “tee” command, ha!) and the duplication of that stream of data does not deprive anyone of any TANGIBLE AND/OR PHYSICAL PROPERTY.
So take your moronic attempts to apply the rules of tangible property rights to intangible streams of data, wrap ‘em in a latex balloon, and gently insert them in the same cavity in which your head was festering to make such an embarrassingly STUPID ANALOGY.
It’s people like you, who understand property rights so poorly that you can’t even discuss them on a basic level without fallacy, that make me fear for the future of humanity.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Sam, you neglected to mention the fact that there may be a lot of people out there that don’t like Radiohead’s music. Yeah, dread the thought that they didn’t have enough real fans to make the campaign work. It has to be because new business models will fail, right?
Try the same thing with Black Eyed Peas or some other highly popular group and see what happens.
Of course, if you offer something for free and others take you up on it, you can’t complain about the results too loudly, but one campaign like this is not a viable metric for the potential success or failure of the business model they have experimented with.
Next time you comment about something like this, try to see the truth rather than taking a side. Don’t be a moron like the car analogy guy.
December 13th, 2007 at 5:42 am
IS ALL ABOUT ENTERTAINMENT
Lumiere Says said “What are we? Socialists? Do you REALLY want Congress deciding what movies or rock bands are to be funded??”
To be honest it may be better to have the government decide which movie to fund than deciding what country to invade or what coup to finance.
As to movies and recordings and other entertainment, far too many large budget productions are made. Most are entertainment crap, meaning a waste of society’s money, which must be recouped by pushing the crap. Take boxing for example. Society spends billiosn (pick your currency). As a result the violent entertiament, boxing, is pushed.
In a true democracy there would no be any problem with trusting and giving government the power to enter into the entertaiment production “business”.
Too bad many trust government to produce missiles and war but not entertaiment. I can only guess that Lumiere Says (if an American) knows that he does not live n a democracy and that the government (Bush and friends and both major political parties) doe not represent the people as much as they represent the special interests that fund them, and thus cannot be trusted for anything.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:54 am
” RADIOHEADS return on investment was disastrous. ”
Sources please.
Without sources this is just an opinion, not supported by fact.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:56 am
” The “fat guy”, Dreddsnik, made RadioHead who they are. ”
Funny , I thought their music did that.
Can’t fix stupid.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:58 am
I notice he’s not addressing the post showing exactly
how the label screws artists.
I don’t think he ever will.
name calling is easyl.
proving is tough.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Sam I Am, the record deal was made because they wanted to sell CDs aswell, the deal was not made AFTER or because any success or failure from their venture.. Not everyone wants mp3 files (believe it or not)..
And i agree with others that their venture was a success, sure some got it for free, but others paid for them aswell, it evened up and they made a nice profit because as said they got 2 dollars something on average, with a record company they would have gotten cents.
Too many middle hands to feed, thats what hurts the industry not pirates..
December 13th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Before we all blow our tops, the kicker to this story is that the files were stored in an online Kaaza shared folder. THAT’S what the hubbub is about.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Sam’s not listening. If my prediction is right (and mine usually are), Sam either cannot see that artists get fractions of the tens of billions of dollars that the suits get, or he believes that they are entitled to most of the money gained from the intellectual property of artists that they did not make, merely marketed.
Also, Dreddsnik made a good point: “Since for years, the labels were the only way to be heard ( since
after all, they ARE a cartel, a monopoly ) on the radio ( they have full
control of terrestrial radio, and soon satellite ), there wasn’t much of
a choice. A virtual gun to the head, as it were. Sign with us, or never be
seen or heard.”
The only way to be heard by a wide, mainstream audience is to sign to a major label, and hope that they choose you as the next Britney Spears or N*Sync. (What, you think audiences actually control the popularity?) If you don’t conform, you will not succeed, but hey, if I were an artist, I’d rather sell self-produced CDs of my music myself to local people for $5 than sell them through a company that’s going to give me $0.38 for each CD. That’s 7.6% of what I’d be making just from my own personal marketing.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
“Before we all blow our tops, the kicker to this story is that the files were stored in an online Kaaza shared folder. THAT’S what the hubbub is about.”
Oh, also, let’s not forget that the hard drive turned over as evidence didn’t even have any files on it. The only reason the jury decided what it did in the Jammie Thomas case was because of a jury instruction telling them that making files available constituted an infringement, regardless of whether anyone actually downloaded the files from her computer.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Cougar and Rafael and Dreddsnik, I salute all of you. Voices of reason and harsh reality in a world of morons that can’t even create an alias without the help of a deceased children’s book writer.
December 13th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
“It’s always amazing and discouraging to realize how many morons there are out there downloading and copying with not a clue to what copyright even means, or how it works, or why in fact YOU DON’T “own” the music when you purchase your right to have and enjoy a copy of it. It’s not even remotely like the ownership of a car. What imbeciles. Read the law and do your homework to understand it so you can deliberate here intelligently or just STFU.
It’s enjoyable to watch the RIAA lawyers methodically take you pathetic bunch of pizza delivery boy whiners off to court. It ain’t gonna end with YOU getting the upper hand, THAT’s for sure. Not while the Feds, law enforcement and the RIAA boys are all thinking alike and until you trolls figure out a way to change the law, that’s always gonna be bad for you. Download and don’t get caught? A little pilfered music and an ethical breach. No big deal. BUT. Get caught? Settle up with your checkbook or YOUR life is now in the shitter right where it deserves to be. Sleep tight.”
It is EVEN MORE AMAZING that stupid fucks like you do not even understand the entertainment industry’s influence with congress and you say that ordinary people without the funds for a lengthy court battle should somehow take them on? How dumb can you get?
This war WILL be won by the ordinary people, after all they pay the entertainment industry in the first place, but it will take awhile and may take some time for the message to get out how greedy these bastards really are, but the word IS spreading and their power is diminishing. But it will not happen overnight.
I still do not understand your stupid statements defending an industry that is absolutely rulthess and greedy. I hope they come and sue YOUR ASS and then maybe you will understand howit feels to be in one of their unfair court battles.
Never mind we are talking about a movie and music industry that has influenced members of congress to make laws just to make something the industry does not like illegal…..never mind that it was legal BEFORE….because the MAJORITY of the ordinary people, not corporations, put laws into place that wanted it that way. Then these corporations start crying to congress about their lost billions of dollars to piracy, while raking in RECORD profits at the same time! Can’t have BOTH ways asshole!
Either they are or they are not being affected by piracy, but the way they keep coming out with all these record profits, it is hard to see that they are being hurt at all!
But the industry gets it’s feathers ruffled by piracy and how much money they think they SHOULD have made….which is absolute BULLSHIT and tries to sue dead people, 14 year olds and grandmothers. All in the name of some grand cause that they or YOU don’t even know what the HELL you both are talking about! And you want to defend that kind of corporate mentality? Maybe you should have your brain examined, because your logic is flawed!
But never mind that dumb ass, the movie and music industry is being forced to change weather or not they or people like you like it. They will either change or the way they make money will die, suits me just fine.
Maybe then the power will be put back in the ordinary people’s hands that pay these dumb fucks and taken out of greedy corporations that care nothing about quality or value, but just the almighty dollar. And maybe THEN we will see REAL MOVIES ans MUSIC worth paying for and not this garbage they try to call entertainment.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:42 am
The same themes in support of pirating entertainment are repeated here over and over.
“Musicians (and/or their industry) make enough money, they shouldn’t keep making more…..anyone in entertainment not expressly involved in content creation is a leach and outmoded and should find a new job……It’s okay for me to try to earn as much as I am able in my line of work, but others don’t have the same right that I have.”
“Let Hollywood starve for awhile.”
“Legal staff and record execs are not entitled to earn as much as they can within their business model, either…….No one should benefit excessively from their work, (and I’m entitled to decide what constitutes excessive)…..The Feds, the courts, the laws are corrupt and therefore I’m entitled to evade them……Copyright should elapse within a year, but it’s not my problem to figure out how to compel risky investment without it”.
Do you hear a theme? We live and work within the leading capitalist system in the world because the voting majority consistently supports this model, but no where within a capitalist model do we see or hear these kinds of beliefs.
These themes are consistent with Socialist ideals, that society at large should share and benefit more evenly from the work of a individual, not the individual itself. The law should seek to spread wealth around and you are entitled to steal a product if you judge the price too high. You argue that law enforcement has no right to apprehend you in the commission of a crime and our Justice system has no right to punish you when you are caught, tried and convicted. And a Jury has no right to assign penalty.
So your arguments here really aren’t about the cost of music nor the musicians at all. Not really. They are not about p2p versus priced (legal) download models, nor the RIAA or the executives who work within it, the lawyers or the legal system they serve, the judges and jury’s who interpret each case and punish lawbreakers, not even with the legislature or the principles they manifest into the law itself. Your arguments are with the reality of the Capitalist system itself.
At base you represent a disgruntled Socialist mentality chafing at the prosperity of business people who work more effectively than you within a system that is accountable to our country’s laws, widely embraced and firmly in place after almost 300 years of legislative representation and debate.
You could have elected to simply not buy the product and allow the market to sort itself out, but then you’d have to actually do without the entertainment you enjoy (but disparage in your posts.) So you express your frustration with Capitalism through pilfering and copyright infringement, hoping you can hide behind a screen of technology. Your argument is with reality.
“This war WILL be won by the ordinary people”
Sure.
Read your corporate history while you sit in jail, then.
December 14th, 2007 at 1:16 am
You are the one with the “broken record player” theme! Believing that the industry is still in control! They are NOT anymore….get over it. People can now record, produce and distribute whole albums for a fraction of what it costs the music industry to do it. Sorry, if you can’t handle the truth, but that IS the truth.
Years ago in the 70’s, you could not afford all the things you needed to make a album, but with the recording software and hardware available today, anyone with talent and half a brain can create albums equal to the big 4’s junk! Also with the internet, people now have a way to produce and distribute their albums online or at the very least get their name out. There was no internet or cheap recording software years ago, but now there is.
Do you actually believe all the bullshit you spew? Because that is all it is PERIOD! Like someone else posted “you can’t fix stupid”! Apparently you must work for the industry or you work for some one associated with them, because you have such an outdated view on the way of the wortld it is not funny! If you are not working for them, maybe you should. Your views would fit in with theirs just fine. I am sure they can find you a job cleaning toilets and spewing bullshit, since you do that so well.
Wake up! It is2007! Not the 1950’s when the industry controlled everything from recording to distribution. Face it, the big 4 record companies need consumers and musicians ….but consumers and musicians do not need them! Get that through your head.
The days of the industry controlling everything are over and I say good riddance! I could not give a fuck if it puts people like you out of work with your outdated thinking.
You also are the one defending an industry which you know is responsible for alienating it’s own customer base through a very stupid “sue em all” campaign. If THAT is how you believe they will win people’s support, you have to be insane.
Go ahead and stick your head in the sand. The world will pass you by, just like the industry.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:10 am
” Do you actually believe all the bullshit you spew? ”
Hard to tell, but he HAS done his job.
Taken the thread away from the topic.
That’s what trolls do.
Moved the topic away from documented, supported facts, and
turned it into neopolitical name calling.
December 14th, 2007 at 8:12 am
yeah, its kinda like godwinning a thread.
the troll starts throwing around political labels,communist socialist etc till
every politico is thrashing around, totally forgetting the topic.
i’ll bet this troll is paid pretty good. nice to see this site frightens the labels so much
December 14th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Sam says that we’re being Socialist.
Wake up, Sam! What’s going on now IS the free market sorting itself out! People AND artists are sick of dealing with the RIAA, so they’re bypassing them entirely.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:29 am
What’s wrong with Socialist? In America, it’s a dirty word, but it works pretty well in other countries where people believe in helping each other instead of just themselves.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:23 am
if a copy of an original doesn’t hurt anyone if the owner keeps the original then ask wal-mart to copy their music cd’s in the store and tell them you just want a free copy and they can keep the original. explain it to them and i’m sure it will go over big.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:36 am
I’m paid insanely well, but not by the RIAA. Your little temporary caper into online piracy has created opportunity and income for me in ways I could never have imagined. And we are really not off-thread at all. This thread is about copying and copyright.
You said:
“Wake up! It is 2007! Not the 1950’s when the industry controlled everything from recording to distribution. Face it, the big 4 record companies need consumers and musicians ….but consumers and musicians do not need them! Get that through your head.”
Okay. I hear you and fair enough. But the facts just don’t support you. I’m keenly aware of the miraculous possibilities of digital distribution, in fact part of my employ is in watching, analyzing, seeking your ideas then finding ways to apply them in the marketplace. But there is no market when money doesn’t change hands and you guys aren’t paying. Freeloaders are not customers and your possession of all digital products without payment is a temporary aberration, not a new paradigm. Online distribution is clearly our future but taking secretly at no cost is not the “free market sorting itself out.” Your ability to obtain surreptitiously at no cost is rapidly coming to an end, and you’d be wise to recognize this and embrace paid download models the same way we once purchased cd’s instead of shoplifting them. If you do not soon see the justice in purchasing (instead of simply taking) someone else’s creative hard work, the system is going to be very hard on you as always. Jammie is just a precedent. This is only the beginning.
The one very key thing YOU don’t seem to grasp is that every part of the necessary mechanisms to stop you are already in place and it is only now a matter of time. It’s just that nobody wants to hamstring the network in this way. Legislation and law enforcement deliberates very slowly. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Nobody wants a network blanketed with law enforcement, but that is where we are going if you keep this up.
The pinch point is at the ISP. They’ve resisted being the cop because they thought it was in their best interest to stay out of this issue. Now they realize they were mistaken with Comcast leading the way. Roughly 2/3’s of all global network traffic is now in illegal P2P and the ISP’s have a vested interest in eventually stopping you so their networks can run a whole lot faster. When things are purchased again the traffic will drop bigtime and THAT’s why they are listening now. Colleges are being drafted, too. Education about copyright is almost everywhere. So what’s next?
Federal encryption licensing, copyright databanks, file matching software, bit streaming review in real time during upload/download and the “probable cause” edict that will eventually result in every single bit and byte being analyzed on the network, an unprecedented loss of privacy and an inevitable step if illegal downloading isn’t slowly squeezed off. Your fervent belief that you cannot be observed and stopped is just foolish and we no longer have any interest in this part of the debate. Believe whatever you wish. It is the slow deliberation of our court system while we try to educate and sort this out that is creating your false sense of security for the moment. Playing “whack a mole” with pirate sites was never the real solution and they know that. They’ll just shut you down at the onramp if they have to. They don’t want to. They’d like the network to be free of law enforcement just as we all do, but they’ll stop you as they must. Retail shoplifting drove guards to all the doors and eventually electronic embedded devices and exit sensors and the costs all borne by the consumer, right? It was unavoidable. Nobody seriously suggested a store entry fee and the product is now “free”. This decision is still yours.
France is way out ahead on this and similar steps are being taken right now in Europe and the EU:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-plans-new-measures-curb-online-piracy/article-168984
So the part that YOU don’t seem to understand is that you *will* be stopped, one way or the other. Industry doesn’t lay down in the face of infringement that results in revenue loss like this. Governments feeling tax loss don’t come to the aid of pirates. Law enforcement is not going to turn away from an industry as huge and central as this. The Courts support the laws. These are all inescapable realities. And artists are finally dawning on a new uncomfortable comprehension that in fact you just won’t pay for their work anymore unless you are required to pay, or made to do without it. The artists are in a nightmare of YOUR making right now. Your illegal activities are setting the terms of this debate and you will be responsible ultimately for its outcome.
But the foolish notion that content must be free and made up in T-shirts or concerts is ridiculous. Anyone who knows anything about the music industry knows this is unworkable. And besides, that’s only available to artists already made famous by industry money anyway. Who buys $200 concert tix for an unknown? A thick suffocating blanket of advertising is far more likely, –like the radio and tv model–although they are trying to resist this, too. The industry still sells 90% of the music on it’s own terms and they have the resources and the clout to hang with this last 10% indefinitely until law enforcement secures the network via the on ramps and punishments are so severe that this Robin Hood bullshit is finally put away. THAT much is unavoidable and you’d be wise to grasp this in the debate. So the real point is this:
The sad reality is that new music (and musicians raising families on their recording royalties) are suffering now because there is less return on investment. Great young bands sleeping on sofas and scrounging for cash are waiting to be “discovered” but it’s not happening at the moment because nobody writes big promotional checks against piracy that seriously limits return. Your belief that young new music will find its way to you using GarageBand and a homemade webpage is just naive. Sure, it will happen now and then. But for every little band that succeeds this way there will be thousands that don’t even come close and WE will all be the poorer for it. Without a formal industry to support it great music will languish undiscovered except in its local community. It will take decades for bands to create a public profile that is available after just one industry sponsored million dollar tour/campaign. Almost 95% of all bands financially championed by the industry never turn to profitability, and the remaining few (and old catalogs) must provide all the return on investment or there is no more investment. You are slowly strangling new music. Artists are not being paid. The industry in the long run will be fine. It’s the little guy you are hurting, not the fat cat. My income has never been higher, frankly. The handwriting is everywhere.
I’ve said this before: In the big picture you are giving the artists who create music a serious fucking far worse than anything stated in any industry contract. You can control this by financially supporting the music you want to see succeed, but only by BUYING through legal distribution models. Legislative intent and law enforcement trends are very clear now: anybody here who really believes that this kind of rampant piracy won’t be stopped and that copyright crime is going to somehow force free content and riotously expensive T-shirts is living on the moon.
I’ve said this before, too:
The sad legacy of p2p filesharing of stolen entertainment content will be tollgates at the ISP’s, top-heavy legislation and a drenching of advertising and law enforcement on what was first imagined to be a free and cool shared network. A crime wave will always be met with government regulation and resistance by law enforcement in any organized society and the industry will simply solidify its grip in the years ahead. You modern day “Robin Hoods” trying to hide behind your monitors are the ones REALLY kidding yourselves. Law abidance and tax revenue was no more important in the 1950’s than it is in the modern world. Time—and the legal system—will prove all this out and if you keep this up and eventually get caught, you’ll have big problems and no one to blame but yourselves. And frankly after all this education, I won’t feel sorry for you. I pay for cool stuff I take. You might consider this, too.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Your first mistake is that you assume that everyone who posts here pirates.
We are boycotting.
Doing exactly what you and the RIAA which pays you asks.
Not downloading.
Not buying.
The mechanism to stop YOU is already in place, and doing well.
Not giving you our money.
” I pay for cool stuff I take. ”
Good for you, so do I.
Too bad for the RIAA none of it belongs to them, so they are not getting any cash from
me
No, you will lose.
These tactics only inspire innovation.
They only inspire others to create the means to hide deeper and deeper.
If this was false then Copy Protection would actually work.
There has NEVER been a copy protection scheme that has done any good.
Never.
Please, find one copy protected title that can’t be ‘found’ elswhere.
A tight grip is ineffective.
P2P is water in a fist.
You are impotent.
Your masters are impotent.
You waste your breath AND your cash.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:48 am
heh.
darknets, sneakernets, portable terrabyte HDD. yup, you’ll lose
December 14th, 2007 at 10:50 am
i’d love for this jerk to come visit us at
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
there are quite a few musicians there that know EXACTLY how good
a label is
George would have a lot of fun cutting you up.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Wars have always caused great leaps on innovation.
This is a war. The labels are causing the creation of their own demise.
so mellow
December 14th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
I’ve got a meeting midtown and I’ve gotta run out for a few. But five quick observations:
Your first mistake is that you assume that everyone who posts here pirates.
My apologies if I’ve offended anyone. This is a p2p advocacy site and the percentage of legal use of p2p remains in the very small single digits. It’s a very reasonable “mistake.”
The mechanism to stop YOU is already in place, and doing well.
Not giving you our money.
This is ideal. This is the way to use a free market to bring prices down. I think if we all boycotted the industry properly they’d hear us loud and clear and immediately. The big problem is 90% of their model remains intact and they still have great cash flow. And filesharers have handed them the legal area in which filesharing (and the internet) inevitably loses. THAT’s been the big tactical mistake by downloaders all along: the belief that a huge and profitable global infrastructure is going to shrug and fold in the face of a bunch of kids digitally shoplifting. Downloaders have never gotten this right and it’s why the trends are against them.
There has NEVER been a copy protection scheme that has done any good.
Never.
Please, find one copy protected title that can’t be ‘found’ elsewhere.
True. Very true. But the simple beauty of the ISP onramp file-matching model is that nothing ever needs protection. Encryption will be licenced and a copyrighted file will either be 1) blocked (unlikely) 2) three strikes and you are off the network as in France (also unlikely) or 3) the purchase price is just added to your ISP bill. VERY likely.
darknets, sneakernets, portable terrabyte HDD. yup, you’ll lose
For the industry, this is a huge win. Little copies have always been made and you can build a case that a shared file—even a harddrive– might compel a future purchase. What the labels will stop, however, is three clicks and the entire Rolling Stone’s catalog is yours for free. THAT–you can bet–will end.
This is a war.
Oh gosh, no it’s not. It’s a buncha college kids and young adults comprising a small percentage of the overall market behaving badly because technology is out ahead of legislation and their folks didn’t instill any ethics. Geeze guys. Education, legislation, observation and significant punishment leads to compliance in everything from auto theft to online child porn. Get used to it, fellas. As legislation wends its way through congress, you’ve already lost this.
“darknets, sneakernets, portable terrabyte HDD”
Fine.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
” I think if we all boycotted the industry properly they’d hear us loud and clear and immediately. The big problem is 90% of their model remains intact and they still have great cash flow. ”
So then, p2p hurts them how ?
” Oh gosh, no it’s not. It’s a buncha college kids and young adults comprising a small percentage of the overall market behaving badly because technology is out ahead of legislation and their folks didn’t instill any ethics ”
Small percentage overall. you are right.
So, where is the damage ?
This fits right in with the studies that show that P2P has zero effect on sales.
So if it’s such a small percentage, and it clearly isn’t hurting them financially, as you
said after all, 90% of their model remains intact, where is the basis for suing the
evil sharers ?
Easy.
It’s NEVER been about losing money for the labels, clearly they lose nothing.
It’s about the potential for non-riaa acts to sit next to RIAA acts on the same
virtual shelf, and potentially get preference.
It’s about locking up the net, with the RIAA as an excuse to do so.
You have just shown us all in your own words, that P2P is negligible.
Yes, it is a war.
The way Prohibition was.
We all know how that went.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
What an amazing change of gears there sam.
you went from ‘ all the filsharers are making us broke ‘ to
‘ just a bunch of kids and a few adults ‘
Which is it ?
both ?
neither ?
December 14th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
“What an amazing change of gears there sam.”
To the contrary. I’ve not changed gears nor have I ever said that this crime and its effects were negligible. And I certainly never said it wasn’t “hurting them financially.” I said it’s a “small percentage of the overall market.” Even p2p advocates acknowledge that yearly sales figures are down a few percentage points every year (in an otherwise expanding market) and this translates to billions and billions of product taken but unpaid. All but a small single digit percentage of p2p use is illegal. I’ve never once said this is “negligible” but it is all relative.
Music is huge but no industry is going to let a new form of digital shoplifting cut into their business in the billions of dollars each year without “whatever it takes” to stop it. Nor should they. THAT’s why you sound so dumb. The biggest single miscalculation of illegal downloaders is their consistently mistaken belief that innovation will always find a way to keep pirating online a norm. That’s nonsense. As the stakes grow higher, so will the diligence of enforcement and the scale and aggression of the penalty. With an attendant loss of freedom and privacy. This has been generally true in every instance of American law enforcement. We raise the stakes until criminal activity subsides. And the government has always held the high cards in this debate. Your argument is with reality.
To be clear with you “lol”, I think there is no reason now nor was there ever a valid legal, moral or ethical argument to engage in copyright infringement within a free, capitalist market model. In my view it is a form of theft. You take without paying. To regard this migration to “taking without paying” as some “evolving market model” is such bullshit. It’s not an industry being outmoded by new technology either. The legal online download models are already in place, you just use p2p because you can get it for free and your lack of ethics doesn’t stop you. And you are fucking up the network for everybody and you don’t care. So stop bullshitting here.
It’s like saying the advent of the crow bar and a resultant flurry of auto theft is an “evolution of the market model in the automotive industry”. You are all just so full of shit.
Just so we are clear, I do not work for the RIAA, but I am on the side of what I think is right, just as you are. Boycotting is honorable and proper. I work in entertainment. I’ve had my troubles with the entertainment industry, too, but the capitalist model works extremely well for our nation and for our culture.
HERE’s THE POINT:
Taking for free the work of others that you know is properly intended for sale is not very complicated to me. And I think those of you who have done this to artists and their families and to the industry that hires and pays them (and seriously enriched quite a few) are cheap, cowardly punks hiding behind technology and thinking you are clever. You may not like nor approve of industry contracts, but they are absolutely legal. In fact indies, by percentage, make up a greater share than any of the other “big four.” If the artists must press for justice in contracts, then let them. Support them by boycott. What you do is illegal. I listen carefully to your talking points. Few stand up to real scrutiny. This distinction is not lost on anyone with a conscience and it is certainly not lost on our judicial system. This sad period will be regarded in retrospect as a time when a few petulant assholes spoiled an insanely great network for everybody. I think p2p illegal downloaders are rubbish. Just so we are clear.
According to the UCLA International Institute:
“The entertainment industry in its broadest definition is big business, 4-5% of GDP in the United States. That is about US$400-500 billion.”
For the record, I’m the first to acknowledge that an illegally downloaded file is not inherently a lost sale, but when somebody wants and takes your product and doesn’t pay for it, there is a certain justice in seeing it that way. Even a small percentage of a gargantuan number is still a very big number, and some number of billions are now lost every year since about the new millennium, when broadband caught stride and Napster began the drift to unethical filesharing.
Say what you wish, fellas, but the numbers are clear. Up until Napster we all went to the Tower or the Virgin or the HMV and we purchased CD’s. Once in awhile we burnt one for a buddy. Big fucking deal. If you have a problem seeing a link between illegal downloading and billions of dollars off the market pace since Napster, you are in a very dwindling few. The RIAA isn’t fighting to control the internet for God’s sake. PASS or PAY on their product and we have no problem BUT STOP TAKING IT. THAT’s what they fight for. You can’t expect the industry to fold when some of you are still hold-outs in wink-and-nudge refusal of the facts. YOUR attitude is as much a part of the problem as THEIR attitude except……guess what?……..they’ve got the entire judicial/legal/law enforcement infrastructure on their side. And it is ruining this beautiful network ALL OVER THE WORLD. Are you fucking crazy?
And Dreddsnik, I had more faith in you until your Prohibition reference. In Prohibition, government sought to end a here-to-fore perfectly legal, social activity and caught widespread, public resistance just as they should have. Illegal downloading has been improper and illegal with real victims since the first download and the courts are finally making that crystal clear. It is the provenance of a significant but relatively small cadre of online outlaws. Moreover, it encroaches on a legal, profitable business that is the prideful, leading light of the global entertainment industry, with historically close ties to the Democratic Legislature. You really ARE fucking crazy.
Truly dude, up until this you sounded smarter than that.
December 14th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
” Even p2p advocates acknowledge that yearly sales figures are down a few percentage points every year (in an otherwise expanding market) and this translates to billions and billions of product taken but unpaid. ”
Really, how so ?
There are no other possible factors ?
The fact that there a fewer new releases ( artificial shortage ) wouldn’t have anything to
do with it ?
The boycott ?
To assume that the only factor is ‘ product taken but unpaid ‘ IS a fallacy.
There are many factors, none of which have anything to do with sharing of
copyrighted material, that are costing them.
Time and time again, the viral marketing of P2P has proven a boon to sales.
Ask the ‘Umbrella’ Girl
She was signed to a label before she ever appeared on YouTube.
The labels used the marketing engine of the web and P2P to spread her around ;P
Brilliant marketing.
Once again, P2P has zero effect, proven in 3 studies.
Losses due to P2P are a fiction.
” Music is huge but no industry is going to let a new form of digital shoplifting cut into their business in the billions of dollars each year without “whatever it takes” to stop it. ”
Of course.
The sky was falling for them with the advent of the VCR.
They failed to stop it, and a new market ( which they made millions off of ) was created.
They failed to sue the Diamond Rio out of existence ( one of the first portable MP3 players),
and a new market was created.
This same pattern has been repeated with every new technology.
They fight tooth and nail.
In the long run .. they fail.
Eventually they adapt.
As before, in the long run .. they will fail.
Whether or not they adapt is their choice.
” For the record, I’m the first to acknowledge that an illegally downloaded file is not inherently a lost sale, but when somebody wants and takes your product and doesn’t pay for it, there is a certain justice in seeing it that way. ”
Not is the assertion is false.
There is no justice prosecuting on the basis of a falsehood.
Once again, there is nore evidence that those who download and enjoy DO
in fact make a purchase, if they like it.
Of course, when you alienate your largest cutomer base ( young people ),
you MIGHT be shooting yourself in the foot.
” Say what you wish, fellas, but the numbers are clear. ”
Yes, they are.
Three studies showed that P2P has no effect on sales.
There is also a large indication that sales are increased
” Up until Napster we all went to the Tower or the Virgin or the HMV and we purchased CD’s. ”
Aaaaand , when napster was at it’s most popular, More CD’s were purchased than ever before.
People discovered artists they had never heard before, got to hear them , and bought.
Nice.
Others rediscovered artists they had forgotten, resparked interest, and they bought.
Nice.
Compare the most downloaded to the best sellers, nearly in sync .. always.
the evidence IS there.
The labels just want it ignored.
As I said before, this has never been about losing money ( they don’t )
It’s about losing control.
It’s about a market where anyone with a decent home studio can participate
and COMPETE .. all without the middle man.
All else is just bullshit.
‘” If you have a problem seeing a link between illegal downloading and billions of dollars off the market pace since Napster, you are in a very dwindling few. ”
Actually the opposite is true.
More and more are ‘getting’ it, and the labels lawsuits are fueling the backlash.
Head in the sand much ?
” Truly dude, up until this you sounded smarter than that. ”
No offense taken.
You never sounded like anything other than an idiot to me.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
” And Dreddsnik, I had more faith in you until your Prohibition reference. In Prohibition, government sought to end a here-to-fore perfectly legal, social activity and caught widespread, public resistance just as they should have. ”
btw,
The TOPIC of this article … Ripping CD’s …
The ripping of CD’s that you own, for your own personal use is a
LEGAL protected activity.
A heretofore perfectly legal social activity that the RIAA is trying to use
purchased lawmakers to end, and is catching widespread public resistance.
As it should be.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
A
H
R
A
December 16th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Hmm, so let’s see…
The vast majority of peer-to-peer file sharing is illegal, eh?
So every time I download the latest Debian, KNOPPIX, Ubuntu, CRUX, or Fedora CD set, that’s not legal? Because last time I checked, there’s a LOT of large file downloads out there that are 100% legitimate, fall under the peer-to-peer distribution method, and getting ignored by people who choose to follow the media associations in a partially blind manner.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Sam I Am sez, “…their folks didn’t instill any ethics…”
Pot, may I introduce you to kettle.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
The following should be required reading for Sam I Am and anyone else who has
drunk the RIAA kool-aid and thinks they are paying their artists fairly:
The Problem With Music
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
December 17th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
” The following should be required reading for Sam I Am ”
I think sam knows all about that already.
first hand.
December 17th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
another middleman. makes sense now
December 19th, 2007 at 2:15 am
Hey “Sam I Am”. I’m a musician and copyright-holder, and I just want to thank you for showing me (once again) why signing on with the music “establishment” isn’t for me. Think I’m in a minority with my point of view? Well there are a few thousand more folks I can direct you toward at a little website called “Myspace”. A bit of time devoted to online searching will provide you with a few million others. Indeed, there’s more music out there than can be heard in a lifetime, none of which is controlled by the RIAA. Mine is just a droplet in this massive tidalwave that’s about to obliterate your organization, and you can’t do SHIT about it, because it’s completely legal. Now go pat yourself on the back all you want for all the era of music your organization controlled. We’ll take it from here….
December 20th, 2007 at 2:15 am
thank god i live in a country where we dont get sued over silly pitiful things , i think the US has to take a good look at its self & start afresh , the RIAA are a bunch of knobs who cant keep up with the times , thankgod for bitTorrent ,
if you own the cd then make as many copies as you like , what right does anybody have to tell you you cant ?? no wonder the USA is the joke of the world when it comes to file sharing { and many other things}
and what right does the RIAA have tryin to get the laws changed in other countries to suit it , get a life .
YOU CAN SUCK MY KNOB RIAA & THE US GOVERNMENT .
LONG LIVE BIT-TORRENT
December 27th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Looks like Sammy Boy had his eggs replaced with crow. Too damn bad. Shouldn’t have tried to push RIAA/MPAA/CRIA/etc. propaganda on a pro-P2P-rights forum with intelligent and educated readers.
December 29th, 2007 at 11:35 am
http://www.stealthisfilm.com/Part2/
December 29th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Is it any less illegal for you RIAA and MPAA nuts to be connecting to our private computers and hacking into private LAN networks just to monitor the files that are pushed through OUR systems and then harass us with letters? I bet if I started spying on the White House’s LAN, or sending them files as bait, someone would be knocking on my door in a few hours, yet you use unauthorized connections all day long to try and fuck us over on any little legality issue you think you find. A cop can’t force his way into my house, dig around and find something “illegal” and bring me up on charges for it, that’s called illegal search and seizure, how is it any different for you?