Wrath of the RIAA: II
p2pnet.net News:- In mid-April Harvard University’s The Crimson ran an OpEd entitled Wrath of the RIAA in which it opined the music industry sue ‘em all campaign seemed to be working, at least as far as students are concerned, but wondered if it was furthering the interests of the record industry.
Yesterday, the Crimson carried a response from Michael J. Huppe, RIAA senior vp and deputy general counsel, and a 1995 graduate of Harvard Law School
In it, Huppe says , "This is an incredibly exciting time," echoing the words of his boss, RIAA president Cary Sherman who, announcing that the RIAA was victimizing another 725 people for sharing music with each other, declared, "this is an incredibly exciting time".
Read on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wrath of the RIAA
Lawsuits seem to be effective, but do they further the interests of the record industry?
By THE CRIMSON STAFF
It seems that the golden age of file-sharing is coming to a close. Much to our amazement, the unfortunate reality is that the Recording Industry Association of America’s (RIAA) legal campaign against student file-sharers is working. The repercussions of this crusade may mean increased vigilance on the part of music-swapping students – gone are the days of worry-free Kazaa – but it doesn’t mean that the RIAA’s aggressive legal actions spell success for their drive to preserve the music industry’s ingenuity. It could be that these lawsuits, which the association is firing off with such impunity, will boomerang, crippling the industry that it’s allegedly trying so hard to save.
Last Wednesday, the RIAA filed 400 lawsuits against college students across the nation, including 11 against Harvard students for sharing music files over a high-speed academic network. The lawsuits are filed under the Digital Millennium Copyrights Act and seek $2,000 per file in compensation—though they’re usually settled for $3,000 out of court. Unfortunately, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) followed suit on Thursday, filing similar lawsuits against students at 12 universities.
The lawsuits against our peers have proven effective in their intent to, in the words of President of RIAA Cary Sherman, put “students and users everywhere on notice that there are consequences to illegal uses of this special network.” Before doing what was previously so easy, just a matter of a few clicks, we will all hesitate, thinking of that kid next door who now has to scrape together thousands to repent for his dishonorable double-clicks.
But ultimately, there are ways of sharing files that are relatively safe from the wrath of the music industry’s lawyers; even if the RIAA and MPAA shut down every existing avenue there will be four more tomorrow. Where there’s a significant market—about 60 million people in America share files, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation—there’s a way. Of course, this largely misses the point. The RIAA, with its army of lawyers, is slowly but surely poisoning the well from which it drinks; by suing their clients’ customers and fans they are building an atmosphere of animosity among the demographic they need the most.
The RIAA is reacting to symptoms of a larger disease that it has yet to cure, largely because they haven’t realized that it isn’t a disease at all. The disease—a widespread dissatisfaction with the exorbitant price of music combined with the ease of obtaining music on the Internet—can’t be cured by litigation. The music industry must realize that music consumers are simply not willing to drive to the music store, find a compact disc—for the one song they long to hear—buy it for roughly $20, and upload it to their computer. The traditional process is expensive and time consuming; it forces one to pay for unwanted songs along with those that are, and, in our iPod culture, many music fans don’t even use the original compact disc after they upload the songs onto their computer anyway.
That said, it should be noted that we understand concerns of intellectual property rights. And we’re sympathetic. However, it’s a new day for the music industry; instead of fighting the future, the RIAA and the artists that they represent should embrace the Internet, and the trend that is being set by wildly successful ventures such as Apple’s iTunes music store. Scare tactics such as lawsuits will only encourage innovative students to devise new ways of anonymously procuring free music. Instead, the RIAA should work with music fans and Internet software developers to come up with a good alternative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RIAA Protects Industry Workers, Embraces Technology
As a Harvard alumnus and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) executive, I write in response to The Crimson’s editorial “Wrath of the RIAA” (Apr. 18), which sets forth the same tired and incorrect arguments about the modern music industry that have become popular among its critics. While we appreciate The Crimson’s (obligatory) shared concern for the protection of intellectual property rights, the editorial’s characterization of our relationship with technology is terribly out of tune.
The assertion that record companies are “fighting the future,” or that they aim to “cure” fans’ desire for music on the Internet, could not be more wrong. Record companies are as enthusiastic as any music fan about the explosion of new ways for consumers to enjoy better sounding music in the cutting-edge formats we all desire. Again and again, we have embraced the technological advances that have allowed tens of millions of people around the world to enjoy the music we create. From scores of download and subscription services to Internet radio to ringtunes, we are aggressively licensing music to a host of legitimate services.
We know as well as anyone the plethora of consumer business models that never before existed, and that technology now makes possible. These new models are exciting, and offer benefits to both the record companies and the consumer. But none of these models will flourish if they are forced to compete with “free.” Besides sympathizing with the dozen or so Harvard students that were sued for their illegal conduct, perhaps The Crimson should also take note of the tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs in the past few years at all levels of the music supply chain: from labels, to engineers and technicians, to manufacturing and shipping companies, to record stores. Or you might comment upon the countless artists that can no longer make a living because of piracy.
Your arguments on the “exorbitant” price of music are also misplaced. If a consumer believes the cost of a particular item—a stereo, a bike, a pair of jeans—is too high, you would never turn that around as justification to shoplift the item. Why should music be any different? Moreover, the relative price of music has risen very little in recent decades when compared to most other forms of entertainment (such as movies and sporting events). Perhaps if consumers realized that record companies typically invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in each artist, and that they recover this investment on very few of those artists, they would understand that much more goes into the cost of a compact disc than the paper and plastic that comprise it.
This is an incredibly exciting time for music, and we hope the future is full of even more music offered through more legitimate online distribution channels. Yet, the legitimate online marketplace will never fully flourish while piracy is allowed to run rampant. No one is well served—not students, not administrators and especially not fans who love music—when theft is allowed to prevail. And illegal file-sharing is theft, plain and simple
=============
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
May 3rd, 2005 at 7:55 pm
show me one person who’s lost their job due to piracy, and I’ll show you a high level exec who kept his 3rd house so that person could lose his job.
you’re overpaid swine with a fat and overweight infrastructure that can’t adapt, and you’re attempting to hold back the future of technology to maintain your comfortable life and high flying stock price.
The difference between bicycles, clothes, anything else, is that eventually if there are no buyers, then the price drops.
You’re unwilling to drop your prices, so you’re using mob tactics to force people to buy your goods when alternatives exist. By the way, what determines the quality of your goods? You do, and you claim all this excess marketing overhead is required? You push the artists that you want to push, because there’s a financial model that supports already that artist making more than a dime for your pork belly.
When railroad travel was consumed by cars, when the broom industry was overtaken by vaccuum cleaners, they gave up gracefully. You all should learn to do the same.
May 3rd, 2005 at 9:44 pm
“Your arguments on the âexorbitantâ price of music are also misplaced. If a consumer believes the cost of a particular itemâa stereo, a bike, a pair of jeansâis too high, you would never turn that around as justification to shoplift the item.”
I don’t think this guy has ever had to stare at something you couldn’t afford. People who shoplift do indeed do it because they cannot afford what they want. Why do people steal gas? For the thrill?
Typically, songs cost $1 to download, but in a recent story I read, when sued, the average cost per song was $750.00. Where’s the justification? And didn’t I just read that the RIAA’s lawsuits are going to bring in an estimated $30 million?
Idiocy at its finest.
May 3rd, 2005 at 9:58 pm
“Again and again, we have embraced the technological advances that have allowed tens of millions of people around the world to enjoy the music we create.”
“We create”? Artists create the music, the record labels promote, market and distribute it. They don’t create a damn thing.
“These new models are exciting, and offer benefits to both the record companies and the consumer. But none of these models will flourish if they are forced to compete with âfree.â”
Last time I checked, iTunes was selling over 1 million songs a day. The Russian service Allofmp3 is also selling millions of songs. This proves that they can compete with free.
“perhaps The Crimson should also take note of the tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs in the past few years at all levels of the music supply chain”
Even if this were true, what does this have to do with people sharing copyrighted songs on the Internet for free? In order to link copyright infringement with loss of jobs they have to provide evidence which indicates P2P is harming their industry. They have never done this. Propaganda doesn’t count as facts.
“And illegal file-sharing is theft, plain and simple”
Is this man trying to redefine words? Trading copyrighted files is not theft, it’s copyright infringement. Big difference. If someone makes a copy of a friends CD it’s not theft. If he steals the CD from his friend then it’s theft.
It’s obvious that Michael Huppe has nothing to add to this discussion. He’s just spewing the same old nonsense that the record labels like to spout over and over again.
May 3rd, 2005 at 10:46 pm
I suggest you send this comment in an email to the editor. There was no email provided for the writer. I’m sure they were flooded by email due to this story being reprted here and other p2p sites. Drake, I think your comment wraps it all up very nicely.
May 4th, 2005 at 12:40 am
“No one is well servedânot students, not administrators and especially not fans who love musicâwhen theft is allowed to prevail. And illegal file-sharing is theft, plain and simple”
This dip is a general counsel. I wonder if he would “counsel” his other RIAA buddies to actually try and use the term “theft” in a court of law. Plain and simple using the word theft in place of infringement is dishonest and slanderous. From the transcripts I’ve read, every RIAA shill that used terms like theft and piracy got their ass handed back to them by the presiding judge or judges. These assholes can’t even speak the truth in a court of law.
May 4th, 2005 at 3:17 am
Nice one Drake : )
Cheers!
May 4th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Your arguments on the ?exorbitant? price of music are also misplaced. If a consumer believes the cost of a particular item-a stereo, a bike, a pair of jeans-is too high, you would never turn that around as justification to shoplift the item.
No, that does not justify shoplifting, but what the RIAA wants to do is prevent someone from using their sewing machine to make a replica of the jeans. This is much like buying a grapevine from a nursery and then being sued by the same nursery for making a cutting and giving the cutting to a friend. By the way there is a greater monetary “penalty” for sharing a song than there is for shoplifting a CD. How is that fair?
May 4th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
“Or you might comment upon the countless artists that can no longer make a living because of piracy.”
“Perhaps if consumers realized that record companies typically invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in each artist, and that they recover this investment on very few of those artists, they would understand that much more goes into the cost of a compact disc than the paper and plastic that comprise it”
These two statements contradict themselves. Stop paying these artist so much money. See MTV Cribs, I need to give more money to these artist, they don’t have enough cars, blings, etc… Please name some recent artist that can no longer make a living because of piracy. Don’t give me Vanilla Ice or Chumbawamba or the likes. Don’t expect us the consumer to pay for your mistake (”invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in each artist”) if an artist you select sucks.
“take note of the tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs in the past few years at all levels of the music supply chain: from labels, to engineers and technicians, to manufacturing and shipping companies, to record stores.”
This is the digital age, you can cut cost by removing the manuacturing, shipping or the physical store from the equation. Does the RIAA still using the pony express to deliver their mails?
May 5th, 2005 at 8:00 pm
All the sue’em mentality is to make people change to download. Napster was on a server- they were sued so file sharing went de-centralized with kazaa. That led to eDonkey with more security. That will lead to file encription in an anonymous network. It is a viscious circle with no winner and no end in site. I like bittorrent, but with the current atmosphere, any downloads would be through a proxy server. New adopters of innovation walk away while other people are left holding the bag. AS MUTE and ANTS grow, it will introduce another element into the fight between file sharers and RIAA/MPAA. It doesn’t matter how much they sue, P2P will adapt and change, which will make them adapt and change.
The problem they must face is that I no longer buy DVD’s like I once did. I bought National Treasure yesterday. The last one before that was 2 months ago. Knowing there is a good video copy to download means I won’t buy as many DVD’s as I did. That is where they will get hurt. And, yes, I have bought 2 CD’s this year, but not like I did at one time, I am not sure where it will end, but the RIAA/MPAA are sure losers.