Lessig And RIAA Answer NewsHour Questions 888
Zeta writes "The answers are finally in! Stanford's Lawrence Lessig and the RIAA's Matt Oppenheim have responded to all the tough questions on copyrighted music, many from Slashdot readers, for the online part of the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Take a look - some of the responses may surprise you." We ran the original call for questions a few weeks back.
The RIAA guy is an idiot... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Riaa Guy
I'd let anyone make a perfect copy of my car and drive away with it if they'd like, I still have my car.
The RIAA guy is an idiot...Copy the good stuff. (Score:5, Funny)
Who'd want a copy of a Yugo?
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot...Copy the good stuff. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot...Copy the good stuff. (Score:3, Interesting)
People shouldn't feel hung up on the rights of the recording industry or any other one concerning their right to make money. What should matter, since it is the public that should decide, is the overwhelming public good. Why should we reward people who attempt to sell us something that can be produced and distributed for practically nothing. It makes no sense. It is an entirely useless allocation of capital that could be
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot...Copy the good stuff. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no fundamental right to be able to earn a living by making music. People used to be able to. But if technology is now destroying that ability, so be it! Nobody these days makes a living manufacturing vacuum tubes or writing letters for people who never learned to read.
Unlike physical property, "intellectual" property is a total fiction of law. If technology makes that fiction untenable, perh
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot...Copy the good stuff. (Score:4, Insightful)
In the US there is. It's in the Constitution.
No, it's not. It's an unfortunate and political renomenclature for what is collectively known as copyrights and patents, which as I mentioned above are provided for in the Constitution. To be sure, there are people who are looking to redefine the terms so that intellectual works are protected as strongly as physical property, and they're at odds with the Constitution and will ultimately fail if the system works, but your assertion that there is no right to make a living from creative works is on its face wrong as a point of law. People are not entitled to make a living producing things that other people don't want to buy (e.g. vacuum tubes) but they are entitled to a limited (in time and in terms) monopoly on their creative works.
Technology that makes it possible to duplicate and distribute those works cheaply does not invalidate that protection, it just makes breaking copyright laws easier. I'm generally not one for making the kind of specious analogies employed by the RIAA, but I think in this case your extremist position warrants one: Machine guns make it easier to kill people, does that mean the law against murder is obsolete? The idea that technology erases accountability to the law is absurd.
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot...Copy the good stuff. (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you. If musicians (with business sense) ran the business, consumer costs would probably be limited to equipment, maintinence, delivery and related costs, with enough profit margins to keep up with technology. This way the musicians can concentrate on making their music and fans still have easy access to it.
Do not make yourself sound stupid by insisting that expensive equipent and studios are nee
Remember the websites (Score:3, Interesting)
What makes you think musicians cant make money in the same way websites do?
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot...Copy the good stuff. (Score:5, Insightful)
What if you were singing in the street? What if you were singing in the park?
The fact is that it's illegal for you to sing an artists song. If anybody heard you singing that is a performance and you owe the record company money. Sure if you are singing in the shower the police would have to break in but if you are singing in the street they don't have to.
You can make all kinds of speculations about whether they would arrest you or not but that does not change the fact that what you are doing is illegal. I remember a time when the cops would never arrest you for smoking a joint, in fact one time a friend of mine got pulled over with a bag of dope and a bong the cops just confiscated his stash and let him go. These days the cops would throw you in jail and confiscate your car. The laws that are not being enforced to day could be enforced with a zero tolerance in the future.
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot...Copy the good stuff. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot...Copy the good stuff. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the same argument the RI** uses: if no one thought they could get rich, they wouldn't bother making music/movies. That's demonstrably crap. There have been musicians and entertainers as long as there have been humans. Why would that change, just because we got rid of the ou
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot...Copy the good stuff. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hydrogen fuel cells allow us to do what you talk about right now. Essentially they'd run on air itself, the energy produced from the air turning into water and back into air again provides almost unlimited energy.
We also have thermonuclear fusion, which provides almost unlimited energy as well, but its not as safe or easy to use in its current form. We also have organic energy sources, which provide energy.
The problem is not energy, the problem is will, our big businesses dont think its profitable for t
A world without IP (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, because nobody would *ever* make something good and useful unless they could get strong copyright and patent protection on it, would they? *Cough*Linux*Cough*.
There's no doubt the business models would have to change. But really, is the 2003 model of a car really so much better than the 2002 model, or the 2000 model, or the 1990 model? There might not be as much incentive to spend time to develop new models when the old one is "good enough". On the other hand, if enough people have enough need for a new "X" they'll either make it themselves or pay someone to make it for them. Sure, they'll have to live with other people having it as well, but so what?
I think the incredible success of Open Source / Free software has proved that people can and will design and build amazing things even if they can't sell the design or the end product for much if anything. If the physical world of car manufacturing were similar we'd probably end up with some pretty funky looking cars, and a lot of cars might have some really odd UI "features" and some odd bugs, but so what? I, for one, would not cry if Ford had to close down because there was no margin in designing the newest Mega-SUV.
As for music and other artistic processes, there was music before copyright, and there would be music afterwards. There might not be an N'Sync because the margins just wouldn't be there, but there would probably be just as many, if not more, local bands. To make money, musicians would have to play gigs. Guess what? Most of them do that anyhow, and many of them really enjoy it.
I say, why fear change? Sure there's a downside to getting rid of IP laws, but it's pretty obvious there's a huge downside to keeping them in place as well.
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's for a natural market to find out on its own.
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot... (Score:3, Insightful)
the point is if everybody will be copying cars for free, who'll spen lots of $$ for producing them?
Rich people.
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I can't stand listening to him. All these RIAA-defenders sound like a broken record, repeating the same tired arguments over and over again. Like "intellectual property should be treated like any other property."
-russ
legal parrots (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not even a fun show anymore... they've become complete bores; the tribe has spoken by the millions: it's time for the men in the sharkskin suits to leave the island.
Would you be able to sell your car? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are a car dealer, you're done for.
Re:Would you be able to sell your car? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are a car dealer, you're done for
Exactly, yet if you are an original car maker, then you are still in business.
-Ted
Re:Would you be able to sell your car? (Score:3, Interesting)
As you long as you get paid up front. :)
The Street Performer Protocol [firstmonday.dk] is a great idea, really.
--
Re:Would you be able to sell your car? (Score:5, Interesting)
Under such a scenario, the dealers would be screwed, but they wouldn't be wanted or desired or missed, either. But the designers, who put R & D effort into squeezing a few more HP or MPH out of that engine, would not only be screwed, but would be missed.
Re:Would you be able to sell your car? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why am I stealing from them by diminishing the value? Why aren't they stealing from me by increasing the value?
The value of a product is supposed to be determined by supply and demand, not by demand alone.
Re:Would you be able to sell your car? (Score:5, Insightful)
So by that logic, the inventor of the automobile stole the livelihood of all the buggy makers, horseshoe making blacksmiths, and so forth.
This is the logic of those that think that just because they found something useful to do and are making money off it now, everyone else therefore has an obligation to avoid doing anything that will make what they're doing less useful, and therefore less lucrative, in the future. It's the logic of entitlement, of protectionism, of the Luddites and all their kin.
The record companies once performed a valuable service. They got paid for it. When technology changes so that service isn't so valuable anymore, they should adapt and change so they continue to offer value and earn money. Instead, they try to turn back the progress of technology via legislation. They seem to believe that, having once provided value, they are now entitled to be paid in perpetuity, without earning it.
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot... (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA is the Recording Industry Association of America. It is not the Recording Industry and Artists Association of America. It says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
sums it up nicely
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Everything you described sounds fine to me. You should enjoy your John Denver 8 Track, and feel free to copy it to other media. The only issue would be if you decided you wanted to download somebody else's copy of John Denver's Greatest Hits (which was likely from a CD, and a much higher audio quality). "
Dumbass! The John Denver fan asked him if it was a "license" or just a physical copy, he indicated it was a license and then proceeded to contradict himself! He proved that the RIAA wants to have their cake and eat it too; i.e. the product is only a license, until your copy breaks or wears out in which case you'll just have to buy a new one at full price.
The guy also says, "Networks like Kazaa, Gnutella, iMesh, Grokster and Morpheus, among others, are encouraging and helping individuals to distribute perfect digital copies of music to millions of strangers simultaneously." This is of course wrong, since MP3s use lossy compression and are in that manner comparable to consumer analog formats.
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot... (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA guy understood it perfectly and did what was the best for RIAA, he gave a vague answer that reinforced RIAA position that you can do only what RIAA legally allows you to do.
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot... (Score:5, Interesting)
And if you bought T2 on VHS, you should be entitled to reencode it and record it on DVD, you own a license which permits you to have one copy of that film, on any media. It does not have to be the same exact copy either, copyright law does NOT indicate this. If I lose my copy, I CAN legally aquire another copy. I CAN'T take a dvd from the video store because even though I own the rights to one copy (any physical copy, not just the physical copy purchased) I DON'T have the right to deprive them of one of the copies which they purchased for resale. There's a big difference there.
More (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, here's another one:
So, here's what you do: take the digital stream and translate the binary data to tones (hi, low) and convert those tones to analog, make your copy using only analog, band pass out the gibbs artefacts, convert the tones back to digital, run through a decoder with a touch o' error correction. Done.Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Unless you buy it, you should not copy it for your own use."
This is such crap. What if i make it? What if its free. Millions of exceptions can be found. What if i see artwork and try to copy it at home? Is the fact that digital copies are perfect and other artwork wont copy as well really the deciding factor if its legal? Also what about public-domain works? Unless i buy them it's unethical to copy them?
Matt Oppenheim (RIAA):
"The DMCA Anti-Circumvention provision is not intended to stifle technological innovation. Indeed, it is intended to spur it on by creating and protecting business markets for new technologies."
So the intent of a law or technology is what decides if its moral/legal? What about the intent of P2P? I have yet to hear one P2P creator publicize their network for "breaking laws" or "copyright infringements".
I think that Matt Oppenheim is making really bad arguement points. Almost every point he makes can be broken down as untrue or not based on reality.
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously, when you pirate, you deprive the artist of due profit. No one seriously disputes that, to paraphrase Lessig. However, there's been no real discussion of how or why intellectual property is the same or should be treated as the same as physical property.
This position appears to be the position by default; the RIAA-types argue that this is clearly property, how is it different? In reality, from a philosophical, practical, and legal standpoint, IP is simply not the same as physical property and, unless a very good argument to the contrary is presented, should not be treated as the same.
This is perhaps the most irksome lapse in the RIAA's argument, to me. The similarities are there, but there are differences, too.
There is a very good reason for copy protection, as outlined in the Constitution. You'd let anyone make a perfect copy of your car if you weren't trying to sell it; if you were, it'd benefit your business to limit the number of copies floating around so people have to buy it from you. Had you designed the car, you'd want credit for it.
The point that the RIAA misses, though, (or tries to paper over with rhetoric) is that intellctual property is not physical property; the effects and implications of IP theft are quite different and quite complex. To merely say, "Well, it's theft" is to completely miss any real, valuable discussion of the situation and its implications.
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot... (Score:4, Interesting)
In other words, once you've done your research, and made your first protoype, only then can one really start work on the manufacturing process; that is when you start designing and buying molds, presses, lathes, parts and electronics in mass quantaties.
Get a copy of the transcript on kazaa (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Get a copy of the transcript on kazaa (Score:5, Informative)
Why was the parent a troll? Have a sense of humor, asshats.
NEWSFLASH Riaa wigs STill CLUELESS (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2002, unit sales were down about 11 percent.
In 2001, unit sales were down about 10 percent.
In 2000, unit sales were down seven percent. "
No, you jackass! Your sales are down for other reasons.. not illegal downloading.
1) Only so many bands can look and sound identical, before people need only buy ONE album and pretend it is five different bands.
2) Music sucks.
3) CD's are overpriced for what you get.. when Rush used to put out albums, five or six songs were GOOD and the rest were OKAY.. now your pablum barfing force fed musicians are wont to put out one hit, on a record that Im payign 16 dollars for.
4) see #2
5) ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID!
Thank you.
Maeryk
Re:NEWSFLASH Riaa wigs STill CLUELESS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NEWSFLASH Riaa wigs STill CLUELESS (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize that the RIAA rep is getting paid to represent his employers, but we ended up with non-responsive answers like this:
As a technical matter, it is illegal to download a recording from another that is not yours. As a practical matter, there is no reason to do it. It is easier these days to rip a recording from a CD than to download it. And, when you rip the CD, you do not open up your computer to all of the spyware and other viruses that are part and parcel of most illegal P2P services.
I'm glad that Oppenheim is so concerned about the tremendous amount of spyware out there (which is, strangely enough, not present in some p2p software [shareaza.com]. I'm so glad that he's making sure we don't waste time downloading tracks that we could just rip ourselves, notwithstanding that the CD is out in the car, or that our CD-ROM just exploded, or that the CD is rife with copy protection measures that someone else was able to bypass while not under the thumb of the DMCA.
He didn't provide any references or explanation as to why his answer - that you can't download a track for which you already own the license on the same physical source medium - was purportedly factual. In fact, I'd speculate that he's flat-out wrong.
Re:NEWSFLASH Riaa wigs STill CLUELESS (Score:3, Interesting)
This is obvious but still... (Score:3, Insightful)
You probbably also noticed that tiny distinction that Lessig made:
But that's probably obvious... (It was so blatantly obvious, lieing directly under my nose, that I for once couldn't think of it :)
Re:NEWSFLASH Riaa wigs STill CLUELESS (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally could care less if "big music" goes belly up. Would that mean people would stop making music? Clearly, the answer is no.
God forbid the music industry's demise lead to Americans thinking for themselves, and actually having to discriminate in determining which music they like, instead of being force-fed by these soulless plutocrats.
Well, SOMEONE gets it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:NEWSFLASH Riaa wigs STill CLUELESS (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you jackass! Your sales are down for other reasons.. not illegal downloading
This (and the other responses to your post) is typical slashdottery double standards. Normally intelligent people bristle (rightly) with rage when their rights are taken away. And then (wrongly) go on to make very unintelligent statements that appear to be sheer propaganda to defend their position.
Even if all you say is true for you (quite possibly it is, what do I know), do you really believe that no-one else in the world is spending less on CDs? Do you really think that some cash-strapped 12 year old, who now has access to $1 ripped copies of the music he wants, is going to keep on begging his parents for $15 to buy a legit copy ? Of course not. Of course he will be contributing to reduced sales.
It is an absolute no-brainer that illegal piracy and downloading is cutting into the industry's sales. No matter how unpalatable that truth is to us.
Before I am modded into oblivion, I am not arguing with any of the following:
- CDs are way over-priced
- It sucks that the artist gets so little on every sale
- The RIAA are pricks and deserve everything coming to them (heh, that should make me safe !)
- Downloading free music rocks !
My only point is that is irrational to claim that illegal downloading does not impact on sales. It is blindingly obvious that some people will buy less music if they can get the same thing free or very cheap. And for sure there is not a counter-balancing volume of people out there who are buying more because of illegal copying.So lets not use untruths to make the industry change their position - it won't work. It plays into their hands.
Use hard facts instead. Unless music becomes cheaper, illegal copying will go on, and will get worse. Citizens will start to see it as their duty to put up illegal P2P nodes. Even now, we are revolting ! So wake the fuck up, RIAA !
Re:NEWSFLASH Riaa wigs STill CLUELESS (Score:5, Insightful)
True enough. However it is not the only factor involved in the sales decline. It isn't even the largest of many factors in all likelyhood. Yet the industry continually fights tooth and nail to make it look like the only possible reason under the sun this could be happening, despite the entire economy being in the shitter.
for sure there is not a counter-balancing volume of people out there who are buying more because of illegal copying.
Seemingly intelligent, huh? This is a downright false statement. Every study done to date that wasn't sponsored by the music industry showed that in areas with high internet penetration (say, college campuses) music sales were markedly higher after the influx of music sharing than before and far healthier than elsewhere. I would probably grant you that more individual people don't buy since they have the mp3s than do buy, but there is a rift in the types that creates a very lopsidded equation. The types of 'fans' who are satisfied with mp3s and a burned copy are much less likely to buy any given album in the first place, and less likely to spend as much on music across the board. I.E. They have 50 bucks to spend this month, w/o p2p they were gonna spend 20 on cds bust since they downloaded some of the stuff they only spend 10. The other end is people like me (or how I used to be). I was gonna spend 50 bucks that month. Before p2p 30 of it was going to be music. But since I discovered 3 new bands I liked over p2p I went and spent 60 bucks and all on music.
That's the way it usually shakes down in my personally experience. Yeah, less people use it to sample and find new stuff than just rip whatever they heard on the radio and keep it. But those that do sample tend to be very into music. I was dream customer for the RIAA before all this crap hit the fan. Between myself and my wife we have well over 1200 store bought CDs (and no illegal mp3s, thank you very much). My half of this was amassed in less than a decade. That's more than a cd a week. Since this debacle started I've both steered away from RIAA affiliated music in general and p2p as a whole. I've bought 3 CDs in the past 8 months. Right or wrong legally, can you really say the RIAA is winning this battle or fighting the good fight?
Re:NEWSFLASH Riaa wigs STill CLUELESS (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the issue (and I'm sorry I missed the original call for questions, otherwise I would have submitted it) is this:
The RIAA has continually asserted that there is observed correlation between the rise of P2P and a drop in CD sales, and concluded that there is a causal relationship. However, the same years have also seen a drop in the economy, plus a huge rise in sales of newer kinds of media (e.g. DVDs (especially music DVDs) and broadband internet). My question would have been: Is there any hard ev
Re:NEWSFLASH Riaa wigs STill CLUELESS (Score:5, Insightful)
There are also the group who would have never bought the music in the first place... this group is now downloading music... umm no loss here.
Then there is the group who loves music and will buy cd's, this group is going to support the artists they love, they are going to find more artists they love because of filesharing and will purchase more music.
There there is another group (that I'm part of) that takes the second group a step further. Who never used to listen to much music at all and certainly never purchased cd's... but who because of filesharing has discovered some great music and has now purchased several cd's in response.
Between all these groups of people (and other's I haven't thought of in 30 seconds or less) yes I absolutely think it's reasonable to think P2P is a scapegoat and not the real reason the recording industry is losing money.
The REAL problem is that the recording industry hasn't really embraced technology. They view it only as a means of increasing profits and protecting their interests. What about using technology to provide more and better content to consumers and increase their sales as a side effect? Currently content is damn near infinite, why not release dvd's full of music in brick and morter stores for what their charging for cd's right now? The price difference for me to do this is about 60 cents. I suspect the price difference for them is less, not more. I'd be much more likely to pay $20 if ALL the artists previous releases were included.
As for online music, give it to me cheap, you want a pay per download scerio, great, how about a nickel a song? They've said it themselves, online distribution allows the making of infinite perfect digitial copies... so I want the reduced costs passed directly to me and I want the PERFECT digital copies.
And artists... how about making getting "signed" a web-form that gives the artist 20% of sales, the artist can upload his music, he gets 20%, he gets carried on a major label's site, he gets his music out there, and if he gets popular THEN they support him by bringing him in for expensive recording and such.
Re:NEWSFLASH Riaa wigs STill CLUELESS (Score:5, Funny)
What's this "economy" thing and what is so important about it?
Sincerely,
George W. Bush, President of the U.S.
What's the Difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is really "sharing" as we traditionally think of the term. Sharing involves lending something to somebody, and while it is on loan, the owner no longer has it. "Sharing" in the P2P context has become a euphemism for "copying." That copying is neither legal nor ethical.
So...why do they say copying music files is "stealing"? Nobody loses any physical property, nothing of monetary value, but yet "copying" is equal to "stealing" in their minds...
From an ethical perspective, when individuals engage in illegal copying, they are taking money out of the pockets of all of the people who have put their hard work into making the music
Yeah, and from an ethical perspective suing a student for creating a search engine and letting him go for merely all he's worth is just dandy.
Re:What's the Difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
A. hadn't copied the file
B. still wanted it enough to pay $16
I don't have a problem paying for music, but the RIAA is making a big mistake if they think they can legislate out of existence economic law.
Supply vs. Demand. They should view P2P as COMPETITION, not as theft. Then, they would realize what it is: An inferior method of getting inferior versions of a product for a low low low price.
Back to the sharing!=copying!=stealing, I think that the original intent of copyright was to safeguard initial profits of a trademark or intellectual property, but then eventually safeguard the data so everyone can be enriched by it. I mean, that's what humanity is about--sharing and loving stuff, right? When did money become more important than happiness?! The RIAA wants to control everything, and they are seeing their empire collapse from under them as new, open sources of information take over where they couldn't go. Information wants to be free.
Anyway, maybe if the RIAA LOWERED THE PRICES ON THEIR MUSIC, more people would buy it. $16 isn't reasonable. That is 3 meals. Why do we as a society accept rockstars that make a lot of money anyway? They don't deserve it. They just waste it on clothes and drugs and cars. Personally, I am happy to support good and hardworking stars that come to my city on tours. But I will never buy a CD from the big5 again. Sigh, I digress.
Re:What's the Difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot the maybe. If no copy is made, and it isn't worth it to actually buy it, they don't make any money either.
They are trying to make it out like CD's are like food or toilet paper, but really it's their own fault they have a flawed business model. Sorry, folks, the end has come. They have enough cash to keep kicking and screaming for a while, but I think the film industry is a little bigger on the money side, and they are all into that pretty heavily also.
I'll never shed a tear. I've turned my back. Sorry to all the artists, but you're just going to have to work harder and sell tour tickets and tshirts like everyone else. The scam is over.
Re:What's the Difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like the automobile destroyed the buggy industry, or refrigeration totally obliterated the ice harvesting industry right? Any yet no-one is complaining about that today are they? Things change, deal with it.
And that's not even considering that it's not the same. By your reasoning consumer demand for music and film would vanish overnight if RIAA doesn't have their way completely and utterly? That will not ev
Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)
So, this guy's saying that we should let everything stand for a few years, and then all of a sudden companies are going to make things _less_ restrictive? No offense, but I'm not holding my breath. I wouldn't trust the major labels to do that for a second, much less years. If we let it go until then, the DMCA/UCITA-type laws will be firmly entrenched and fair use will have disappeared entirely in digital media. Anyone else want to wait for that to happen?
Different animal of sorts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so different at all. (Score:3, Interesting)
their work became so popular (and a few pretty well known starlets got their start with these people) it spa
Why, oh why does this continue (Score:5, Insightful)
1) they may not have been that talented in the first place, and/or
2) it's hard to be that inspired when you got 5 million bucks in your pocket.
Ever seen 5 million bucks? Most people, one they get that kinda money, go one of 2 ways:
1) they get super-greedy, and try to just make super-popular records, which flops hard at some point.
2) they just say "ok, i'm done" and that's it. The RIAA needs to realize that people are gonna listen to the music one way or another if 1) you can't hear it on the radio, and 2) the band's new stuff blows, or 3) if they want to hear something to see if the band's new record blows, which it most likely does. STILL, did Eminem go platinum? Yes. RECORDS ARE STILL SELLING IF THE MATERIAL IS ALL THAT GOOD/POPULAR! People really don't want the hassle of the internet, unless the material is hard to find elsewhere, i.e. at stores, or if they are unsure of the quality of the material, etc. DUH.
Re:Why, oh why does this continue (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Reformatted comment (Score:3, Funny)
I was going to pay him too (Score:3, Funny)
I'd like to propose another reason (Score:4, Insightful)
People keep saying "all the bands suck" but this is clearly not true, because all these bands have hits that you've heard and liked at some point. They just can't sustain that creative energy.. they hit a configuration of art and artists that work for one song, or maybe one album, and based on that they are enslaved into a contract and forced to churn out crap for the rest of their lives.
Bands, like any creative labor, need to try different material to keep the quality of work high. They can even go back to their original stuff after a while, but to keep that engine turning they need to prime it with other sources of creative energy.
And it continues... (Score:5, Interesting)
DOES THIS GUY LISTEN TO HIMSELF? If the RIAA wants us to listen to music the way we want, why don't they let us GIVE THEM MONEY for things like music downloads or at least some sort of "approved" form of media other than $25 CDs that we can listen to however and wherever we wish?
8-year-old syndrome (Score:4, Interesting)
Ever seen the 8-year-old that told an unbelievable lie, only to compound it with more wild claims in attempts at justification... it's like digging your way out of a hole but piling the dirt on your own head.
The RIAA hasn't grown up. They're still in big-lie syndrome... and as long as some people believe that filesharing is the cause of their woes, they get some form of retribution/compensation/etc despite the shittiness of their own business model.
Burn, burn, burn your iTunes purchases (Score:3, Informative)
itunes's format can't be burned to cd
Not only can purchases from the iTunes Music Store be recorded in Red Book format to Compact Disc Digital Audio Recordable media, but a given playlist can be burned three times.
iTunes Music Store is currently in a beta test and is scheduled for full deployment in December.
'Amen'? (Score:5, Interesting)
AMEN!!
Was he saying 'Amen' to the answer from the other person,
Or the question,
? ;)
who gives a fuck about the riaa the music scene (Score:5, Insightful)
-blo
A debate would have been more interesting. (Score:4, Funny)
I would have much preferred hearing them debate. Now that would have been interesting. I'd like to see how each would respond to the other's various arguments. (Okay, so mostly I'd like to see Lessig rhetorically clobber the RIAA guy. But I don't think that invalidates my point about a debate being more interesting.)
The RIAA, the DMCA, and property (Score:3, Insightful)
Every time the DMCA was brought up the RIAA guy said it was just fine because it promotes innovation, rental models, blah blah blah. And that there's that copyright office exemption thing that comes up every few years.
Of course, what he didn't mention is
1) The exemption doesn't do a damn thing for devices. Sure, you can break the copy protection mechanism... just don't build a device to do it.
2) The RIAA will lobby $trenuously against any proposed exemption which affects them.
Anyone else notice that when you surf the net for music files, you're messing with their intellectual property -- but when THEY surf the net looking for music files (and finding stuff which doesn't belong to them) it's not about property?
Treated like other property? (Score:5, Insightful)
Matt Oppenheim (from the RIAA): Intellectual property should not be treated any differently than other property. Unless you buy it, you should not copy it for your own use.
Umm, the whole point of intellectual property is that it is treated differently than other property. If you buy something, absent copyright or patent law, you can copy it.
If intellectual property shouldn't be treated any differently from other property, why can't I take it apart and examine it without violating the DMCA? If they are to be treated the same, why can't I charge an admission fee to show it to my friends? After all, I could do that with my brand new Porshe, right?
Re:"Intellectual Property" (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL
The propaganda term "Intellectual Property" is a creative fiction designed to confuse two separate types of limited control granted by government.
1. Patents - A limited monopoly over the commercial implementation and distribution of a novel concept IN A PRODUCT. Patents represent a trade-off to encourage open distribution of the concept after the limited term of the patent. Note that a patent doesn't prevent someone from using a concept for their own use.
2. Copyright - A time limited monopoly over the commercial distribution of an authored work. The term is limited and this is traded by the government to encourage the creation of a large public domain. Note that this is intended to prevent PUBLISHERS from making money off of other publishers works.
Note that in both cases the primary motivation is creation of goods for the public.
The fiction is that it isn't property at all... it's a time limited grant of monopoly, and it's meant to expire. Property is a durable item, not a lease.
</ANTIPROPAGANDA>
RIAA is a bunch of venture capitalists (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately for the RIAA, producing music is not that hard and no longer requires millions of dollars in equipment.
You mean recording music has become easy and relatively inexpensive. This is correct.
But before a song can be recorded, it has to be written first. Writing original music without accidentally stepping on somebody else's copyright (e.g. "My Sweet Lord" by Harrison) seems nearly impossible, and I can mathematically prove it if you want.
Given that the RIAA contributes virtually zero to
The RIAA Agrees: *It's Not Stealing* (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA rep shot their entire propoganda campaign in the foot with this gem:
So, according to this guy, "sharing" only takes place when the lender doesn't have the shared book/CD/whatever available for their use. If the lender retains a copy, or the original, then it's not, "sharing," but, "copying."
However, the RIAA -- and, to be fair, just about every other intellectual "property" advocate -- often refer to unsanctioned copying as, "stealing."
Except... Wait a minute. Isn't stealing where you take a thing from someone such that, as the RIAA guys said, "the owner no longer has it?" Indeed, isn't the primary distinction between lending and stealing the consent of the owner?
So if, because the owner retains a copy, it's therefore not sharing, then how can they possibly make the argument in the same breath that's it is stealing?
Answer: They can't. They're trying to have it both ways. It's not stealing, it's copying, a distinct activity.
There's little question that it's illegal -- the lobbying dollars of the RIAA and like organizations have ensured this. Whether or not it's ethical is a question that is still being discussed, and is by no means a closed subject.
Schwab
Intangible IP not the same as physical property (Score:5, Insightful)
The marginal cost of production for music, movies, software, and other intangible property is almost zero, and it's about time people took this into account before coming up with absurdly misleading analogies.
Re:Intangible IP not the same as physical property (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sick and tired of people comparing the sharing of music and movies as the same shoplifting or stealing a car.
You're right, it's much more like trespassing. If I come sleep in your bed while you're at work, as long as I make the bed and clean the sheets before I leave, you haven't suffered any actual financial loss. You've only suffered an opportunity loss, if indeed someone would have been willing to rent that room from you.
Parent is insightful! (Score:3, Interesting)
Laws about trespass are a balancing act, just like laws about copyright. Fair use is just like the UK laws that require rural property owners to let hikers walk through their land.
A DVD factory in Hong Kong is like building an apartment house on someone else's property. Napster was like inviting a million of your friends to walk across someone's farm. The DMCA is like outlawing a book a
Matt Oppenheim "Yay special interests!" (Score:5, Insightful)
He should have just said:
"While lobbying for insane copyright extensions, suing kids, and whining about not milking that extra billion from teenagers over the last three years is generally not in the best interests of the public at large, it sure is helping us flog the last few drops out of a dying cow for benefit of the interested
And left me some time to read Lessig's well
thought out, poignant, and meaningful answers.
Same ol arguments, but this one is very stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
This is obviously b#lls##t! Technology (internet, P2P, computers, software, electronics) have made it easier and less costly to produce and distribute ideas/music/etc. There are other things that I have found wrong in the arguments, but I don't want to spend all night typing them all out. Read carefully and question everything they say.
Re:Same ol arguments, but this one is very stupid (Score:4, Interesting)
The reality is that the CD compilations now cost more than the paper documents did before, and they arrive with license restrictions stating that *they cannot be shared at all*. Multiple copies are now purchased at even greater cost.
Better living through technology, eh?
Artists == Cattle (Score:4, Funny)
They wish... (Score:5, Insightful)
From Matt Oppenheim's comments:
On the Internet however, it is extremely easy to download and the audio quality is near CD. Millions of people now mistakenly believe it is legal. The RIAA, among others, has been trying to educate people that downloading recordings from unauthorized services on the Internet is, in fact, illegal.
Millions mistakenly believe it's legal? Do they really believe this, or is it just a good line? The truth is that pretty much everybody knows that downloading copyrighted music is illegal, and pretty much everybody figures it falls into somewhat the same category as driving five miles per hour over the posted speed limit, except that maybe speeding is a little worse, since it can actually hurt someone.
The RIAA isn't trying to convince people it's illegal; they're trying to scare people that they're going to go to jail or be hit with fines that are completely out of proportion to the offense.
Appropriate. (Score:3, Insightful)
Appropriate term. At least their own unique expression of art is slowly dying while they wait to have the chance for an audience. Not that this is the RIAA's fault totally - as any good conglomeration of companies, they merely react to perceptions about public interest, and perceptions about expectation of income. They have no place for promoting art in general, or offering a forum for untested or less-than-totally-popular art.
It's just sad that this indirectly puts them as such odds against any art that is not generating income for them.
Ryan Fenton
Difference in Lines of Thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawrence Lessig:
"The DMCA is an embarrassment to copyright law. Copyright law has always been about balance -- about the balance between restrictions and access.
The Constitution expresses that balance: it requires that copyrights be for "limited Times;" the First Amendment requires that copyright yields to "fair use." "
Matt Oppenheim:
"If you are attempting to distribute recordings that you own the rights to and the RIAA is in any way preventing you from doing so, you should contact us immediately."
Note how Lawrence Lessig focuses on balance, while Matt Oppenheim focuses on saying what consumers are allowed to do. (Lessig does not explicitly refer to people at "citizens," but Oppenheim does at least once refer to individuals as "consumers.") This shows their respective trains of thinking quite well.
RIAA Wake-up Call: Change how you do business! (Score:5, Interesting)
What I am reading in these reponses is a whole rash of rationalizations:
Let's face it: We like the music and we want to use the technology that enables us to copy and share it over the Internet for free. We want the product, but we don't want to pay.
You can put forth all kinds of hypothetical situations where illegal and unethical intentions are not involved, but let's be grown-up enough to admit that getting something for nothing is 99% of what this is all about.
You know what I think ought to be done about it? I think that the RIAA ought to start putting their product out there so cheaply that people won't object so vociferously to paying for it. If we could pay 5 or 10 or 25 cents for a copy of a song (I can already see pricing them on a sliding scale -- with the most popular stuff being priced highest, according to laws of supply and demand, kinda), I think that most of us would do that -- for a multitude of reasons:
So maybe I'm too naive about this stuff. But it seems pretty clear cut to me. Making copies of CDs for anything other than your own use is illegal. Does that mean that everyone who does it should go to jail? Probably not. I DO think it means that the RIAA had better wake up and realize that they have a MAJOR problem on their hands, and revolutionize the way they do business, if they want to stay in business.
Re:RIAA Wake-up Call: Change how you do business! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, copyright infringment is illegal. Fine. But in 5 short years P2P services have gone from brand new to being used by double-digit percentages of the entire population of this country. A hundred million people may not be right, but you can't simply tell them they're wrong and throw the lot of them in prison. If a law is being ignored by nearly everyone, it says more about the law than the people breaking it.
Don't they get it? (Score:3, Insightful)
to lost opportunities as a result of file sharing,
they are down due to the fact that CD TECHNOLOGY
HAS BEEN SURPASSED by magnetic media.
News flash: LP sales are down every year since
1990. You know why? Because CDs replaced them.
Well guess what? CDs are now yesterday's
technology... I can't fathom spending money to
buy a physical medium that's more difficult to
transport, less durable, skips, can't record,
etc. etc. etc. The combination of computer
digital media management plus affordable
portable digital music players have made CDs
OBSOLETE.
Jeesh. Wake up RIAA.
-Pez
The difference between Lessig and Oppenheim (Score:3, Insightful)
-R
Oh, so I OWN the media! (Score:5, Insightful)
The only issue would be if you decided you wanted to download somebody else's copy of John Denver's Greatest Hits (which was likely from a CD, and a much higher audio quality).
Just as you would not go into a video store and steal a DVD copy of Star Wars and claim that you should be permitted to do that because you own the VHS version, you cannot download somebody else's copy of a recording.
If they were licensing the song/or whatever to me, they shouldn't care where I got it, as long as I have a license. This says to me that they are selling me the copy, to do with as I see fit.
Oppenheim = lying nazi (Score:3, Insightful)
Sharing involves lending something to somebody, and while it is on loan, the owner no longer has it.
The question is, would he then support a virtual library of music, which purchases music/etc at bulk price and so many copies of it, and if it has 3 copies of song X, it allows 3 people to listen to song X from it's server at a time? The answer, I think, will be no, which would make him a fucking hypocrite.
when individuals engage in illegal copying, they are taking money out of the pockets of all of the people who have put their hard work into making the music
Nope, wrong. There's nothign that says the individual who downloaded a song for free would have blown away several bucks to get that song on a CD. So his statement is incorrect.
AMEN!!, [in response to Lessig's statement that although the sharing of copyrighted files is illegal under current law, technology can not be made illegal if it has substantial noninfringing uses]
I must admit, I was at first pleased upon reading this response from Oppenheim. However, if Oppenheim -- who is representing the RIAA -- really believed that, then the RIAA wouldn't be trying to stop P2P developers and shut down P2P networks, or destroy these networks by flooding them with crap.
There are quite a few ways that these technologies can incorporate safeguards to prevent copyright infringement.
What Oppenheim conveniently leaves out is that it is almost inherent that any technology that filter's out infringing use will also filter out non-infringing use. Computer's cannot determine whether or not something is infringing copyright. Sometimes judges can't even determine that. Any technology which very efficiently prevents copyright violations on P2P networks will very severely eliminate legitimate uses.
The DMCA Anti-Circumvention provision is not intended to stifle technological innovation.
Intent is irrelevant. It already has stiffled innovation and free speech.
All that aside, the DMCA Anti-Circumvention provision has specific provisions built into it that exempts true scientific research.
Which obviously weren't good enough. See Felton.
every three years, the United States Copyright Office reviews whether specific exemptions need to be added to the DMCA to address this issue.
In case Oppenheimer doesn't know, the scientific community doesn't operate on a 3-year basis. There is extremely rapid turnover in the scientific community. Current knowledge today will be old knowledge a week from now. 3 years is a long time to slow down science.
The goal of copy protection in CDs is not to prevent individuals from making copies that they want to make for personal use, but rather to prevent individuals from distributing the recordings or making copies they don't have a right to make...Many copy-protection technologies include on a CD a second copy of the album in compressed form ready for transfer to an owner's computer
Never-the-less, the DMCA allows copyright holders to effectively circumvent fair use. It allows them to prevent something from ever being public domain (in addition to their bribery of Congress to retroactively extend copyright laws...fucking crooks). Simply allowing such an atrocity is inexecuseable.
irresponsible copyright holder makes a mistake, the DMCA has a process built into it for counter-notifications to be made in which an individual can dispute a take down notice.
This is Oppenheimer's response to the cease&desist questions. For the most part, I found his response here reasonable, but this is a half-truthed statement.
The DMCA may have such a process in it, but that's irrelevant. ISP's will automatically take down the sites of anyone accused of infringement, and they have to counter-claim etc to revoke that (because ISP's aren't liable if they do such). This is a bad
John Denver? (Score:3, Funny)
OK, this will probably cost me karma, but I gotta say it: I can't help but wonder if the last question, asked by someone who wished to remain anonymous, was posed anonymously to avoid admitting publicly to owning (and choosing to listen to) John Denver's Greatest Hits.
P.S. Volume 2???
Copying CDs (Score:5, Insightful)
When you buy a CD, you should feel free to copy it for your own use.
- Matt Oppenheim, RIAA
I'd love to, except that some nefarious individual seems to have "copy protected" some of my CDs.
Poorly applied logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Sharing involves lending something to somebody, and while it is on loan, the owner no longer has it. "Sharing" in the P2P context has become a euphemism for "copying." That copying is neither legal nor ethical
and then From an ethical perspective, when individuals engage in illegal copying, they are taking money out of the pockets of all of the people who have put their hard work into making the music...
Yet using the same logic, reading a book checked out from the library would be just as unethical since you are "taking money out of the pockets..."
Those companies (including Pressplay, Rhapsody, Listen, etc.) are delivering to consumers high quality music online in a format and form that consumers have demanded.
Actually, a quick look at the subscription numbers of those services shows quite well how that is simply not true. Consumers have not demanded a crippled product that disallows most of the abilities they want.
The goal of copy protection in CDs is not to prevent individuals from making copies that they want to make for personal use, but rather to prevent individuals from distributing the recordings or making copies they don't have a right to make.
Yet it seems they have not discovered the magic way of discerning between those two, so will happily prevent both.
The record industry has been hit very hard in the last few years as a result of illegal downloading and piracy.
In 2002, unit sales were down about 11 percent.
In 2001, unit sales were down about 10 percent.
In 2000, unit sales were down seven percent.
During that same period, illegal Internet downloading has skyrocketed. On the FastTrack network alone, there are about 900 million files being distributed at any given moment. The majority of those files are music files. Polls confirm that those individuals who are downloading illegally online are buying less. That illegal downloading is decreasing sales is probably not a surprise to anyone.
Such a common, simple, wrong assumption at work here. A decrease in sales and an increase in music downloading have *not* been shown to be related. The economy as a whole has been hit very hard in the last few years. In fact, studies [boycott-riaa.com] have suggested this effect can explain nearly all of the riaa members' decreased sales. It is handy to have a scape-goat, but as usual, the scape-goat is likely not the problem at all.
In any event, are you suggesting that a royalty dispute between an artist and a label is justification for stealing from both of them? Would you feel free to shoplift a CD from a record store based on that logic?
Hm, I wonder, is it ok to steal from a thief. You could just as easily frame it as 'how dare you steal my stolen goods!'
Given the increased cost to produce and distribute copyrighted works, Congress has tried to keep pace with what it has believed is necessary to continue to incentivize creators and publishers
Increased cost? That seems to be backwards, progress has decreased the barrier not increased it. As for the second clause, bullshit. Congress has bowed to corporate lobbying. You can't honestly say with a straight face that any person needs life+70years' worth of fiduciary recovery as incentive.
Just as you would not go into a video store and steal a DVD copy of Star Wars and claim that you should be permitted to do that because you own the VHS version, you cannot download somebody else's copy of a recording
Again, apples and oranges. Stealing a DVD is depriving ownership of an object, Copying a song is depriving no one of ownership.
-Ted
The RIAA and the Survival of the Arts ??? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a cynical and ingenuous statement. Perhaps Matt believes that is the goal of his organization, but its aims appear now to have more to do with lining its executives' pockets than with the promotion of the arts. The music industry wants us to believe that without them there would be no more music, no more arts. What crap. People would still write, play, and even record & distribute music. People did plenty of that before there was a music industry. The only difference would be... no music industry ! Which of course means no more fat cats, no more industry control of popular culture, no more middlemen whose main purpose in all of this is to keep their jobs.
And yes, Matt, some of us have considered that whole infrastructure from Sheryl Crow to the clerk at the local CD store and everyone in between. The Internet indeed threatens the existence of that infrastructure, and it is in the way of such things that your industry would rather fight than switch. I find it still ludicrous that iMusic and similar services are being touted so loudly, when the total amount spent on a CD's number of songs still comes to what you'd pay for a CD in the store. Yes, we get to choose the tunes, but we actually get less (no packaging, no Easter eggs, no value added) for the same money. Which means your industry can charge essentially the same amount of money for the product while eliminating the infrastructure you yourself want us to care so much about. Hmm...
Here's a real idea, Matt: Why doesn't your industry get it together to place kiosks in my local CD store, kiosks that are basically high-speed connections to a content delivery service. These stands would let me select or even design the CD cover material, then I could download and burn the content to disc right then & there, I get the jewel case and all. Hey, if I spend enough maybe you guys could throw in a little extra value, kinda like all the bonus material you get from a DVD. You think a store with maybe twenty of those kiosks would do a bumpin' business ?
So there's an idea, Matt. I haven't copyrighted or patented it yet, so I'll let you have it for free. Go ahead, share it with your friends. I'm releasing it on the Internet under the GPL anyway...
They keep telling us this: (Score:3, Insightful)
What about theft? (Score:4, Interesting)
You buy a CD, and rip it to mp3. This is legal, right? You own the CD.
I then steal your CD.
So: who owns it now? Who has the "fair use" privilege?
If I own it because I stole it (more precisely: you NO LONGER own it because you don't have it anymore), then I can rip it to mp3 legally even though I got the CD through illegal means. What you and I would do in this case is rob each other. You steal all my CDs and rip them, and I'll steal all your CDs and rip them, and aside from the crime of theft (and neither of us press charges, and "accidentally" leave our crates of stolen CDs at each other's houses next time we visit), no laws have been broken.
If you still own it even though I stole it, then you still have all your fair use rights, including making a new CD to replace the one I stole.
We can still rob each other.
How would the RIAA answer that?
My hunch is the only way out for them would be to claim that there is no "fair use" rights on stolen property, and that everybody loses their rights and has to buy new copies. (Which of course works out wonderfully for them.) I guess at that point your recourse is to consider my theft of your CD a "loan" so you can burn a new CD, claiming to still own it. So the theft victim's claiming ownership of the stolen property is the only way to retain their "fair use" rights.
Isn't this astonishingly stupid?
Definition of 'theft' vs specious analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
The music industry loves to draw the analogy between stealing tangible products (shoplifting a CD, etc.) and making copies of intangible products that leave the original untouched, and of course they use the term "theft" to describe making those copies. For those who would mindlessly nod their heads and mumble about how correct this analogy must be, a simple definition [reference.com] of "theft" puts the lie to it:
(emphasis mine)
I'm not saying that making copies is not a violation of our woefully-imbalanced copyright laws, because in many cases it is a violation of the law (i.e., when no permission from the copyright owner exists, whether on an individual or advance license basis). But the "shoplifting" analogy should immediately result in derisive laughter until the person presenting it is silenced and never brings it up again.
Just my humble opinion, of course. :-)
The future of RIAA and those like it (Score:5, Funny)
Homeless person B: "Wouldn't recommend it. That's been the new headquarters for all the RIAA execs who hung on until the end"
Homeless person A: "Oh, well I don't want to associate with them. How about in this dumpster instead"
Homeless person B: Well, I think somebody from SCO was using it a short while back, but it might be free now.
I guess... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like the Gatling Gun was meant to end wars quicker, not make the murder of huge numbers of people fast and efficient.
So what with intentions; It sure as hell IS stifling innovation, no matter what you say (See kid who wrote search tool, lost life's savings to RIAA). That it (supposedly) isn't meant to stifle innovation, but can, doesn't matter to large corporations that are so consumed by moneylust that they will do anything to turn a profit.
Can't finish the article (Score:3, Interesting)
RIAA guy re: cease-and-desist letters:
We are not accessing anybody's "property," and we are certainly not violating anybody's personal rights.
Really, you mean my copyrighted content on my website is not my property? Interesting, grasshopper, perhaps you should consider whether your own organization owns any "property" as you say.
In defending extended copyright terms, RIAA guy:
Given the increased cost to produce and distribute copyrighted works...
Right, I forgot how much more expensive it is to post a single mp3 file than to press a million CD's. That certainly explains why my paper industry stocks are doing so well: it's just so much cheaper to print copies than put them online.
I know I'm nitpicking, but for the love of god, doesn't this guy have the RIAA-mandated filter between his rational mind and his keyboard/voice? I'm usually a lot more even-keeled, but this stuff is straight from left field.
Re:Save PBS's bandwidth bill (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Decide (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what's missing here. There is no "goes into the public domain." People are individually and unilaterally repealing copyright law, because it's not a fair law anymore. The people who make something never have to share it. That's not fair, because so much of what the creators do is stolen from the public domain (like all of Disney's plots), and just about every jazz riff.
If you're interested in the law, go read Bastiat's _The Law_. It will explain how a law is seen to be fair.
-russ