Reply #173: But it is up to the artist (or RIAA as the artists' agent)

[Ms. Toad]

to decide if they want to take advantage of that free exposure.

I'm all in favor of artists deciding to take advantage of free exposure as a marketing tool, by making part of all of their music available on whatever terms they choose - free, reduced cost, copies that "vanish" after a limited window. But it needs to be their choice - not one that is made for them by people who take it upon themselves to copy and make available someone else's music.

The problem with unauthorized file sharing is that it isn't the artists' choice to use this particular free exposure to market their products. I'd be pretty unhappy if my photography work showed up in a right to life publication and someone told me I should be happy about it because it was free exposure. (Given some of the work I do involves retouching images of 14-25 week preemies, it is not unreasonable to assume that it someday might end up there.) It's still free exposure - but it is free exposure I might have paid to avoid.

The point is that as an artist, I get to decide who gets to copy and distribute my work. If I were a recording artist, I could do that directly - and about 15% of recording artists do - or I could choose to let RIAA handle it on my behalf.

I may not agree with all of RIAA's tactics (and I think extorting money by suing parents for their child's activities - even after the child has admitted the file sharing RIAA has obtained a default judgment against that child - is beyond the pale: http://www.eff.org/cases/capitol-v-foster ).

BUT as to the general principle that artists (or their designees) have a right to control the reproduction and distribution of their work, I agree with RIAA. I don't even have that much problem with RIAA seeking to impose very large fines on the people who are deliberately engaging in filesharing without the consent of the artist (or their designee) in a manner that makes it harder to be caught (and thus more costly). (On the other hand, if I were counsel for a target inclined to fight RIAA, though, I would certainly make the argument I outlined above - only XX actual copies were distributed - just because the file was broken into XXXX pieces in order to accomplish the distribution of XX files doesn't make the target liable for XXXX separate infringing reproductive acts - probably using the analogy that just because in the process of copying an mp3 file the computer splits it into bunches of pieces and parts which it stores in non-contiguous locations on your hard drive doesn't change its essential nature that it is one reproduction.)