The RIAA vs. The World

[babylonsister]

The RIAA vs. The World
Tuesday, 09 October 2007
by David Rovics

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), representing massive multinational corporations with tentacles in every corner of the global economy including the music business, has just won a lawsuit against a mother of two who refused to be pushed around. Jamie Thomas’ pockets were not nearly deep enough to mount the kind of legal defense for the occasion, but she rightly thought that paying an out-of-court settlement of several thousand dollars for the “crime” of sharing music online was ridiculous. So she told the RIAA they’d have to take her to court. They did, and they won.

The fact that one of these cases actually went to trial, the amount of money involved, and the fact that the defendant could have been your neighbor, a middle-aged single mother of two who was not selling anything, but was just engaging in commonplace song-swapping via Kazaa’s peer-to-peer network, has made this case newsworthy. But what lies beneath it are the ever-growing tens of thousands of people who have been spied upon, harassed and threatened with lawsuits if they didn’t pay the RIAA thousands of dollars for sharing copywritten music in a way the RIAA, the US government, the World Trade Organization, etc., deem inappropriate.

In spite of the RIAA’s campaign to staunch the profit losses of it’s corporate members by waging a campaign of fear and intimidation against your average everyday music fan, the numbers of legal and “illegal” downloads continue to rise rapidly. However, the industry’s campaign is not just about robbing working class American music fans of hundreds of millions of their hard-earned dollars. The music industry is waging a war for the hearts and minds of the people of the US and the world, spending tremendous amounts of money on advertising campaigns to convince us of the rightness of their cause and the wrongness of our actions.

The RIAA is both powerful and desperate. They are a multibillion-dollar industry that has been “suffering” financially for years, and they are up against the very nature of the internet – that being peer-to-peer sharing of information in whatever form (stories, songs, videos, etc.). The internet has given rise to unprecedented levels of global cultural cross-pollination, and it has led to a democratization of where our news, information, music, etc., comes from that has not been seen since the days of the wandering troubadors who went from town to town spreading the news of the day.

The RIAA is trying to use a combination of the law, financial largesse, and encryption and other technologies to try to reassert their dominance over global culture. But perhaps most importantly, they are trying to reassert the moral virtue of their position, the rightness of their positions vis-a-vis the concept of intellectual property and the notion that the fear campaign they’re engaged in somehow benefits society overall and artists in particular.

more...

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2593/81/

[wtmusic]

1. The RIAA is of no benefit for artists who don't want royalties

(haven't met one yet)

[babylonsister]

9. IIRC Neil Young put a few free songs on the internets, and sold his

CD because of it. I think quite a few musicians do that.

[wtmusic]

11. Reading the author's bio it appears he offers all of his stuff for free

but then he claims he sells a "few thousand CDs a year".

How would he feel if someone were to offer those same CDs online for half-price? The problem with intellectual property is that it really is all-or-nothing -- we assign value and thus ownership to creativity, or we don't. Although IMO the penalty in this case was outrageous, the fact that it's very easy to share IP doesn't make it legal. And artists who want to give away their IP are always free to do so.

In software the open source movement has revolutionized the industry and challenged monopolies like Microsoft. Whether music and the other arts will see a significant benefit from free offerings remains to be seen. I'm not sure we would have ever heard of Neil Young if he hadn't been compensated early on for his efforts, and compensated well.

[ixion]

2. ya know, it's really hard to be a human in these days of the corporate oligarchy.

I mean, if it's not the government taxing you into oblivion, it's predatory lenders or out-right scams. It's cell phone contract "early termination" fees, and usage fees and parking tickets and police harassment.

It's pretty much impossible to just try and live your life without some government schmuck hassling you, without telemarketers calling, without some angry cop knocking you to the ground for jaywalking, or without a big lawyer-laden group like RIAA suing the pants off you just for sharing a few songs.

It does not bode well for our species, IMO. :-(

[msongs]

3. avoid the RIAA - make your OWN music and quit taking somebody else's

funny how all the people who endorse file sharing want to use somebody else's talent, time, and money instead of MAKING
THEIr own music.

the RIAA has its faults and makes it blunders, but it is not the evil monster the freeloaders claim it to be.

sorry to say, it costs money to record and release songs and albums. File sharing does little to nothing to hurt the RIAA, but it does a lot to the independent people and writers and recording artists. it is a double edged sword, because file sharing is a form of promotion, which is good, but it is a form of theft, which is bad. Copyright law allows sharing your own music with yourself, but making copies for your car, or garage etc. It is not designed to protect sharing with 200 million of your closest friends. Then again, there are people who think protection of rights for authors is bogus and those with no talent should have free access to the talented.


For an interesting assessment of this issue visit www.mosesavalon.com/mosessupposes/may07.html and for more interesting articles on music industry, recording contracts, ripoffs, etc, read other pages at the site.

PS - can I come to your house and take your computer? after all, sharing is good, right?

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[iamahaingttta]

4. I haven't bought music in years.

95% of the music that I listen to is made by me and/or my friends. I have no reason to buy music from strangers or big corporations. I just don't want to listen to their crap anymore. The only person who makes any money off of me for music is Rupert Murdoch. The bastard!

http://www.myspace.com/brooklyninstrumentmuseum

[CATagious]

6. I agree...

downloading songs from the internet for free is stealing.

mother of two who was not selling anything, but was just engaging in commonplace song-swapping via Kazaa’s peer-to-peer network

I love that sentence from the article. The author made sure to point out that she wasn't selling anything which is irrelevant to the legality. I can steal shoes from a store and not sell them but that doesn't make it legal. Then he points out how the practice of song-swapping was 'commonplace'. That also is irrelevant to the legality. If murder was commonplace, does that mean it's ok to kill someone?

[bronxiteforever]

7. Did you get permission to use the Dallas Cowboys' Star?

JK

[wtmusic]

13. LOL

:thumbsup:

[CATagious]

17. I doubt my use of the star is illegal

I don't know if my use of the Cowboy's star is legal or not. If there is a law that forbids my type of usage, then I would agree that I'm breaking the law instead of arguing that it's not illegal when it clearly is.

From the NFL.com website:

2. Trade and Service Mark Rights

We (or our affiliates) and our member professional football clubs own all rights in the product names, company names, trade names, logos, product packaging and designs ("Trademarks") of the National Football League and such member clubs, and third parties own all Trademarks in their respective products or services, whether or not appearing in large print or with the trademark symbol. Unauthorized use of any such Trademarks, including reproduction, imitation, dilution or confusing or misleading uses, is prohibited under the trademark laws of the United States and other countries. You are expressly prohibited from using or misusing any Trademarks, except as provided in this Agreement, and nothing otherwise stated or implied in the Service confers on you any license or right to do so.

I guess it depends on what is included in 'unauthorized' use. I would bet my use is authorized but I'm not sure. However, it is CLEAR that downloading songs for free and sharing those songs with others IS illegal. It's not opinion or conjecture; it's fact. Maybe you don't like that fact and that's fine. But the fact doesn't go away just because you don't like it.

[wtmusic]

18. No, no

"You are expressly prohibited from using or misusing any Trademarks, except as provided in this Agreement..." is clear as a bell. From an ideological standpoint you're in the same boat.

It can't be a pure ideological fight, of course, because in that case everything you do is copyrighted -- the way you put on your pants, your haircut, your golf swing. It gets insane very quickly. Seems most would agree that anything that has commercial value should be the criterion -- if the NFL demands you pay to put up a Cowboys star on DU, you're going to find another avatar. On the other hand, people have paid millions of dollars just for the pleasure of hearing a Beatles song. The inherent commercial value is obvious.

[CATagious]

19. like I said...

if it's illegal then I admit I'm breaking the law (which I still HIGHLY doubt). My point isn't that you should stop downloading songs, rather it's that you cannot argue that doing so is legal. It clearly is not legal. Now the fines and the aggressiveness of the RIAA in pursuing minor violations is very debatable.
Why do artists even need the RIAA any more? Can't they just record their music and then make them available online for a smaller fee of which they get all? I think that is the future.

[wtmusic]

20. Big artists still sell a lot of CDs

and ever since the days of Napster they've been hurting.

Most artists make a fraction of their earnings from mechanical royalties, or royalties from the sale of physical embodiments of their work like CDs. The lion's share comes from airplay through orgs like BMI, ASCAP and SESAC, and touring. But illegal copying hits the record companies hard (some think they deserve it) and it filters down to the artists with smaller budgets for recording and less promotional money. The RIAA is essentially the voice of the big record companies.

A lot of artists are doing like you say -- making their music available online for less. Even big artists like Prince, whose fights with Warner Bros. are legendary. But music is in many ways a shared experience. You want to discuss it with friends, go to concerts, play it on a jukebox, hear stuff you know at parties, etc., and there is such a glut of music online that it's hard to get it on radio playlists and thus any momentum going behind individual artists.

[Shoedogg]

10. Just for argument's sake...

If you steal shoes from the store, the store has one less pair of shoes to sell.

If you "steal" a song, you've made a copy of a computer file from someone who purchased the song (yes, that person may have also downloaded it illegally, but it's safe to presume that at some point someone purchased the song in order to make the copy you've downloaded.)

Now, just for fun, let's say I invented a magical shoe-duplicating machine. My friend buys new shoes. I use my new invention to make a copy of them. Did I steal the shoes?

(Edited for typos)

[wtmusic]

12. Yes and no

You stole the design of the shoes, which is patentable. So if they're really unique (Crocs?) you've ripped the designer off -- at least according to current law.

IMO creativity should be rewarded -- even in shoes.

[Shoedogg]

14. I could buy into that, if...

...I were then producing said duplicated shoes for sale but in this case, if we use that logic, it's illegal for me to create shoes identical to a pair of shoes my friend bought.

To illustrate my point let's say, again just for fun, that I didn't invent a shoe-duplicating machine but rather went out and bought everything I'd need to make an identical pair of shoes for myself and made the same shoes. Technically, I could be sued by the Whatever Shoe Company for "stealing" the design.

I'm probably way off base here (wouldn't be the first time) but I'm pretty sure that any court in the nation would consider that a pretty frivolous lawsuit.

"Sure", you may say, "but we're talking one pair of shoes made by one person for that same person, not the mass distribution of copies of shoes".

But what if 1,000,000 people decided to make the shoes for themselves? Would we need to create "shoe police" to make sure everyone was wearing authorized shoes? Clearly, if everyone started making their own shoes it would be detrimental to the Whatever Shoe Company and the law would be forced to step in to protect the shoe company.

Or...what if it weren't shoes. What if everyone made their own TVs...or cars...or trash bags for that matter?

Once again you may say, "Sure, but you're talking about making your own things here. These downloaders aren't making their own versions of the songs, they're copying the actual song."

So what if I went around town to various junkyards and bought all the parts I'd need to build a Cadillac? Only the junkyards, and not Cadillac, would see any profit from this and yet it would be perfectly legal. It would even be legal for me to make two and sell one to someone else.

Sure, it's extreme and few people (if any) would do this - but what if they did? Would it become illegal to build a car from junk parts and later sell it? Would it eventually become illegal to resell or give away *anything* you ever purchased or rebuilt without sending a stipend to the original company that produced the item? Would it become necessary to purchase *everything* brand new from the original company of production and then simply destroy it when you were finished with it or decided you wanted a different brand?

I guess my point (after all my rambling) is that if the purported reason for the RIAA's pursuing the matter is loss of profit, then why doesn't that apply to a Cadillac (or anything else)?

Speaking of, can anyone tell me why stores that sell used CDs and DVDs and video games are legal? Do they have to pay some sort of "lump-sum" royalty fees for doing this? (I'm not looking for an argument on this question, btw - I really don't know and would like to understand how the business of reselling used items works.)

[wtmusic]

15. There are a lot of gray areas in copyright law

and the only reason I feel qualified to comment is I was involved for five years as a plaintiff in a copyright lawsuit.

As weird as it sounds, when you buy a pair of shoes or a Cadillac you are purchasing a license on the design of that one item. That does not give you the legal right to fabricate another item, even if it is only for your own use. But it's important to remember that even if 1,000,000 people decided to make shoes for themselves, enforcement of the law is a civil matter and is always at the discretion of the copyright/patent holder--so they may get away with it. No agency is "forced" to protect them.

When you buy a CD and sell it to a used CD store, you are selling the license along with the physical disk and packaging itself. So the license is transferred to the store, and thereafter to whomever buys it from them.

Your "junk parts" scenario is an interesting one. I believe the law would probably rule that by purchasing the individual design license on each piece you have in effect purchased a license on the whole car.

I tend to favor copyright/patent protection but it is clear it can be carried to absurd extremes. In the case of the "Kazaa Mom" it wasn't the enforcement but the penalty which was extreme, IMO.

[Shoedogg]

8. can I come to your house and take your computer?

No, but you can come to my house and make a *copy* of my computer.

[madrchsod]

5. next it will be ebay ,craigslist,rummage sales,auctions,

and record stores that sell used cd`s...everyone is going to pay

[JPZenger]

16. Store Selling Pirated Music is Still in Business

The industry nailed a mother for $220,000, even though they couldn't prove that she was the individual who uploaded the songs. Those songs were posted for free.

Meanwhile, there is a barber shop down the street from me that was caught selling pirated Rap CDs a year a year. They are still in business.