Greene's Grammy Speech Debunked 408
jonerik writes: "Today's New York Times has this article which debunks at least part of NARAS president Michael Greene's much-publicized speech at last week's Grammy Awards ceremony in which Greene claimed that he had hired three students to download a whopping 6,000 songs "from easily accessible Web sites" over two days. Leaving aside for a moment Greene's bizarre admission on national TV that he'd hired three students (at least one of whom, Numair Faraz, is a minor) to break the law (the No Electronic Theft Act), Faraz has been interviewed by the Times, saying that they spent more like three days on the project and that the other two students (both unnamed, though both are apparently attending U.C.L.A.) barely used P2P file-sharing programs at all. Instead, they used AOL's popular Instant Messenger to receive song files from friends."
6000 WOW (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe it is in bad taist to plug your agenda at an event like this.
I think I will go home tonight and "Hire" 3 friends of mine to download a hack of starcraft and play all night.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it technically considered theft... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Call the FBI. (Score:1, Interesting)
I am sure that all the copyright holders (RIAA) will say that he was granted license before embarking on this mission.
Re:Odd connections in the mind (Score:3, Interesting)
because the box cutters were determined to be weapons, now i can't bring a razor, toe nail clippers or a myriad of other items on planes...
apply this to his train of though, and the "easily accessible" web sites need to be stopped... so we are forced to shut down the internet. totally irrational thinking.
back to planes... i flew 2 weeks ago and had a mach 3 razor in my backpack and they acted like i just raped nun... later i the plane i notice the lady in front of me is knitting. to those of you who don't have grandmas, knitting needs are about a foot long huge needles. back to the music industry, WHATEVER they do to try to stop music distribution, an old lady with knitting needles will always get through.
Credibility... (Score:4, Interesting)
What RIAA heads like this guy and Hillary Rosen are demonstrating, however, is their complete and total lack of intelligence, wisdom, and understanding of the technology they're dealing with. MPAA's going through the same thing. DeCSS was supposed to be uncrackable, and I beleive in my heart that Jack Valenti and his buddies bought that hook line and sinker. When Jon J. cracked it, it was not just a kick in the movie industry's legal nuts, but a phenominal blow to their credibility. Record industry is going through the same thing right now with CD copy protection. Nothing they can do will prvent the ripping and encoding of CD's, even if MP3 traders have to revert to using non-digital capture methods. (Headphone to Audio-in port, anyone?) Despite this *obvious* problem with audio copy-protection, the music studios are trudging forward with poorly thought out, poorly tested, unworkable, and uneeded copy protection controls. This makes them look like idiots to the public.
Articles like this are both promoting and refelcting the popular opinion that not only is the RIAA a bunch of idiotic cartoon bad guys, but that they *deserve* to be taken advantage of.
The RIAA's worst enemy is not P2P, MP3, or even the people who trade audio files. The RIAA's worst enemy is itself.
RICO violation? (Score:1, Interesting)
to violate the law be prosecuted under the RICO statutes [gpo.gov]? Certainly this "Don" is hiring out the "dirty work"
It seems to be covered. But perhaps this crime will go unpunished
Re:Oh god, not again... (Score:1, Interesting)
It's all fun and games till somebody loses some freedoms.
--cade
Re:Call the FBI. (Score:4, Interesting)
Despite what the RIAA would have you believe, the RIAA-affiliated companies do NOT hold the copyright to every MP3 that found its way onto the internet. I've got MP3's of music I wrote, recorded and encoded myself on my site, for example.
For those that are held by the RIAA -- common sense says that you can't steal something from yourself, but when has copyright law ever used common sense? Viz the lawsuits where a musician is sued by the copyright holder of some of their previous works, because the musician wrote a new song that sounds TOO MUCH LIKE THEMSELVES.
The DOJ should now be forced to prosecute him (Score:4, Interesting)
I would urge everyone and their friends to gather this evidence together (video tapes, web page printouts, etc...) and send it via USPS snail mail with a certified return receipt to the DOJ asking them when they will be prosecuting him.
The more of us that do it, the more likely it is that he will face fines and penalties for his actions. I'm already looking for a copy of the actual speech (not just a web transcript, but the actual video of him doing it) and will be sending this to the DOJ.
Re:life and death issue?? (Score:3, Interesting)
These weenies don't know from real pirates. real pirates [popularmechanics.com] shoot and kill people and take their physical property.
A long sight different than some kid who makes a copy of a song.
I think it's a shame that the word " pirate " has been so trivialized. Sort of like happened when the media started using the term "hacker".
Re:What do you expect (Score:5, Interesting)
And... all of this AIM versus p2p stuff is a red herring. We shouldn't be arguing over how many files you can download in a certain period of time, or what mechanisms you use to do it. Our concept of intellectual property is broken, and they are pushing through laws that hurt the public good more and more deeply, while we quibble over what program was used to download files!
What we need to focus on is that they are doing things that reduce software reliability (SSSCA will do that), hurt people (snuffing our ability to copy will do that), and retard progress to protect an industry that is composed of trivial entertainment. Don't be distracted from the issues.
Re:New math (Score:5, Interesting)
18.25 trillion songs, at an avg of 4 megs/song works out to a little under 2,314,815 megs/second (assuming I didn't screw up the math)
woah...where do I sign up for *that* connection?
Get your data straight (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm glad I'm not an RIAA investor of any sort. (Score:3, Interesting)
I know last year wasn't very good for the RIAA, but it seems like there'd be a larger chunk taken out of their profits if this were as damaging as he's trying to make it out to be.
I think what's going to happen is that the RIAA is going to play this 'pity us' act for the next couple of years until it realizes it can't bend the law in their favor anymore. Eventually a new organization will form that will do basically what the RIAA does (finds and promotes talent...), and then make them big on the web.
Frankly, I'm glad I'm not an investor for the RIAA. I'd be plenty hacked off. I can liken this to Intel and 3D accellerators. 3D accelerators put less processing on the main (Intel) processor and more on the add-in card. So when a gamer wants to upgrade their machine, an investment in a video card has better yields than an investment in a new processor. This means Intel could potentially get less money.
Did Intel try to put a stop to 3D cards? Nope. The first thing they did was they tried to compete in that market. Unfortunately, their offering wasn't that great. Nividia kicked their buts basically. So what'd Intel do? They didn't try to pass laws that require computers to only use one brand of processors all across the board. They didn't accuse people of buying video cards instead of new processors of being theives or even disloyal. They didn't even muck around with the AGP standard to prevent these cards from reaching full potential. Instead, Intel worked with driver developers to make their CPUs talk more with the video card. Early in the 3D card game, the choice to make was which card do I want. Today it's 'which card/processor combination is ideal for me?'. Now I realize I'm oversimplifying what really happened, but instead of 'correcting my details', take away the point I'm making which is that Intel innovates to compete, instead of trying to buy legislature in their favor.
What the RIAA should have done was taken Mp3 trading as a call to innovate. The simple fact of the matter is that audio is easy to capture and easy to transmit. So what do they do? Well, one idea would be to release a new format that has more capabilites. One real simple idea is to have music "DVD's" with music videos and other goodies on board. This creates at least a temporary problem with would-be hackers because they have new challenges to overcome to transfer the full experience into a web deliverable component. The more features they add to these disks, the harder it is to get a satisfactory piaratable copy out there that'd truely devalue the media.
The RIAA could have been spearheading the MP3 player movement. They could have made a player that plays little chips/cards instead of discs, solving people's mobile needs. Maybe they could have created a new media that is smaller or can hold more.. or something like that. I dont know. The point is they could have done SOMETHING to try to compete. The idea that they think CD's should be all people listen to forever and ever seriously limits my estimation of how long they'll be around. If I were an investor, I'd be selling now. It's obvious this organization isn't trying to grow.
Re:Call the FBI. (Score:2, Interesting)
That being said, he's still an idiot. What if the kids did listen to the songs, because they were "researching" bands to find the one whose CD they should buy.
Re:NYT Article without the registration (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:The DOJ should now be forced to prosecute him (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, it should also be noted that "prosecution for criminal offenses cannot be waived by the aggrieved party" - so the government could go after them if they wanted to. (See http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap5.html
In fact (and here's the interesting part) - they DIDN'T EVEN DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL. *Downloading* is in itself not illegal - it's uploading that's illegal. Non-commercial downloading is specifically exempted. From NETA:
Wrong market (Score:2, Interesting)
Let me clarify: I'm a 17 year old in a fairly rich suburban high school region. . . Even in the face of prosperity, most of the kids involved in p2p sharing in our school are doing so without the intentions of ever buying a CD. Even though this is a well-off suburban region, most kids are fairly limited in money supply - when balancing movies, friends, and everyday food, music is the easiest to scratch off the list because it can be obtained from p2p. As we get more and more accustomed to the idea of downloading music for free, buying music may become foreign to us, thereby locking off a large market segment for the RIAA.
In the past two years, even though I have downloaded over 3000 songs, I have not purchased a single CD. In fact, the mentality I have described has pervaded me that I do not think I will ever buy a CD. Rinse and repeat for most of my classmates, for whom piracy of music has become so commonplace that they ask why they should spend their hard earned money when they can just download for free.
Granted, the RIAA should embrace this changing market as opposed to rough-handing the changing market to its own needs. However, I do not think that the argument of a net benefit from the piracy of music will hold weight for much longer.
Re:6,000 songs to UCLA? Ha (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:but.... but.... but.... (Score:3, Interesting)
What exactly does this prove? The guy's point was how easy it is to hand music to other people over the internet, and how simple it is for people to acquire things that have never before been so readily available.
I disagree. I think that the "point" of this example is vague, to begin with -- this was a publicity stunt for the Grammys, nothing more or less. The students could have spent the three days playing Unreal for all that it really matters.
In my opinion, the fact that no one is yet sure how the students got the music starts to get at the central issue. Did they get the songs "from easily accessible Web sites?" Did they get them via Napster or Gnutella? Did they get them from friends via AOL IM? Did they set up a public FTP server and have people transfer files? I don't know, and I don't think that it really matters.
What record companies would like is a return to the time when the content could not be separated from the physical artifact. You want to listen to the new Chuck Berry song? You buy the actual plastic record -- no other options available. From the industry perspective, this was the perfect arrangement
Since recording devices first became available to the consumer market, however, that arrangement has changed drastically. I myself once owned hundreds of 90 minute cassette tapes, filled with music that I may or may not have paid the record companies for.
Yes, technological developments (drag-and-drop CD ripping and burning, mpeg compression, a worldwide computer network) have made illegally duplicated music more readily available, but to use an often repeated phrase, we aren't going to be able to cram the genie back into the bottle now.
The various experiments with copy protected CDs, burners that won't write certain data, etc. seem thus far to indicate that a technological approach to restoring the content/artifact link may work in the short term, but that link will be broken again by future developments.
The record industry has to approach this situation from a realistic business perspective: it has been decades since it was possible to prevent people from copying and sharing content. It may be possible to minimise this sharing, but not to eliminate it. I have the suspicion that record companies have to take that fact into account (if they haven't already) and start working on building some business models that reflect the current reality.