CMU Professor's Rebuttal Against RIAA Propaganda 542
jsc writes "On Sunday, the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette published
an article by Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, stating that
university students are hijacking Internet2 to pirate
copyrighted works, and schools who don't actively combat
file-sharing are teaching their students bad values like
"acceptance of theft". The Post-Gazette didn't let Sherman
get away with it, though... Today they published
a letter to the paper from Roger Dannenberg, a
professor of Computer Science and Music at Carnegie Mellon University,
reminding everyone how past/present behavior of the RIAA and
its members is an even worse model of values..."
Robin Hood (Score:5, Insightful)
YAIA (Score:5, Insightful)
While I am quite pleased to see authority figures (even if they are just university professors) standing up to the RIAA, I must admit that Prof. Dannenberg actually did rather little to counter Sherman's arguments; while his points are good and valid, they do, unfortunately, follow one of the cardinal rules of internet arguing: Never argue the opponents points, only point out his weaknesses.
Re:Robin Hood (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Robin Hood (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd love to find out who RIAA members are stealing from. That would really stop them from spouting off that the RIAA "protects" artists by allowing them to make a living!
This is quite an amusing ironical double-standard (Score:3, Insightful)
*HMpf*
danalien - former filesharer, stopped 'stealing' garbage
Teaching their students bad values (Score:4, Insightful)
KFG
News? (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with the professor (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes sense, at least to me, that the RIAA's all-stakes vendetta against file sharers is taking things too far. While I do think that artists should have the ability to make a living off of their music, it does not at all justify the sheer amount of all out attack that the RIAA has been taking agaisnt File-sharers.
The RIAA's tactis have not done nearly as much I think to stop illegal file-sharing as LEGAL music downloads like Apple's iTunes and others have been doing. The scare tactics employeed by the RIAA only scares off some of the less-diehard file swappers, and does not deter the majority of the sharers out there. While it may seem like the number of file sharers has decreased, the majority of those that have stopped have probably moved to legal forms of getting music downloads. If the RIAA, instead of spending millions on lawyers fees to sue, spend that money on promoting legal music downloading, I have a feeling the impact would be greater
Re:Robin Hood (Score:5, Insightful)
You can call it a fallacy, and from a legal pov you are right, but I think the vast majority would consider it a lesser crime than stealing from a non-thief.
Re:Robin Hood (Score:5, Insightful)
While the theft is certainly illegal, and nobody I have read about says it is, the RIAA's position is exceptionally disingenuous for the reasons mentioned.
They argue that law and government should protect them with MORE (very important point) legislation and they have got much of it already. (DMCA) They argue that they should be able to breech people's privacy, destroy whole internet technologies and dictate to the electronics industry what they can and cannot produce.
They argue this because they pretend to defend the artist rights and musical freedom as they have always done. This is obviously wrong.
The question is not nearly as simple as you have made it out to be. It is not a question of "enforcement of current law", but far more insidious.
Having said all that, a great comment on mp3 theft:
"Stealing music is like taking candy from a...large, fat rich person."
Re:Robin Hood (Score:2, Insightful)
Lead by example, not threats.
Re:Robin Hood (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough, I believe.
Robin Hood-Slippery when wet. (Score:2, Insightful)
It however makes for an excellent slippery slope.
Re:Robin Hood (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Traditionally, RIAA has stifled innovation by using dubious means, and they have always been scared of new technology, and have tried to prevent onset of technology using monopolistic and legal measures
2) RIAA isn't the right guardian for the right of musicians. One ought to see it more as a consortium of big-label music companies, and nothing more.
The point is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Two wrongs don't make a right.
-Erwos
Re:YAIA (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the Prof. did a good job here, primarily in showing that there's a historical record of established companies either (a) using their technology to control who gets published, or (b) using their position in an attempt to prevent other companies from competing with them.
Internet2 is all about research - should that research be restricted because an organization known for strong-arm tactics is attempting to strong-arm the research institutions? What about all those independent acts out there who can't get their creative works published, and who want to use P2P to build the fan base that could get them a record deal? What about alternatively-licensed content that needs to be effectively distributed? Should we listen to an organization that has historically shown itself as an impediment to new technology?
I think the Professor did a fine job in discrediting the article's author. But, alas, it's in today's paper, which is read less (ok... of which fewer copies are sold) than the Sunday edition, where the article was published. Think the RIAA cares about the letter?
Need More articles like This (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I agree with the professor (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet is a distribution channel that they will never (hopefully) fully control. If they can't control their means of distribution, they can't provide stable financial data - which tends to conflict with what share holders want in a company.
Internet distribution can make the RIAA totally irrelevant. With the right hardware [macroundup.com] and new applications [apple.com], almost anyone can make, record and distribute quality music. The RIAA is fighting for it's very existance, IMHO.
Soko
Profit model (Score:2, Insightful)
I told him they had.
I have vowed never to purchase a CD new again. Exercise my right as a capitalist and vote with my dollar.
Re:YAIA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uphill Battle (Score:4, Insightful)
12. You cannot own a fact, not in the intellectual property sense or the physical sense of the word. You cannot own a number because it is a fact.
The intellectual property proponents are in what I like to call a fortified losing position. At one point they had a business model that was based on distribution and storage and now that model no longer works because distribution and storage have become far too easy and cheap. The whole IP discussion is ancillary to their current and future financial crisis. If they don't change their business model or manage to invade every aspect of your personal life in the name of IP (which has less to do with IP and more to do with monitoring and controlling you in ways most find offensive at best), then they will not maintain their entertainment cartel.
Re:The point is? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you walk into a police station with outstanding warrants against you, complaining of a mugging, the cops are going to catch you first before they go after the mugger.
How many times have we read about pot growers who call in cops to complain of a burglary? And guess what? The cops catch them first.
If the RIAA is complaining of a crime, they must make sure that they themselves are innocent of such.
Re:Robin Hood (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite. He is merely saying that if the RIAA want's to enlist the aid of colleges to combat piracy (Which is CLEARLY the intent of the RIAA's original letter), they need to clean up their act first.
Speficially, the Professors closing coment may sound like he is trying to argue that stealing from the "bad guy" is acceptable, this is a false assumption. He is merely stating that if they want HIS help, they should start holding up their end of the bargin when it comes to the recording artists, nothing more.
Yep, those RIAA butthead will sell you a (Score:3, Insightful)
To paraphrase NWA, 'Fuck the RIAA'
Su Senor Programmer
What's being pirated? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lacking Content (Score:5, Insightful)
You have unrealistic expectations from that type of forum. The problem is, he wasn't writing an article, it was a letter to the editor. Letters that are article length either don't get published or get edited down to two or three short paragraphs. He did the best one could expect within those limitations.
Re:Robin Hood (Score:5, Insightful)
Really hurt them, huh!
Same crap, different century.
Re: Robin Hood (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, the end of the road is pretty certain, and goes something like this:
So musicians will continue to make music, people will keep listening to whatever they like (and spend money on that, when they feel like it), some industry folks will keep trying to squeeze money from all this, DRM will continue to be broken, and some lawyers will receive fat paychecks. The most succesful businesses will be those that adapt to new circumstances.
And "stealing" only applies to physical items, not when dealing with all-digital content. Use "copyright infringment", "illegal copying" or "unauthorized distribution" instead. You don't 'own' an image, you may own some rights to decide who is allowed to copy that image, and under what conditions. These rights may vary from country to country, and aren't absolute either (see: fair use).
Oh and BTW: "illegal" is not the same as "wrong".
Or to sum it up... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Robin Hood (Score:5, Insightful)
two things: moral high ground (riaa/mpaa are good guys; your college students are being bad, please stop them) and also the fact that colleged (and the legal system) should NOT be used to help protect one business' outdated sales model.
confusing morality with their profit stream IS the problem. please help to separate the two.
its fine to complain that your business is losing money. the buggywhip companies went thru that - and so will you, riaa/mpaa. could I suggest getting a NEW business model? laying off some of your staff? changing your price and distribution models?
its quite another thing to act all high and holy try to convince us that you are standing for Truth and The American Way. you're not. you're simply a business like all the rest - a business that is in dire need of a major revision.
if you want to complain about lost profits, STOP BRIBING CONGRESS AND LAWMAKERS! there, that'll save you more money than yelling at pimple-faced teenagers.
Get it right (Score:2, Insightful)
Your ass was fired - you were not right sized.
And it's copyright infringement, not theft .
Re: Robin Hood (Score:5, Insightful)
Hear, Hear!
The current music industry is a buggywhip plant asking the federal courts to pass laws making it illegal for Ford to sell Mustangs without buggywhips.
The traditional cost of media is largely distribution costs (if you believe the RIAA). The cost of distribution in electronic format is largely and essentially nil (I know the cost of bandwidth; but I could distribute 4000 copies of a 3 MB song per month for $16.95, or 4 tenths of a cent per copy). The largest costs associated with doing business in the digital format is covering all of the agreements with the traditional distribution services so that they can keep making and selling buggywhips regardless of their objective usefulness and value. As you say, the company that will out is the one that adjusts to the market and provides 1) a simple, pain-free process of acquisition, and 2) a cost that is low enough that copyright infringement is more trouble than it's worth. Who is going to go through the trouble of ripping and distributing songs that can be downloaded for, say, 25 cents?
Re:Robin Hood (Score:3, Insightful)
Bull. People currently employeed are laid off to be replaced by workers oversees. A lost 'sale' might never have been a sale, you can't honestly know for sure. There's a huge difference.
Replace "copyright infringment" with "outsourcing" and "sale" with "job," it doesn't sound like junk science and fabricated statistics anymore. The ability to measure potential is a difficult, even if 1% of the people who download a song or movie would have purchased it, it is still a large amount of money lost.
You mean as long as the system is currently rigged to elect a caniditate that really is the same as his oponent? There really are much fewer differences between the Ds and Rs than people would like to believe.
My coworker's kids do this.... (Score:5, Insightful)
My BS to this is... these are public universities funded with my TAX DOLLARS. While I was in school, you could get suspended and possibly expelled for abusing the computing systems (downloading pr0n, running a MUDD).
I'm sorry but how does downloading Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy on DVD constitute the correct use of a universities network let alone internet2?
So if you look at what the internet2 is supposed to be http://www.internet2.edu/about/ [internet2.edu] you'll see such reasons for the internet2 as:
* Create a leading edge network capability for the national research community
* Enable revolutionary Internet applications
* Ensure the rapid transfer of new network services and applications to the broader Internet community.
Where does "Trade Maroon5 CDs" fit under this? Sounds like they (the universities and the leadership of the internet2 group) should be cracking down on these guys.
-
Re:Uphill Battle (Score:2, Insightful)
Its funny because work can be classified into two broad categories: enabling services and production services.
Enabling services are those that once you've performed them don't need to be done again and possibly allow other services (enabling or production) to be performed.
Think of the work involved in calculating the gravitational constant. Once its performed it doesn't need to be done again, but it allows for other services. In fact, there are so many I won't bother to list them here.
Then we have production services. These are the kind of services that must be done over and over.
For example the fabrication of a cpu is a production service (just the actual fabrication, the design of the cpu only needs to be done once allowing for the production of many cpus).
When you talk about the recording of an artist's works you are refering to an enabling service. Once an artist is recorded it doesn't need to be done again. On the other hand, when you talk about a live performance by an artist you are refering to a production service. It is a service that must be done again and again.
So when you talk about the p2p community ripping off the people who did pay for CD's you're simply confused. It is the recording & distributing industry that is ripping off the people who paid for CD's AND the artists. They over charge for the price of recording and distributing the music while skimping on paying the artists for the performance they have done.
People pay for services performed. In the case of an enabling service, there is a certain limit to the number of times it can be performed for compensation, which in the case of an artist's recording is very low. In the case of a production service, the limit on the times it can be done for compensation is typically pretty high.
An artist should take this to heart. Unless you can demand a very high price for performing your enabling service you may be better off doing a production service.
Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Robin Hood (Score:3, Insightful)
Totally. As a musician and a music appreciater, I would like to see things progress towards more sharing. If music was cheaper, (say 7 cents a song) and the service was comprehensive and easier than "illegal" sharing, I think it would be plenty of revenue to support the artists and the staff required to run the download/distribution system.
Of course this would require major legislation with some sort of sunset, gov-subsidized industry shutdown. Can't say I see that happening anytime soon.........
So f**k 'em. Musicians can always choose to not deal with the industry. They're digging their own grave.....while they sue and promote artists that lip-sync, the real artists and fans will find another way to enjoy music and make a living. When I see a really good live show, I gladly support the artist and buy their product.
It costs about $2 and under to print a single CD with artwork.
Why then don't CD's cost $4? Wouldn't more people throw down $4 over $16.95? Then charge about a buck an album for compressed downloads.
In the end, I think more art being propagated by the internet is a good thing for humanity.......but of course, the end of the road isn't certain.
Re:I agree with the professor (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't you really mean they can't cook the books
as effectively?
After all, next time they claim artist x has had
little or no sales, an iTunes or somebody says,
"hey, we sold thousands of his records", why,
the recording company execs might actually have to
pay out some of that cash, instead of spending
it on luxury villas in various tax-havens.
Solution for the "Problem" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Robin Hood (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, there are those natural moral assumptions of what is wrong- you cannot really make the argument that rape and murder are acceptable. But for some laws such as speed limits (which is a multi-million dollar business for state coffiers and insurance companies alike), the criminalization of marijuana, and gay marriage legislation, the Government does NOT have your best interests at heart. That is just how things are.
I am not aruging that p2p is "right", but to portray file sharers as nothing more than common criminals says nothing of the corruption within the RIAA. Unfortunatley, lawmakers are imposing more outrageous punishments for filesharers while helping to protect the corrupt nature of the RIAA on the individual artists.
In this way, you can't label something as "wrong" just because it happens to be "illegal" without looking at the bigger picture.
Cary Sherman issues the industry's death cry... (Score:4, Insightful)
You know what pisses me off? That I *do* find value in music and enjoy it very much and yet I can't get a non-protected err, non-"enhanced", CD from a particular artist that will play in my damned car's CD player ('99 honda accord, stock system so it is definitely not unique). Here I am, willing to part with $15 for a physical disc with liner notes, cover art, lyrics, and some minor biographical info and I'm not able to find one that I can actually use in the one place I want to use it. I don't have anything against iTunes, but if I buy an album, I want the physical object for my library. It seems like the musicians' fans ARE the market and the RIAA has missed the boat by focusing on illegal activity instead of what the market actually is. Which goes to my point. What happens when an entire industry has lost sight of the market? They try to remind the public of their supposed value and then someone or something arises to serve the real needs of the new market to the detriment of the previous (most likely) monopoly.
R.I.P. Recording Industry Ass. of America
Re: Robin Hood (Score:5, Insightful)
So you state, that during the period during which slavery was legal, and freeing a slave without his/her owner's permission was considered theft, it was wrong for the Underground Railroad to operate, in addition to illegal? That since it was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus, it was wrong? That since it was illegal for the 13 colonies to rebel against English authority, that it was wrong? That since dissent in totalitarian countries is illegal, it is wrong?
Given that, how is any system but totalitarianism a workable one, if we take the premise that the law is always right?
Re:Robin Hood-Ends of the Mark. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Robin Hood-Ends of the Mark. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but we most certainly DO gain a better system by assuming the laws are not always right.
Re:Unreadable (Score:4, Insightful)
I choose not to argue that..
But then, why is it exactly you've chosen to attend a college where you realize you will gain nothing from your professor's teaching? Aren't you just supporting a system that (per your opinion) allows you to pay a lot of money to hear professors to say nothing useful?
Re:Robin Hood (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the first time in history that we've ever had any valuable goods that could be duplicated for free like this. That's why people are still trying to get their heads round the issues involved.
Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet. (Score:3, Insightful)
From Wikipedia...
"Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. Express malice occurs when a party only gives notice of the intention to commit a crime. Implied malice occurs when, in the course of nefarious or unlawful doings, a party causes the death of another party."
When you legally put people to death it is for the express purpose of achieving retribution for a past act. In the form of retribution it is with malice.
"Are all parents malicious then when they ground their children?"
If it is done with the idea of retribution then yes.
"What part of my definition do you disagree with? Even if I simplify the definition to "intentional killing with malicious intent", you still must make a case that punishment is imbued with malice in order to definitively claim that capital punishment is murder."
You were the one that set the framework here I didn't. I am of the opinion that capital punishment is wrong mainly because of the hypocritical statement it sends..."It is wrong for you to kill someone but it is ok for US to do it!" There are only 2 reasons to "punish" people. First, to teach them not to do it again. Since you are talking about the death penalty it follows to show you are not trying to teach that offender any lesson. Second, to exact retribution in an attempt to show others the "consequences". In the case of capital punishment, this is exactly what you are doing. Hence it is done with malice.
B.
Re:Unreadable (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a subtle but important difference.
Re: Robin Hood (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Robin Hood (Score:1, Insightful)
I keep seeing statements like this when discussing the issue of making digital copies of music or other files and giving them away. Not trying to start a flamewar here, but just because it is digital and nothing physical changed hands, does not mean it is not stealing.
It is stealing. Consider the situation. If there is a CD you like and it isn't online, you go buy it. The seller makes X dollars. Your friend likes the CD too, but instead of buying it, he burns a copy of yours. You have effectively stolen X dollars from the seller.
Now, some people will say "well I won't pay for it but will take it if free", but that is a diversion. The fact is if you take a copy of the merchandise and do not pay the seller you have infact stolen dollars out of the seller's pocket. If you say you wouldn't have paid for it, then you should never have taken it.
So, just because it is digitally reproducible does not just mean 'copyright infringement'. It is theft, maybe not of the actual media, but of the profit the seller SHOULD have been allowed to make on the item.
And don't confuse the issue with who the seller is. The current contracts for music make the record labels the sellers. Whether you like them or not, you do not have the right to steal their money.
Re:Robin Hood-Appeal to Popularity. (Score:3, Insightful)
As I wrote, "everyone does it" does not make anything legal, so it will not get you off the hook with the law.
But it does work in the sense that nobody will call the cops when they see you, nobody will try to apprehend you, nobody will go out of their way to provide information about you to cops.
For example: if you go and mug somebody on a street, most people around will yell and call the cops, some may try to catch you, and when the cops arrive, everybody will be teling them things like "he was wearing a pink shirt with green polka dots and bright yellow tie...", and "he ran that way..."
When you smoke pot on the street, or jaywalk, nobody will give a hoot.
Re:Robin Hood-Slippery when wet. (Score:0, Insightful)
We in (most parts) of America value life so much that the price for taking a life is your own life. By making the punishment for capital murder death, we are affirming the value of life. If the punishment for murder was only 5 years in jail, what would that say about the value of the life that person took?
The death penalty is not an act of revenge or retribution with malice. It is the price you pay for the act that you commited.
Re: Robin Hood (Score:4, Insightful)
So you end up calling something stealing that is perfectly legal. What good does that do you? What is the point in finding a similarity that might work out in some specific case and then apply that to every single case (claiming that copyright infringement is stealing)?? It is trivial to find cases were any such argumentation for claiming copyright infringement is stealing won't work. It is trivial to find examples of actions that is stealing but not copyright infringement but also cases that is copyright infringement but not in any way stealing in any way you look at it.
Actually, the whole idea of using "loosing money" to find similarities is quite stupid since copyright infringement has nothing to do with losing money. Something is not copyright infringement because there is a loss of money or income for someone. Copyright infringement (in these cases) are about creating something new, that is creating a new physical property that happens to be identical to something else. Stealing deals with changes in possession or ownership of such physical properties.
And this is an important thing to note, the differences between ownership of a copy of a work and "ownership" of the copyright to a work. The first actually deals with physical objects, ownership and stealing works out. The copyright has very little to do with this having the copyright does not imply or relate to owning the individual copies. Thus, it is perfectly possible for a copyright holder to commit the crime of stealing a copy of his own work (for example taking a CD from a shop). THAT is stealing, completely unrelated to copyright and copyright infringement.
There are also obvious differences in the consequences between stealing a CD and copying a CD. In the case of stealing, the store (for example) is the one losing out. The copyright holder doesn't get any money in any form when you are convicted. When you copy a CD instead, the shop does not in any way lose out. Instead the copyright holder is the one that can go after you and get money for the infringement.
Anyone claiming that the two cases (stealing and copyright infringement is really the same and can be called stealing) has in my opinion simply not understood the concept of copyright and its relation to actual physical copies, at all.
>And don't confuse the issue with who the seller
>is. The current contracts for music make the
>record labels the sellers.
Not the slightest idea what you talk about. For most people, a store is the seller. The music maker would be sellers to the store.
Re: Robin Hood (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times does it need to be said? THEY NEVER HAD THAT X DOLLARS! If they never had it, it couldn't be taken from them, therefore it is not stealing. It is preventing profit, which is very different. Protestors in front of a store can convince people to not shop there. Did they then "steal" from the store by preventing the profit?
No matter how many times you put "in fact" in front of an incorrect statement, it is still incorrect.
> It is theft, maybe not of the actual media, but of the profit the seller SHOULD have been allowed to make on the item.
No one prevented them from being allowed to make money. They did not offer it at an attractive-enough price, so the person chose not to give their money to a corrupt organization (whether they knew it was corrupt or not).
> you do not have the right to steal their money.
But they have the right to steal mine through illegally-obtained and relatively arbitrary taxes?
Fuck that. Once they start playing fair, I will start playing "fair." You can complain about it being illegal, which I will not argue, but you aren't convincing anyone with those tired, rehashed, B.S. arguments. It is IP infringement, stealing is, by definition, about actual property, it does not include infringing on a company's distribution rights to an abstract concept.
Would you argue that it would be stealing if I recorded a song that sounded almost exactly like a popular one (AKA a remake) and then gave it away, because anyone who liked my remake would have liked the original. Thus, I have deprived the original distributor of the money they could have made by people buying copies of the original. Am I a filthy thief?
Re:Robin Hood (Score:2, Insightful)
He is accusing the pot of calling the kettle black - he's not saying that the kettle's bad behavior is okay.
DD
Re:Robin Hood (Score:1, Insightful)
From: [censored]
To: [censored]
"Give us the tools to exterminate those who threaten our business model, and we give you the tools to exterminate those who threaten your business model."
If it makes sense no matter who's on the "From:" or the "To:" lines of the letter, it's not parasitism, it's symbiosis.
Re:I agree with the professor (Score:3, Insightful)
A slight correction. They can make music with high quality sound. High quality music requires talent that most people do not have, or choose not to learn.
Re:Robin Hood (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because they are a bunch of stubborn idiots doesn't mean that their request is unreasonable. If students were using the university's photocopier to reproduce entire text books (let's pretend the use of the copier is provided free of charge by the school) and were buying one book for a class and making copies of it and handing them out, I'd expect the publisher to be furious, to demand that the University put a stop to it and enact better controls over use of their equipment/services.
That's not unreasonable. The RIAA is still a bunch of bullying idiots, and they're still never going to solve the piracy problem, it's too late, they missed the bus, and they're going to have to eventually rethink their business model.
Still, the material is theirs, they do hold an exclusive right to redistribute and reproduce the content, and the students who violate this right are breaking the law using university resources. I don't think they're asking for anything unreasonable. I'm more concerned that legitimate file sharing would be trodden upon in an attempt to comply with whatever demands the RIAA is making.