5 Years of RIAA Filesharing Lawsuits 148
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "David Kravets of Wired.com, who provided in-person gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Capitol v. Thomas trial last year, takes stock of the RIAA's 5-year-old litigation campaign, concluding it is 'at a crossroads', and noting that 'billions of copies of copyrighted songs are now changing hands each year on file sharing services. All the while, some of the most fundamental legal questions surrounding the legality of file sharing have gone unanswered. Even the future of the RIAA's only jury trial victory — against Minnesota mother Jammie Thomas — is in doubt. Some are wondering if the campaign has shaped up as an utter failure.'"
Of course it's a failure (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a position not shared by 90% of your customers, and you're guaranteed failure. It really doesn't matter what the law says is right. It's economics, and the RIAA has failed or will fail, one way or the other.
Of course it's a failure-Stardock. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this guy said it best [sinsofasolarempire.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I think this guy said it best [sinsofasolarempire.com].
I agree with this.
down with brittney spears, survivor MLXVIIII, and mtv!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article: >>> Some are wondering if the campaign has shaped up as an utter failure.
Well.
Duh.
The War on Bittorrent has been as much a failure as the War on Drugs or the Prohibition on Alcohol. People want their pleasures, and no amount of threats is going to stop them from acquiring want they desire. Gov't and corporate entities need to find a more effective solution to deal with these problems:
Drugs/Alcohol - legalized but strictly regulated w/ severe punishment for abusers (DUI)
Bittorre
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's piracy. (Score:3, Funny)
They have failed repeatedly. They just have loads of money and can just keep failing over and over until they run out. When will that be?
Hey! Let's leave Microsoft out of this.
Can't call it a failure (Score:4, Interesting)
Anything that takes in that much money can't be called a failure. It's wishful thinking to say otherwise. Judges are still finding in their favor, and nobody has been able to put a stop to their extortion racket yet. Their lawsuit racket is a machine that requires practically no work, and takes in thousands of dollars per victim. A thousand letters go out, and a couple of million dollars come back in. Hardly a failure.
It's immoral, and we hope that mainstream non-geek people will see it eventually...but currently, as much as it pains me to say so - it's a win for them. A big one.
If we convince ourselves that we've won and walk away when we haven't - then we are the ones who've lost. So let's not say what we hope things are. Let's say what they really are, and go from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Judges are still finding in their favor,
No, they're not. Judges are getting ever closer to sanctions and contempt charges. If enough find against them, some of those who paid might come back with a class action to get their money back.
We (that is, everyone but the RIAA) haven't won yet, but that's the way it seems to be slowly grinding.
Re: (Score:2)
Robbery, extortion and murder aren't failures - unless you get caught. That's kind of my point.
What they're doing is very wrong, but it isn't a failure. Because they're still doing it, they're allowed to do it, and it takes in boatloads of cash.
As soon as the bastards are all rotting in jail cells - that's when we get the luxury of calling their endeavor a failure. So let's stay focused.
Re: (Score:2)
They can fucking pursue me in court, you fucking tool. I'm not pissed about that. I'm pissed at the concept of being blamed for something I didn't do because their "investigation" methods are haphazard at best.
I have a lot of shit going on in my life, all of it higher on my list of "fun things to do" than defend myself in civil court by some nitwit company that fucking got their facts wrong.
If you can't understand why I'm pissed at them for that, then fucking kill yourself, because the only thing you're w
The legality of file sharing? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The legality of file sharing? (Score:5, Funny)
File Sharing is WRONG! Think of all the unborn children of todays artists, that won't be able to ride the coattails of what their parents have done. Who will have to go out and get jobs and work for most of their lives. All because you won't pay for the songs their parents have written and recorded, and keep paying for those songs 70+ years after they have died.
There no longer is any money to be made creating music because of YOU!
I predict the entire music industry will be force to close up shop in 2-3 years tops. Then there will be no new music for anyone! And it's your fault!
Re:The legality of file sharing? (Score:4, Funny)
That's cool. My 200 Gb. music collection will see me through the dark times.
Re: (Score:2)
That's right! Remember, kiddies, P2P Killed Elvis [slashdot.org]!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuh-uh. Artists (and their unborn children) don't need money. Haven't you heard? They can just sustain themselves on the music, man. They like music so much that they'll be willing to starve, or get a part-time day job (unlike me), and dedicate all their free time to creating REALLY GOOD pieces of music! Even if it means total poverty!
In fact, the RIAA's money is turning lots of good artists away. Lot's of people who really truly do prefer forced poverty, rather than the option of all those distracting rich
Re: (Score:2)
>>>File Sharing is WRONG!
And what if I, an author of novels, decide to write a book and share my creation via file-sharing. ($1 gets you access to the required *.torrent file.) Is that also considered "wrong" in your viewpoint?
File-sharing is more than just illegal activities. It also includes legal sharing of public domain creations and licensed files.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha. OK, while your hyperbole is humorous you have to admit that distribution of music is going to be cut back. Sure, the people that "know" about it will still know and their friends will. But why are you going to go looking for "new music" that doesn't show up with some keyworded search that nobody ever tells you about?
I think more significantly the people that are need to make a living are going to have to rethink a career in recorded music. 15-20 years ago a good living could be made by being a ba
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The content of most files downloaded is always questionable.
Almost missed your smilie!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The content of most files downloaded is always questionable.
Yeah. Whenever Firefox is downloaded, Ballmer is on his knees and questions God, "Why?"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that if it meant no more copyright protection, most people here would be okay with dumping the GPL as well.
In fact, my understanding is that the whole point of the GPL is to use Copyright law against itself.
Regardless, taking copies of music falls under pretty much the same spirit as the GPL, even if it isn't licensed as such. It's not a shocker that people would support both.
Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some are wondering if the campaign has shaped up as an utter failure.
And many are not wondering anymore. The ultimate failure of DRM was predicted a few years ago on these very forums. Thanks for playing anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The ultimate failure of DRM was predicted a few years ago on these very forums.
Please. Back when it was called "copy protection," its ultimate failure was predicted 25-30 years ago on forums that are now defunct and lost to time.
Re: (Score:2)
Please. Back when it was called "copy protection," its ultimate failure was predicted 25-30 years ago on forums that are now defunct and lost to time.
Copy protection on software is still going strong, because then you need constantly work to avoid tripping the copy protection and it'll break on patches and upgrades, you can't just copy the output once and be done with it. Music and video DRM on the other hand is newer and a pretty hopeless concept, sooner or later it must be transformed for your eyes and ears. And the movies you torrent will never ever cause a popup saying your version of the Matrix may not be Genuine Blu-Ray Advantage(TM).
Re: (Score:2)
The ultimate failure of DRM was predicted a few years ago on these very forums.
Please. Back when it was called "copy protection," its ultimate failure was predicted 25-30 years ago on forums that are now defunct and lost to time.
30 years ago predates even usenet. What medium did these forums ulitilze? Smoke signals?
Re: (Score:2)
Dialup modems. They were called BBSs. I ran one when I was in high school.
Don't drink and download. (Score:2, Insightful)
"Some are wondering if the campaign has shaped up as an utter failure.'""
Prohibition.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I see your prohibition, and raise you two streisand effects.
Re: (Score:2)
NewYorkCountryLawyer .... (Score:5, Insightful)
(seriously, though, WTH do all the damn summaries end with rhetorical questions or even just plain rhetoric?
Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer .... (Score:5, Funny)
seriously, though, WTH do all the damn summaries end with rhetorical questions or even just plain rhetoric?
Oh the irony!
Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer .... (Score:5, Funny)
...laughing my a$$ off! I wish I had mod points!
Or would I just waste them on some other comment?
Re:NewYorkCountryLawyer .... (Score:5, Funny)
But why do I ask those questions?
Re: (Score:2)
It's gonna really sting when you start questioning why you don't end rl conversations with them.
And when you hit rock bottom, only then will you finally realize the divine wisdom of the age-old Cannuck affectation:
eh?
Re: (Score:2)
They end with questions because the submitters know that without a question to discuss nobody would bother commenting on the story. Really kinda an insult to the intelligence of every slashdotter - I can think of some part of your submission to discuss without the need for a prompt.
Re: (Score:2)
... thanks, not only for the objective insight which permeates much of your postings, nor the informative summaries that accompany your submissions, nor even for the occasional comedic relief provided by your dry wit, but for writing a summary that *doesn't* end in a rhetorical question. (seriously, though, WTH do all the damn summaries end with rhetorical questions or even just plain rhetoric?
That's a damnable lie. Sometimes they end with questions that aren't rhetorical at all.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The person who suggested that I do it to provoke reader interest doesn't know me very well. I'm much too unsophisticated for that level of planning.
"Wondering?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wasnt there a story a while back saying that they'd made like $140million in total from filesharing lawsuits?
This amount included the settlements against Napster etc.
The recording artists involved in the Napster case were suing the RIAA because they'd not seen a single cent of it.
Either way, I'm sure they (the RIAA) see it as a success as most of the people sued so far have settled without a fight.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wasnt there a story a while back saying that they'd made like $140million in total from filesharing lawsuits? This amount included the settlements against Napster etc. The recording artists involved in the Napster case were suing the RIAA because they'd not seen a single cent of it.
Not sure how I missed it the first time around but yeah, there was [torrentfreak.com].
It would be pretty hilarious if the RIAA got sued into oblivion by the very artists they claim to "protect".
Re: (Score:2)
Would you? Why..? You've seen how they calculate their losses "every download is a lost sale," what makes you think their calculations for returns are likely to be any more sane? Though they might have comedic value...
Re: (Score:2)
I know, replying to my own comment...I didn't realise how redundant I was being 'til I saw it on the page...curses..! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be curious to see an expense report comparing the amount they've spent on legal fees during this whole campaign to the return on investment.
Considering they haven't actually been able to show a loss to begin with, I doubt what you're asking for is possible. So far, they seem more worried about people maybe/possibly going out of their way to avoid paying for stuff than about actual measurable drops in their revenue stream. I wouldn't mind, but it's becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
What doubt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some?! Wondering?! To date they've convinced the internet audience they so desperately wanted that the entire music industry, most telecoms companies, and quite a few governments are a parade of cash-guzzling corporation-fellating litigation-whores, and done absolutely nothing to peer-to-peer file sharing itself. Where is there any room for doubt as to its failure? It's like trying to give a guy CPR, but realising after hours of effort that you've brutally beaten the guy and his entire living bloodline to death with their own shoes instead.
Re: (Score:1)
It is worth wondering if the at large public does consider these tactics a failure, or is even aware of them, or if they are if they even care. That's where this battle is to be fought, not amongst a (more) informed internet audience that is savvy to technological issues.
Re:What doubt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is worth wondering if the at large public does consider these tactics a failure, or is even aware of them, or if they are if they even care. That's where this battle is to be fought, not amongst a (more) informed internet audience that is savvy to technological issues.
until members of the "offline" community meet and are educated by members of the "online" community, who, contrary to recent reports, are not "ghosts in the machine" (though i wish i was).
Re:What doubt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The Conquistador, I'm sure. They run tight.
Re: (Score:2)
And me without mod points. Fucking criminal.
Pretty much fail (Score:5, Insightful)
If they meant to reduce file sharing, total failure there as there's been no slowdown. If they meant to give back to the artists, failure on their part as any winnings/settlements has only gone to fund more litigation. Not only that, they only have one substantive win which may be declared a mistrial as the judge reconsiders his orders to the jury.
The campaign is a failure. This would have been money better spent on actual innovation on distributing music.
Re:Pretty much fail (Score:5, Insightful)
The campaign is a failure. This would have been money better spent on actual innovation on distributing music.
Actually, faliure or success depends on your viewpoint.
From the viewpoint of stopping piracy the failure is total. However, from the viewpoint of the companies hired to monitor and pollute p2p networks, its been a financial success, they've made many millions. Lawyers too, they've raked it in.
So failure is a matter of viewpoint. Hell, if I could have come up with some crackpot way to 'end piracy' I'd have sold it to them too and walked away richer, fully aware that all I sold them was snake oil.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure that it was a failure. The RIAA affiliates have raked in an obscene amount of cash and won the only case to go through a full trial.
They weren't realistically going to stop sharing, but they did manage to turn it into a business model. Which as disgusting as it is to me, is some degree of success. I highly doubt that they would be continuing with this if they weren't making money at it.
What viewpoint? (Score:5, Funny)
If you go on a backpacking trip and you are eaten by a bear, the fact that the bear is no longer hungry does not mean that your trip is not a failure.
Benefits of companies hired to attack P2P are irrelevant to RIAA's campaign outcome, which is ultimately to increase profits. Since they paid a lot of money to third parties and got nothing, it is a failure.
Re: (Score:2)
nice example :)
Still, I didn't mean the RIAA's campaign was a success, I just meant the ambulance chaser types who profited from their stupidity would think of it as a successful event, much like your bear.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, if I could have come up with some crackpot way to 'end piracy' I'd have sold it to them too and walked away richer, fully aware that all I sold them was snake oil.
I sold them my magic rocks. After all, they were good enough to keep the polar bears away. But they only gave me a couple million dollars for them...
Re: (Score:2)
A failure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on your perspective... definitely not a failure for the trial attorneys billing by the hour.
Nostalgia (Score:3, Insightful)
It Never Was... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
They'd happily replace the lot of them with monkeys with typewriters, if they could.
it's all about protecting their monopoly of distribution.
(and lets face it, their monopoly does make MS look like rank amateurs).
Some are wondering... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm...nothing's changed in 5 years, RIAA has no slam-dunk victories to show for it, thousands upon thousands of customers pissed off to the point of not buying music at all anymore, only a few million bucks extorted from victims, despite claims of billions lost....
Well, I'm NOT wondering if it's an "utter failure".
You people have no imagination. (Score:1, Troll)
But I'm not posting to offer a problem: I offer a solution.
1. Get an anonymous server.
2. Put a shit load of music on it.
3. Add on kiddie porn.
4. RIAA and cronies download music and child porn.
5. Call cops, RIAA has just downloaded and consumed child porn!
RIAA, "Your honor, we're investiga
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
If the **AA was caught distributing small amounts of kiddie porn, it would be scandalous, but not fatal to the company. I'm pretty sure the courts (if not many of the public in general) would be lenient on them since a) it was not their intention, b) they never viewed/stored any of it, and c) they didn't share much of it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
5. Call cops, RIAA has just downloaded and consumed child porn!
If it has been consumed, then there is no evidence since it has been...er...consumed.
Re: (Score:2)
Your plan is interesting. However, it fails to account for the fact that laws don't apply to large corporations any more than they do to rich people.
the RIAA whinging parts (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA members have deliberately and directly avoided properly serving their customers for well over a dozen years. They have actively engaged in a campaign of tampering with both the laws and the laws' execution. They actively attack and extort those members of society least able to defend themselves, including total innocents, with ridiculous claims similar to common street thugs. One wonders what RIAA is going to do if avoidance or legal confrontation are replaced by outright vigilantism. I've seen this in other countries and the history books in other situations.
Not really a failure (Score:4, Insightful)
...if you view their goals and their audience accurately.
I argue that they didn't want to stop file sharing. Or they did want it, but didn't expect to succeeded at such an endeavor.
The purpose of this was to make filesharing seem like a small scale threat that could easily be dealt with by a campaign of lawsuits. Most of the investors in the RIAA have no idea how the recording industry works let alone why the internet is such a giant threat to it.
These lawsuits were a smokescreen to stop shareholders from realizing the record label's business model had failed. Any survival at all would involve massively reduced profit margins. If they had realized that, shareholders would have bailed from the recording industry en masse.
The goal of this legal campaign was to buy a few extra years for the the Hillary Rosens and the Jack Valentis of the world to quietly divest themselves of recording industry stock.
So good job guys! May you successfully avoid shareholder lawsuits!
Lets see.... (Score:2)
5 years ago (2003) I would buy maybe 1-2 CDs per month. Definitely less than what I bought in 2000.
Now, I can't remember the last time I bought a CD. Definitely none this year so far. I don't think I bought any in '07 or '06 either.
Partially it's because of the whole stigmata and the ease of getting things off of P2P and (to a lesser extent) usenet.
A lot more is because I just don't see much good stuff out there, and my collection of the classics is pretty much complete.
I'm also a bit wary about newer re
meanwhile (Score:5, Insightful)
both van halen and heart have written the mccain campaign, more than once in the case of heart, that they do not wish their songs used to further the political campaign of a person they disagree with.
it's too bad that all these artists don't have some kind of professional organization to represent them. you know, it could collect dues from its members, and then stand up for them in cases like this, where their hard work and creativity is shamelessly co-opted as a marketing gimmick by those in direct and diametrical opposition to the artists themselves on any issue of importance.
like, an association of american industry recordists, or a recording association of american industry... something...
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, where's mod points when you need them?
Re: (Score:2)
depends on the artist's publishing deal.
I don't know... (Score:2, Interesting)
Pretty much everyone using
That being said, I'm forced to wonder if the RIAA has been more successful than they're being credited for. Many/most of my friends don't share the same enthusiasm for all things tech that I do
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, success for the RIAA isn't zero piracy. Success is increased sales. Anybody got figures for CD sales lately?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many of those "security" people also voted in '04 not to change horses mid apocalypse.
Those aren't people, they're cogs in the authoritarian machine. Talking to them is like talking to a wall or a creationist.
My opinion in better words (Score:2)
Found recently an article about piracy [eurogamer.net], mostly in context of games but also touching **AA claims. This is pretty much my opinion on piracy in well written form.
It is hard to swallow to many, but I still stand on the position that many people will not engage in what now called "piracy" if only business was better and quicker in responding to changing customer needs. Nobody wants to be criminal, nor states want to criminalize its populace. But **AA actions... This is pretty much worst what have happened
Actually, it's a success, and I'm not trolling (Score:3, Insightful)
It's been a success, it just hasn't finished its course yet. First, ask yerself, What is the **AA's ideal win situation?
Consider that they're substantially in bed with the TV industry also, and while not always in concert with cable and satellite distributors, often in parallel.
The ideal situation is what WAS, with a few new techno gadgets. That is, all information and entertainment channels neatly tied up; no individual (read: Human) talents leaking around the filters, only going thru the **AA contract filtering process, etc.
This requires that home computing be made illegal, completely. It must be a crime to write software, or load non-**AA approved software, onto any computing device you own. Consider this situation:
A. Enormous technological capacity at
B.. nearly zero cost in
C... everyone's home that is
D.... available to the corporations, and
E..... completely inaccessible to non-corporate (read: Human) interests.
What corporate interests would benefit? Political parties? Law Enforcement, Dept of Homeland Insanity? M$$$? **AA??? Marketing corps of all stripes?
Every corp and govt body that is interested in getting you to buy their stuff or control your stuff will benefit if the **AA eventually wins. I can't think of one national or international corporation/govt that won't benefit by using the people's computing powers against them.
This is going to be a long fight, and the only ones that can really lose are we the people. If we win utterly, and computing freedom is assured and privacy rights restored, corporations will win in the long run, they just can't see it.
Re: (Score:2)
If the barriers to entry into enterprenialship (if that's even a word) are low and kept low, then more people will build small businesses, which build greater localized, disposable incomes in more people. Peo
What billions and billions of file transfers? (Score:2)
You know I don't believe the supposed billions of file transfers of illegal music.
The numbers are now so huge that everybody in the world is in on it or they're just trying to blow smoke up our asses.
Since I doubt that Conway Twitty's albums are getting that much action ANYWHERE, I think I want to see some audited numbers, Okay?
Fuck the **AAs.
my direct experience with a large TV network (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a software engineer who shoots photography in a 'serious amateur' mode.
like many, I have a public sharing site (I use flickr but others are basically the same kind of 'publish and show' concept).
the cool thing about the public networking sites is the amount of eyeballs that view them.
a few weeks ago, I got email from a representative from a cable tv network (a large well-known one that has a 3 letter 'call sign', sort of like how HBO uses 3 letters to ID their network. it isn't HBO but its along those lines and just about as big). the rep said that they found my photo (or set of photos) and thought they might be useful in a tv 'spot' that they were producing and airing in the next few months. they wanted to get my permission to use it in some way on their show.
of course, I was flattered. I asked what their terms would be and what kind of payment they would have in mind. remember, this is a for-profit TV network (ie, not PBS) and they *should* have proper budget for things, even ancillary things like my still photo.
well, we went back and forth on email for a few rounds and I even consulted some folks in the biz that are in touch with common practices in this industry. it turns out that, more and more, media companies are trolling the free photo sites and trying to take advantage of 'amateurs' by offering NO PAYMENT but only trinkets (tee shirts, comp dvd of the show, and stuff like that) but no payment, no royalties and basically asking for unlimited rights to do whatever they want with the work of art, even on 'future media types' not yet developed. perpetual license - and I, the artist, get spud-nutz (so to speak).
is that fair?
I hear all this talk, over and over again, about artists should be paid. so I returned the sentiment back to papa media and papa slammed the door in my face.
I asked for a simple low-value (relatively) one-time payment and immediately the reply was 'sorry, but all the others we contacted offered their photos for free and we have no budget to pay guys like you'.
I just LOVE this double-standard. when someone downloads a song for free, there are THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS being asked for in damages. but its ok for a major studio network to ask for FREE WORK even though its original, creative and of value.
so, it seems, my photos won't be seen on that nationally airing show, but I also have what I wanted from this exchange. I sent a message, however small, that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. I don't expect my protest to count for a lot, but I did what I could do and denied them free use of my creative work. I'm sure they'll move on to the next guy on the list but I have at last made my statement and stood my ground. and I still have the fun compliment of knowing they WANTED to use my work on national TV (and on the eventual dvd that always gets made from TV specials).
do I have any more respect for the big media companies? in fact I have lost even more respect for them - and I didn't think that such a thing was mathematically possible.
big media says artists should be paid. but they clearly don't believe this - my direct recent experience is proof of that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You should, in my humble opinion, blog about that and get some more eyeballs on your text/message. IANAL but you can likely freely name the TLA network by name. If I were you I would also be attentive to see if they went to the hosting site to try to get permission from them (many TOS seem to allow them to have a right to distribute your work without your additional consent as a part of the contract) and/or just used your work without your permission.
Anyhow, I liked your message and I hope you have the time
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you should be paid. But you aren't going to be. This is the culture we have formed. Sorry, but we all get to live with it.
the ordering is important, here.
first, the big media companies wanted to sell media to consumers. this was without any kind of real 'license'. you bought the silver cd, you 'owned' it. even today the commercials on TV say 'own it on DVD today!'. their very language is self-damning to any arguments about 'pay per view' or 'pay per device'.
skip ahead to something close to the pre
RIAA v McCain Palin (Score:2)
Or do you think they might not be willing to sue someone with the chops to hit back?
Piracy is Competition, not Theft (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's an analogy:
A carpenter becomes well known for his excellent chairs. He is approached by a salesman who offers to duplicate these chairs in a factory and sell them all over the world. The carpenter agrees to this plan when told that he will receive $1 for each chair sold. And of course, he can continue making chairs by hand for people who want a more personal performance.
Years go by, the carpenter makes some money, but realizes that the salesman is making millions for doing virtually nothing.
Then one day, someone figures out how to make identical copies of his chair and posts plans for it on the Internet. Now anyone with a saw and some wood can make a perfect copy of the chair. Those who don't have the time can still buy it from the salesman or pay a bit more to get one from the carpenter.
The chair made by the carpenter is like a rock concert.
The chair from the salesman is a CD.
The chair you make yourself is a digital copy from the Internet.
There is no way this would be considered wrong, illegal or immoral if we were actually talking about some chair design like an Adirondack or even some fancier newer design like an aeron. Nor would providing plans for others to make copies be considered illegal since there is no loss to the carpenter. His inventory is not short, his supply stock is not depleted.
But the salesman would be pissed, because his revenue is dependent on need and achieved with virtually no effort on his part. Now, there is less need through no effort on the part of the consumer. This is direct competition so the natural response is to petition the government to make this illegal and protect his business.
We have a long history of protecting businesses through regulation. It's anti-competitive, anti-consumer, tends to create monopolies and is basically a bunch of corrupt politicians taking money from thieves who would like the barn doors left open.
The only way to hasten the demise of an organization like the RIAA and its member companies is to stop buying content that you can either copy yourself or acquire directly from the artist. Support your artists, go to their concerts and if they sell direct, buy their albums. But we need to stop buying anything distributed through the channel and starve these guys until the music distribution model becomes more like chair design and construction.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright... *sighs*
Would it be "competition" if I took a copy of Firefox, edited it, to call it KGIIIFox and added some small changes, compiled it and made it difficult to decompile, released it, and then refused to hand out the source per the GPL?
That would be just copyright infringing, not theft, and it isn't even property according to many comments here on this site.
That doesn't mean that I have paid for all of my MP3 collection. The justification and typical hypocrisy (you may be different and view my
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA and McCain's campaign must use the same people for their due-diligence vetting...
Not from US. But as a bystander I had an impression that in fact that was Democrats who introduce all possible kinds of dangerous laws: DMCA was introduced during democratic president.
Obama now also has the backing of the industry and one can only wonder what pro-big-business laws they would come up with. With Republicans it is much easier: they normally go for low hanging fruits like tax breaks and gov't benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA was introduced during democratic president.
So what? Congress makes the laws, and it was mostly freshmen republicans doing that.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Has the press gotten so pathetic...
Yes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps I talk to others, but here's what I'm getting:
Bastard child in the family - Obama was a bastard
DUI 20 years ago - Chappaquiddick
Tried to get earmarks for town - Duh, that's what mayor's do.
Investigation into trying to get her BIL fired - By all accounts he SHOULD have been fired and was being improperly protected.
Trying to paint her as a hypocrite is similar to criticizing her experience - the more the Dems do it, the more they open themselves up. They won't lose votes over it, but they WILL do won
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not even that. Except for the die-hard Democrats, who really cares if the candidate's husband had a DUI 20 years ago? it has nothing to do with her qualifications and everything to do with how desperately her opponents are looking for mud to sling.
Re: (Score:2)
I know of no other business that expects the customer to keep them financially afloat that thinks they can treat their customers with disdain and they will not suffer in the end for it.
Petroleum Companies, Governments, and Churches come immediately to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Pirates aren't customers. They will never be customers because for them it is all free.
I don't buy music. Nobody I know buys music. It is freely available on the Internet. None of these people are in any way "customers" for any RIAA member. They will never be because they will never buy anything that can be downloaded for free.
The numbers are growing, principally with the growth of broadband Internet access. Today the people buying CDs at WalMart probably do not have broadband Internet access at all -
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where to begin, there are so many errors and misconceptions in the above.
The MP3 format was a trigger, but also CD-ROM drives that would "rip" a CD were another factor. In 1995 there were two. Two. All other drives where specifically programmed not to support extraction of audio information. This changed significantly around 1997 or so but before then "ripping" a CD simply wasn't possible for most people.
There is no copyright fee in the US - that's Canada you are thinking of. Unless you ar