• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

RIAA vs. Whomever

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

William

Prodigal Son Moderator
Joined
Mar 1, 2001
Location
Tuscaloosa AL
We all know about the cases out there concerning the RIAA/MPAA and various groups(Verizon, Napster, Replay TV, Kazaa, Grokster, etc.). I just want some thoughts on this from everyone. Please keep it within the frame of the rules, and I need good replies(essentially I am going to pull some quotes out for my research paper, properly cited of course).

Just to start it off, I will post one of my favorite articles by none other than John C. Dvorak. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,652236,00.asp
 
John C. Dvorak (one of my favorite authors, as well) also wrote another column entitled "One Buck Forty or Die" that is somewhat in agreement with my opinion. The cost of content isn't at all commensurate with the cost of the media.

There seems to be too much ambiguity over what one actually buys when referring to music, software, written works, and/or inventions--intellecual property, in general. The average consumer is confused when it comes to what exactly is legal with respect to what they can do with their purchased content as well as with how they use it.

Not even laywers agree upon what is permissible when discussing licensing, patents, fair use, and prior art. The whole genre of intellectual property law needs a drastic overhaul so that it can continue to make sense in this new era we refer to as "the information age."

Whether or not these laws get clarification, content providers are simply going to have to adapt to new paradigms in relation to how they charge for their properties.
 
i think the problem in this whole situtation comes down too catching the "thief". the way they are currently pursuing IMO is against the very way we treat "intellecual property" and our current warrent system. bc of the way that we can search database, i think people forget that searching through verizons or anybodies elses databases without a proper warrent is IMO just as intrusive as breaking into your house. the way the current release of data demanded by verizon has no defined cause of investagation besides the fact that they provide service to the internet. nothing more. as said b4, i think the laws on intelectual property and internet tapping needs to be redifined, and need to be done so very precise manor. no beating around the bush, but clearly defined times when and when not internet tapping is legal, and when as John Dvorak said "stealing is stealing". and it needs to be via legislator not judical, the way its being done now.
 
I read two of Dvoraks articles. I found some key points. But when I reviewed my own moral (or lack therof) and economical reasons for downloading music, I got thrown into a paradox.

If I can make a CD for close to nothing (cost of a blank CD- about $.15), why would it cost 100 times more money ($15.00) to purchase the very same digital music on CD from a company that mass produces these things for most likely less than what I pay for my $.15 blank CD.

I remember listening to a radio station from Detroit as I was pulling into my parking space outside my house. The DJ was talking directly to a popular artist (do not remember who) over the phone, and the subject was brought up about how much money an artists see's from the purchase of CD's. He said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the money the artists receive from sales of CD's is and has been not as much as a fraction of what they see at concerts. He said that although they see some profit, it's hardly nothing.

Now this artist wasn't insinuating how much he profit he was losing from downloaded music, but rather how much he was losing to the recording industry.

When I download music, I don't look at it as stealing. I look at it as sharing. The person who ripped the CD to MP3 format most likely payed money for his copy (I doubt the computer geek walked out of the music store with a CD and ripped it to MP3). That money was sent to the recording industry, and a penny or two actually trickled down to the artist after fees from the recording studios and taxes and such.

SCENARIO:

Ford. Everyone has them. They are pretty much an average car. An average Ford vehicle will cost you about $25,000.

Now lets say you could go out and buy a new product that just came out on the market- "The Vehicle Replicator 1000". This replicator costs about $100,000. Ford doesn't make any money from it's sales, since it is produced in Japan from a company that produces electronics, and sold here in the US.

All you need to do is buy a Ford vehicle (or borrow one from a friend) and stick it in the machine. You also need some raw materials to make the car. It only costs about $250 to throw in some metal, aluminum, plactic, etc... About 10 minutes later, out comes an exact duplicate. Now the car is lacking some visual features, like pinstripes, nice metallic gloss paint, aluminum wheels, and fog lights. But the car runs the same and it gets you around just like the original.

Once you have the original car saved in the Replicator 1000's memory banks, you can continue producing copies. You could even sell these copies as originals and make a lot of money. But instead, you keep the replicated car you have for your own personal use.

Being a traveling business man that drives his car hundreds of miles a day, you put 150,000 miles on a car every couple months. Once the car gets up to about 170,000 miles, it dies, and you have to go out get a new car. This time it's a different model. The car replicator will last you a while before it breaks down. Of course, over the years, faster and faster relicators are made. Often times, you upgrade. Some of the models die, and you have to RMA. :D

Are you obligated to go to a Ford Dealership, or perhaps even Ford Motor Company directly and pay for the car your replicated, even though you replicated one yourself. I mean, you payed for the replicator, and for the raw materials, right? Ford Motor company didn't have to pay any money for parts and labor. They didn't even know you replicated their car. They aren't missing any parts. They aren't missing any cars. The only time they notice is at the end of the quarter when they find out they didn't make as much money as they hoped.

In this scenario, here are the variables:

Original Ford Vehicle = Original Audio CD
Replicator 1000 = CD Burner
Raw Materials = Blank CDR
Ford Motor Company = Recording Industry
You = A P2P file sharer

Ok, I'm finished. You will notice that the cost of raw materials and the cost of a CDR is a ratio. The cost of everything else is also comparable. I did the math :)

::Slams book on desk:: I'm finished, you can all wake up now :D
 
[rant]

As much as I may like reading John Dvorak, he really ought to do some research before writing such a piece. Playing a radio in a public business has been found by the Supreme Court to be a legal non-infringing activity.

Justice Stewart in Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken

To hold in this case that the respondent Aiken "performed" the petitioners' copyrighted works would thus require us to overrule two very recent decisions of this Court. But such a holding would more than offend the principles of stare decisis,. it would result in a regime of copyright law that would be both wholly unenforceable and highly inequitable.

And a ruling that a radio listener "performs" every broadcast that he receives would be highly inequitable for two distinct reasons. First, a person in Aiken's position would have no sure way of protecting himself from liability for copyright infringement except by keeping his radio set turned off. For even if he secured a license from ASCAP, he would have no way of either foreseeing or controlling the broadcast of compositions whose copyright was held by someone else. Secondly, to hold that all in Aiken's position "performed" these musical compositions would be to authorize the sale of an untold number of licenses for what is basically a single public rendition of a copyrighted work. The exaction of such multiple tribute would go far beyond what is required for the economic protection of copyright owners, and would be wholly at odds with the balanced congressional purpose behind 17 U.S.C. ' l(e) . . . .

However, he does raise some interesting questions regarding the definition of theft. The only problem I see is that downloading music does not really constitute theft. This comes up all the time in the MP3 debates. Title seventeen makes a distinction between the rights of a copyright holder and those of a CD owner. Per title 17 chapter 1 sec. 109 (a)

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.

When I buy a CD, it is mine to do with as I see fit (assuming that I don’t break any other laws). I can sell my CD to a friend or to a store that deals in used CDs. I can make a copy to keep in my car. I can copy it to my hard drive for my convenience. If my car is broken into and I have lost the original CD, I do not have to delete the copy on my hard drive (in fact I can burn a new disk from the MP3 if that happens). To put this concept in simple terms: You can steal a CD but you cannot steal a song.

[/rant]

As far as downloading music goes, I am of two minds on this. I have seen people post in the forums that they use downloading as a “try before you buy” deal. If someone does this, I am fine with that. In fact, thanks to Napster, I found that my collection of legally purchased Metallica albums was missing a recent release that I had not heard of. Since I already had everything then existing, Metallica owes Shawn Fanning some acknowledgement for a sale of one copy of their S&M DVD. ;-) On the other hand, I have also seen people post that they download music to see if they like it, then having decided that they really don’t, they keep it anyway without buying it because they are just “adding to the collection”. I fail to see how obtaining music for one’s collection without the artist benefiting under laws that go back over two-hundred years can ever be seen as legitimate activity.

Related to this is the fact that there is a wealth of music that is not covered by copyright laws. I have quite a bit of the stuff in my collection. It does not have to be old to be covered. The Grateful Dead is arguably the most recorded band in history (they encourage taping of their concerts). If one was to download even a few thousand live Dead tracks, the odds of getting one that is copyrighted are slim indeed. Further, Metallica (who lead the move against Napster) also provides for tapers at many of their live shows. In fact, the downloads that alerted me to the release of S&M were not on the DVD (the Star Wars Imperial March if memory serves). Ditto the “Charlie Brown” theme and their performance at Woodstock in 1999.

John Dvorak asks us to think about what downloading music really means to our culture and he raises some interesting points. There are other points that need to be covered as well. Basically, the genie is out of the bottle and adaptations have to be made all around. Society has to decide what the new paradigm will be and the RIAA has to adapt its business model to changing times. Microsoft has made a small move in that direction with Palladium and trusted computing but it seems to me that they are trying to fight a defensive “old guard” action while the barbarians are already inside the gates.
 
Have ou guys heard of numbers showing that there was a decrease in the number of cd sold per year since napster is out ?
I didnt.
I think this is only for the money and have nothing to do with the artist.
Cd sales are close from a constant augmentation ( well with the war and everything else i dunno but in normal conditions )
Before i was downloading mp3 and then buying an album if i found it great
I think that from now on i will just stop buying cds
singers or producer are rich and they want even more money
LOWER THE PRICE OF URE CDS AND ILL BUY SOME MORE AND DOWNLOAD LESS.
 
Back