The RIAA strikes back
Spinner
Birmingham, UK
The battle between the RIAA (The Recording Industry Association of America) and peer to peer file sharing networks and its users, took another alarming turn this week. The RIAA has confirmed that it was in the process of serving subpoenas at a swift rate of about 75 a day, on US citizens for the crime of sharing their music files.
This very bold move by the association, which could result in file sharers that are caught to potentially have to cough up thousands of dollars in damages, once again sends a powerfull message to peer to peer network users that they won't get away with their actions any longer.
For the full report:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31833.html
This very bold move by the association, which could result in file sharers that are caught to potentially have to cough up thousands of dollars in damages, once again sends a powerfull message to peer to peer network users that they won't get away with their actions any longer.
The escalation in violence threatens to bring the US criminal justice system to an impasse: although the prison industry is already full to the brim, the RIAA's actions make new criminals out of tens of millions of ordinary US citizens. As Boycott-RIAA's founder Bill Evans notes, "there are more file-sharers than voters for either candidate at the last Presidential Election".
When Evans dubs the 'Recording Incarceration Industry of America' he's only half-joking. If the RIAA was to be indulged in its whims, the statistics suggest that the USA would rapidly become a vast, continent-wide penal colony. And that's hardly a beacon of liberty to shine on the rest of the world. Particularly when, with the backing of the much-maligned US military, the RIAA is ripping up liberal social copyright laws and replacing them with its own.
For the full report:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/31833.html
0
Comments
Do they honestly think they can stop every single user in the world with their subpeonas?
Because of their actions, I don't even purchase music anymore. Download away!
RIAA :thumbsdow
...and there lies the problem.
Here's the problem:
Yes absolutely that is an aspect of the problem, but that's not what I meant. Being an artist myself, if I write a song, it is my intelectual property. If I make an album, my only source of revenue is by people buying that album. If someone copies my album and then puts it on the internet for all to download for FREE!, then my efforts, my property, my work are all being stolen. That is a crime, and it's not fair.
Yes, I agree prices are too high on CD's, and yes, I disagree with the way RIAA are handling the situation. But that doesn't nullify why they are doing it. It's not just about protecting the fat cats of record companies, it's about ensuring people like myself, still have a job. Like I said I don't agree with the RIAA, and obviously I do, and have downloaded music. But I still buy CD's, in part because, if I like that artists music and I get enjoyment from it, then the artist deserves to be paid, as essentially a song, or an album, is their property. By downloading a song which I haven't paid for, is essentialy stealing.
The fact that you my friend haven't bought a single CD for years, but have nevertheless accumulated a massive music collection, is exactly why the RIAA are acting the way they are. Because your actions harm the industry, the artists and essentially your own future economy.
Download music by all means, but if you like something, buy it! Just because music is now so easy to duplicate and distribute, it doesn't make it any less right. Don't think about the record company fat cats, think about the artists who bring you the music, the music which essentially plays a big part of most peoples lives.
SPINNER
On a CD that holds 17 tracks, and now only typically comes with 11, I'm paying $22 for a single song. If perhaps the RIAA were to introduce methods for acquiring their most popular songs from artists both past and present by negotiating with existing artists, and the estates of deceased artists as a single, I would be more inclined to purchase.
$1.50 to $2 seems perfectly reasonable to acquire a single song, and unfortunately this is never the case. Most of the songs I own (Perhaps 98% of them) are:
1) Never-released copies
2) On atleast 7 separate CDs
3) Not available on CD at all
4) Downloaded copies of vinyls that record companies refuse to re-release
5) Music not available in the United States
6) Available freely for download on mp3.com
So that leaves us with a little problem doesn't it? Particularly with #2. At 15$ a disc, I would be paying $105 for perhaps 9 songs...Outrageous isn't it?
Unfortunately, they want it to be fair for them, but won't even lift a finger to make it fair for the people who are supposed to be making their living.
Whilst the property I am downloading is indeed not mine, and the intellectual content of another individual, I find it outrageous that the artists themselves are not pushing on the RIAA and its represented firms to open up pricing and options as I have mentioned...People might be inclined to buy more.
The RIAA are trying to stop something which is essentially too strong to defeat, the only way to win, is to compromise. Sadly, I think it's a long way off before either parties decide to co-operate in such a fashion. Nevertheless, with these recent actions by the RIAA, I can see it only aggrovating the whole situation.
I guess all we can say now is... watch this space.
Cheers
SPINNER
The only real solution is for everyone to wake up and acknowledge that technology has forever changed the way music is distributed. Once record companies and artists accept this (and figure out a way to be fair, while still making money), the problem will go away.
Even when I was a penniless kid I vastly preferred albums to singles (weird things called 45's, in my day). Most people are the other way around: they want the hits, not the filler. I can't imagine liking any of the songs on Sgt. Pepper or The White Album as much as I like the entire album as a whole, but that's just me.
I do think that part of the problem is that music is in a down cycle - we're all waiting for the next Big Thing. If there were more quality artists, and not just one-hit wonders (whose success probably owes a lot to their video, or a movie tie-in) I think people would be more willing to cough up the bucks for a CD.
FM radio had to have hurt music sales in one respect - why buy music when you can hear it free? But it also created new customers by exposing new music to a wider audience. The net result was vastly increased sales. Music companies need to find a way to make todays technology work for them in the same way. I'm not sure what that would be, but I know it's not by having people dragged into court.
Prof
Couldn't have said it better myself.:D
It is a serious crisis in intellectual property law for sure.
If I like a song I will download it.
If I like it a lot I will often purchase the CD.
If I like a lot of songs off the same CD I will almost definitely purchase it.
I won't say I've purchased every CD for every song I liked a lot that I downloaded, or that I purchased every CD when I've liked a lot of songs off of a single CD, but overall I buy it if I like it.
I purchase more CDs now than I did when I was a teen. So, while some people do not purchase CDs, or have tightened their budget, I have--along with millions of others--continued to purchase CDs and actually increased my spending.
Not only do I buy more, I get fewer songs for what I do buy and I pay more for it. That's pretty unfair. Perhaps I should start a class action suit and sue the RIAA for raising pricing while reducing content.
Spinner: I downloaded your song for free!
That's like the police busting down every door in my neighboorhood, searching for narcotics, until they finally find someone who has some!
The RIAA has continued to bury their collective heads in the sand, instead of admitting the world and thus their consumers have changed. I don't like Apple products (Their boutique, cute, little products with those HIGH prices and no upgrade options.), but one thing they do well is reinvent themselves. Itunes is an attempt to address the current supply and demand for digital music. While imperfect and still too expensive IMHO, it's the best yet. Streaming music for a fee and high prices aren't going to cut it. What will save the music industry is a service with both reasonable subscription and per-song fees as well as a large selection. I would pay 20-40$ for such a service. I believe that could well exceed the current "legacy" revenue streams of CDs. Paying 18$ for a CD is literally highway robbery, especially when you consider the paltry percentage that goes to the artist. Essentially, the recording industries have "priced" themselves out of their own industry.
As for song swapping hurting artists, I'm sure it has. However, most of that "pain" has not been in the bands struggling to get noticed and signed, but in the well established singers and groups. The new artists seem to overwhelmingly like file swapping, because it gives them such a powerful advertisement to get their message out.
-Betamax
-VHS
-Audio cassettes
-Compact disc
-DVD-RAM
-DVD+R
-DVD-R
On the basis of possible intellectual infringement. Of course, the courts slapped their collective asses and sent them packing.
It's just one more step on a long staircase of failures.
Then the RIAA sued Napster and the witch hunt began. I refused to buy another CD out of protest until late last year when I purchased a few from artists whom I felt I truly owed money to.
Either the RIAA reforms, or it dies. If I could buy directly from the artists, I would do that in a heartbeat. Having 90% or more of my purchasing money go to RIAA overhead and a new Mercedes is unacceptable to me.
I guess the RIAA could jail half of the population of the USA (I guess it would help the unemployment problem by opening up jobs and imprisoning out of work people alike), block internet signals from leaving the country, and severely gimping the net. However, I have one question for little miss Rosen - how many days are left on your 21 day trial of winzip?
Does that mean the military supports the RIAA?
Also, according to this story:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30441.html
The RIAA is also helping to draft copyright laws for IRAQ. Penaly for one offense is 100 Dinars, and 300 for repeats.
And this:
Another to read story:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/28919.html
Down near the bottom:
Actually, if you think about it, that's not true. In fact for a lot of artists, especially the ones that haven't been around too long, they don't make hardly any profit, if any, from touring and gigs.
Artists make money from publishing agreements and rights, from song rights (i.e everytime your hear a song in a lift of whatever), the artist (in most circumstances) gets paid. Artists get a percentage of CD sales, they get money everytime a song it played on the radio, they could also get money when their video is played on MTV. They can get money from merchandising (e.g T-shirts and posters). It all depends on what kind of contract they have with their record companies and whether or not they authored the material or not. But still one of the most reliable and constant sources of income for them is through the afore mentioned record sales, when people by their music. Granted it's usually only about 13% or so (if I remember correctly), but CD sales is still one of the largest sources of income for muscians and performing artists.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/28588.html
Related Story:
http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html
The Industry lowered the number of released titles to 27,000 (from 38,900 in 1999) in 2000 and 2001, a reduction of 25% from 1999, but sales only went down 4.1%, now what do you think that says?
Oh, and another thing, from this story, the industry killed off the singles in 2001.
Personally, I don't believe that peer to peer networks and their users are actually responsible for diminished CD sales. I don't necessarily agree with people downloading music in massive amounts for free, when they should really be paying for that music, as it is wrong. But I think in most cases having the access to more music actually stimulates the desire for more music, and as a result actually helps maintain record sales. The RIAA are really just trying to enforce intellectual property protection, that's really why they are going after peer to peer network users and the record industry itself is only really seeking a scape goat to the current problems it's having. Which I myself put down to a drop in the quality of music and acts they are churning out.
That though still doesn't negate the fact that downloading a song without paying for it is wrong, even if it might make that person go out and buy the whole album as a result. It's swings and roundabouts, but the RIAA can't sit on its hands and playing guessing games with the industry, they can only act against the obvious. They see people breaching intellectual property laws, they bust them, simple as that. It's is essentially just a way for them to keep a leash on the peer to peer network users till the record companies and artists can figure out how to catch back up with the real world of digital music and its distribution, legal or illegal.
If the artists would stop selling their stuff to the RIAA, this whole thing wouldn't be a problem. Can any of you (on either side) honestly tell me that a website like what I'm about to propose is not possible?
<ul>My idea (it's similar to the Apple music store, but it's got some major differences):
<li>A website where all artists, from Sting, Daniel Beddingfield, Madonna, to the guy in the garage next door, can upload their songs
<li>people can download them for $0.50 each.
<li>The songs themselves are all available @ bitrates of at least 256k, preferably 384 and/or 512k/s.
<li>The site hosts the songs itself, and offers fast downloads (100k/s+)
<li>The site has an easily searchable database
<li>They have streaming, full-length previews (streaming so it's not D/Led to people's temp files, full length so you can decide if you like it or not)
<li>Membership to the site is free- it's paid for by downloading songs.
<li>Because the artists deal directly with the site, the RIAA can finally be told to go f**k itself.
<li>The artists would get paid something ~ $0.25/download/song, with the other $0.25/download going to pay for the servers, etc.
<li>No popups!
</ul>
When they've got that, I'll be happy. However, I don't need to be sued, so for right now, Kazaa is for other stuff only
It would be nice. An average CD can hold up to 21 tracks. ot $.50 each, it would be $10.50, and the artists getting 50%, that would be great for them, they would get $5.25, comparitively
Interesting idea & I like how it pays for itself, screws the RIAA, and pays the artists all at the same time
With everything getting digitized, intellectual property can be copied perfectly. Add the Internet and anyone can get anything if they want it badly enough. And Kazaa makes it very easy.
The only way to make people pay for it is to make it harder to get it for free (they're working on this; they only need to fine a bunch of people to scare the rest off, not jail half the population) and simultaneously make it very easy to get the same music in a similar way for a very low price. Actually, that sounds a lot like Geeky1's idea! The specifics of it were good too.
I'd rather leave it free but without some fundamental change it probably won't stay this way forever. The economy can't rely on the "good will" of music downloaders to buy the music they can get for free.
The above is an idea which is in somecases literally done, in the case of some older artists who have lost record deals, but the whole music making process isn't and never will be that simple. 99% of artists or bands, aren't solely responsible for every aspect of the creation of a music track, it isn't as clean cut as having half the profit going to the artist and the other half just paying for hosting. Think about how many names and companies that are listed in singles and albums, it isn't just a case of missing out the middle man.
In principal, the simple idea which you were suggesting is a good one, one which is already put to use by some people, but the industry just can't be adapted to work in that manner overnight. The only real cost which would be saved by selling tracks on the internet would be that of distribution. The record companies and all that baggage would still be doing the same job it is doing now, except instead of shipping CDs off to shops, they'll be uploading them to webservers. You can't just drop the RIAA and the people it represents, because it also represents the artists themselves as well.
I have taken the liberty to upload a small brief I wrote last year, on the music business, some sections are more relevant than others, but for any of you looking to try and understand a bit more about how the industry works, it would be worth a read. Here's the link:
www.spinnershomepage.co.uk/RAIDpics/music business ass1.doc
The problem though, like people has said, is not so much about what to do, it's about when it should have been done. However, the fact remains, whether or not every record company and artist has its music available for online purchase and download is slightly irrellavant now, as why would people pay to download a track, even if it is slightly cheaper than on the highstreet, when they can just load up Kazaa and get it that way. Either way, laws are still being broken, and people like the RIAA will always want to stop that. When things like Betamax and all that stuff were once frowned upon, those things were potential tools for breaking copyright and intellectual property laws, in this case, the RIAA is going after the users, not any particular tool.
So you say that the courts are going to slap them for chasing people about this, well they won't, because they can't, because essentially what these people are doing is quite obviously illegal. Yes the RIAA are seen as harsh, but that's only because people have lulled themselves into a false sense of security by thinking that downloading songs for free is perfectly fine. I don't mean to sound like I'm defending the RIAA, because I'm not, but it's not the RIAA which are in the wrong. They are just doing there job and enforcing the law. If anyone should be blamed for all this, it's the record companies for allowing this peer to peer free music for all era, to have taken off in the first place.
That's a hell of a lot less than the price of the songs splattered across nearly as many CDs (Can you say $240,000?).
...okay, that's fair enough, but let's just forget established artists for the time being, and say we are dealing with a new band lets say. Who pays for their rehearsal space? who pays for their rehearsal time? who pays for marketing their music? who pays for tours? which is an essential part of any musical act, to get them established and liked, and basically started, for example. The list goes on... record companies are there for a reason, to organise and fund stuff like that. Music just can't be made from nothing, yes successfull artists can afford to fund their own production costs, but 80% of everyone else, can't. Like I said in my last post, you can't just chop out the middle man, sure, you can sell downloadable MP3's on the web, but if what you're suggesting is making record companies moot, then that is just impossible, for the industry and for western economy.
The problem is, the industry has essentially missed the boat on the digital revolution, at least where music is concerned and to fix that, it means drastic action, at least untill the industry can create something more attractive to the consumer than essentially free stuff.