Mass Hysteria at RIAA

[Ioman]

Grabbed from Stereophile magazine:

" Last October, US Senate Commerce Committee chairman and former presidential hopeful John McCain hosted NBC's long-running comedy show Saturday Night Live. In a spoof of the political talk show Hardball, McCain did a devastating impression of US Attorney General John Ashcroft, a fellow Republican. Speaking of homeland security, the faux Ashcroft intoned, "This country won't be safe until every American is in jail."
That sort of irony is apparently over the heads of lawyers and executives at the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). On Wednesday, June 25, the music industry trade group announced that it would escalate its legal war against music fans who continue to offer or download collections of MP3 music files. Hundreds of lawsuits will be launched against alleged copyright violators over the summer, in the wake of a recent US appeals court ruling that Internet providers must reveal the identities of subscribers suspected of sharing unauthorized copies of music or movies. The ruling exposes millions of Internet users to the threat of litigation, according to RIAA president Carey Sherman. "We're going to begin taking names," Sherman told reporters. File sharers must relent or "face the music," he added.

Despair has given way to desperation. Now entering its fourth year of declining sales, the music industry has decided that threatening its customers with massive fines—from $750 to $150,000 per song—is a good public relations move, despite strong evidence that the most enthusiastic file-sharers are also the most voracious buyers of recorded music at full retail. "This latest effort really indicates the recording industry has lost touch with reality completely," said Fred von Lohmann, attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "Does anyone think more lawsuits are going to be the answer? Today they have declared war on the American consumer."

They have also declared war on themselves. If the industry's failure in the mid-1990s to recognize the inevitability of the Internet and to embrace its commercial potential was a bit like punching a hole in the bottom of its boat, mass lawsuits are like spraying it with an automatic weapon. How long will it be until the RIAA sinks completely? "The recording industry is not going to win if all they do is sue people," said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a Washington-based advocacy group for technology and copyright issues. "They can sue all they want, but that's not going to make CD sales go up."

Announcements of the threat caused a brief dip in the amount of file sharing, which quickly rebounded, according to a June 28 report from the Associated Press. "The threat appeared to have little effect on the pace of downloading over the most popular file-sharing services," read the report. KaZaa, one of the most popular file-sharing services, saw a drop in traffic during the first 10 hours after the announcement, but it surged back within 24 hours, with between 3.4 million and 4.4 million users. Richard Chernela, spokesman for KaZaa's corporate parent Sharman Networks, described the drop as a "consistent-to-normal fluctuation." On Thursday, June 26, file-sharing service Grokster reported an increase in traffic between 5% and 10%.

The legal threat certainly will raise the level of technological warfare between the entertainment industry and computer users. File-sharing software that hides the identities of providers and recipients, such as Filetopia, is already available, with new, more effective versions to come. Mass litigation will also put a dent in the music industry's already ailing bottom line. Lawsuits aren't cheap to produce, especially in large quantities, and the industry stands little chance of collecting damages from the few violators who get caught in the net. Big fish ("substantial collections of MP3 files," in RIAA parlance) will be targeted first, with smaller fry to follow, according to industry officials, who wouldn't specify exactly how big a library of songs had to be for its owner to receive one of the first subpoenas. At present, those who engage in small-scale file-sharing appear to have little to fear.

Some music fans characterized the RIAA's latest move as a "witch hunt," an appropriate description of a hysterical reaction against an imaginary or unidentifiable threat. The RIAA's efforts against its own customers are at best misguided and at worst suicidal, given that the real damage to the music industry's profits are due to increased competition from other forms of entertainment, and from rampant foreign commercial piracy, against which litigation is futile.

A witch hunt like the one the RIAA is about to launch will only hurt innocent people and further damage the industry's already tarnished image. "It's time to get artists paid and make file-sharing legal," said the EFF's von Lohmann. His organization encouraged Congress "to hold hearings immediately on alternatives to the RIAA's litigation campaign against the American public.""

[neuroking]

Amen to the author.

I love how everyone one of these articles has some mention, by name, of an anonymity program. I think the bigger problem is that now millions of people see a value in understanding computers, and they are being told they are criminals. I would not be surprised is this launches hacktivism, and just plain general cracking into popular culture.

Say you're 16. You have discovered that you can get many many things on the net for free. Suddenly, you are a criminal, being told you might get sued. Adrenaline rush. Whether you get caught or not, you first thought will be, "how can I do this and not get caught?" (I seriously doubt that a big downloader will just shrug and say it was good while it lasted and return to buying music) Now you have 16 year olds trying to figure out new ways of IP masquerading, remotely accessing other computers, etc. Thousands of suits will generate tens of thousands of h@X0rz, most of which will be out for blood from the RIAA.

I think we're in for a very interesting next 5 years.....

Brandon

[Gatesov]

I agree, they are only going to make it harder for themselves. If they wanted to fix the problem they should spend the money they would be wasitng on lawyers and court costs to develop a good compromise. Apples music service is a good step but you are still limiting the peoples ability to use the the files in a way they seem fit. If I buy a song I don't want to have to worry about what mp3 device I transfer it to whether that be my portable mp3 player, my car mp3 hardrive or if I rip it to a plain cd. If you buy a cd now you have all that freedom why limit them just because they are downloading a song in mp3 format straight up? Seems ridiculas to me. They just need to bite the bullet and make a site where you can download songs for a reasonable price (ie less than 99 cents a song, thats more than a cd in most cases anyways) and model it like a napster or kazaa. Apple has already shown people will pay for mp3's but to get the rest of the majority, get rid of the restrictions, lower the cost per song or offer a monthly charge and embrace the technology instead of trying to steam roll it into the ground. If the RIAA wasn't so blind at the beginning they could have already had a great market instead of trying to stop the evolution which they won't be able to stop anways. Time for them to cut thier loses and get into the game the right way.

[neuroking]

I got a good compromise. Immediately drop the price of every CD to $5.00, or $7.00 for new releases. Make every CD a hybrid, with MP3s included on the CD, encoded at 128 or less. At the same time, begin releasing every new album and remastered older albums in SACD and DVD-A formats, charge current CD prices. Also begin a media blitz on music quality and different formats. I gaurentee you sales would blow through the roof, and the leal ees would be nil, AND, most importantly, the fans will actually feel that the RIAA has taken big steps toward the future of music. I don't know about anyone else, but right now I feel absolutely no oblgation at all whatsoever to pay for anything that has anything to do with the RIAA. In fact, I feel the opposite.

another $.02
Brandon

[Unregistered]

Tungsten, a thunderous metal trio, has bucked the system by letting fans download 49 songs from www.tungstenmusic.com for free. "The RIAA and congress is trying to take this right away from music fans all over the world and we are here to say that they can't and will not stop us!" comments vocalist/guitarist Al Hodge. Tungsten is based out of Chalmette, Louisiana 7 miles outside of New Orleans. So come in and burn before your right is taken away!

[Archon]

Originally posted by neuroking
I got a good compromise. Immediately drop the price of every CD to $5.00, or $7.00 for new releases. Make every CD a hybrid, with MP3s included on the CD, encoded at 128 or less.

128kbps? thats mighty weak, and it wont work. My CD players do not even play MP3, so I would be stuck with this CD that only works on my PC? -- No thanks.

[techfreak]

Originally posted by Archon
128kbps? thats mighty weak, and it wont work. My CD players do not even play MP3, so I would be stuck with this CD that only works on my PC? -- No thanks.

Thats the point. You can play the CD tracks in a CD player and copy the MP3's over to your PC and transfer to your devices from there.

BTW, I like my MP3's at 192kbps personally.

[techfreak]

Originally posted by neuroking
I got a good compromise. Immediately drop the price of every CD to $5.00, or $7.00 for new releases. Make every CD a hybrid, with MP3s included on the CD, encoded at 128 or less. At the same time, begin releasing every new album and remastered older albums in SACD and DVD-A formats, charge current CD prices. Also begin a media blitz on music quality and different formats. I gaurentee you sales would blow through the roof, and the leal ees would be nil, AND, most importantly, the fans will actually feel that the RIAA has taken big steps toward the future of music. I don't know about anyone else, but right now I feel absolutely no oblgation at all whatsoever to pay for anything that has anything to do with the RIAA. In fact, I feel the opposite.

another $.02
Brandon

I think your idea is a start to something good. I would love to get into SACD or DVD-A but the prices are high and there is not a large distribution yet. I also worry than one format will be outdated before the other and most DVD players are not cross compatible with both formats.

[sonyman]

I hate to play Devil's Advocate here but......

What would you do if you put your life, blood, sweat, tears, body, and soul into making a CD and millions of individuals just stole your music instead of paying for it? Come on, if you are gonna play, then you should pay. Plain and simple.

Look at it this way...
Let's say you shop and buy the perfect components/combinations to build your own computer system. You make this computer a marvel to the true computer aficionado. You take the time and do it right. You can play any game, watch any movie, etc., etc., etc.
While you are sleeping one night someone decides to take your computer without paying for it. What would you do? After all, you paid to make this your very own system and now someone has taken it from you without paying. Is this right? Is it ethical? Why or why not?

[Archon]

if they started releasing music on MD, I would buy it ;)

yay, post 1000.

Maybe I can pull off another 1000 before they ban me

[neuroking]

Originally posted by Archon
128kbps? thats mighty weak, and it wont work. My CD players do not even play MP3, so I would be stuck with this CD that only works on my PC? -- No thanks.

I was talkigna bout hybrid CD-Audio/PC Data. They're already mass produced for alot of albums. The point of the low encoding for the mp3s is to create tiers of music quality. This would help with the ad campaign for the movement to hi-fi audio, and more importantly, the PR war would be over. Sure you could rip the CD to MP3s at 192+++++ but if you already have the files there, most ppl won't.

I usually use VBR 160 or 192 - 260 to 320. Depends.

Brandon

[neuroking]

Originally posted by sonyman
I hate to play Devil's Advocate here but......

What would you do if you put your life, blood, sweat, tears, body, and soul into making a CD and millions of individuals just stole your music instead of paying for it? Come on, if you are gonna play, then you should pay. Plain and simple.


Isn't that what the RIAA does for artists anyway? Look at the **** for music out there. Suer there's some good stuff, but the majority of the money that ppl would pay for YOUR wonderful album would end up going to the PR blitz around the next NKOTB/NSync/Backstreet Boys. You put your heart and soul into an album and then sign away $.95 of every dollar?

Look at it this way...
Let's say you shop and buy the perfect components/combinations to build your own computer system. You make this computer a marvel to the true computer aficionado. You take the time and do it right. You can play any game, watch any movie, etc., etc., etc.
While you are sleeping one night someone decides to take your computer without paying for it. What would you do? After all, you paid to make this your very own system and now someone has taken it from you without paying. Is this right? Is it ethical? Why or why not?

First of all, bad analogy. You're comparing an art form to a mechanical item. Most ppl that go into music hope to make it big, but realize they probably won't. The ppl in bands I know do it for the expression and the enjoyment. Most don't expect to get rich.

Okay, here's a better situation. Let's apply it to a different form of art:
Let's say you spend your whole life taking pictures as a serious hobby. Then one day you happen to find this one great spot. You snap away, and compile a whole book, jsut on this one spot. You one day see that the pictures are on a web site, and tons of ppl are downloading them. Sales of your book drop. But, you go on a book signing tour, and 10 times the number of ppl that bought the book show up to have you sign copies of pictures. Copies that they downloaded. You get fan mail, a bulletin board set up for "finding the right spots" where ppl ask you for your opinions.
The Question: Do you care that ppl downloaded your pictures?

If you're creating art for the expression, and to get a message out, you should not care about the money, as long as you can sustain yourself and your hobby. You don't have to be pauper poor, but look at the most downloaded songs. All top 40 crap. Now I don't know about you, but I sure don't remember the last time I heard about Britney Spears when she was underground, playing small clubs. Also, remember that DOS was so popular because it was pirated so much. Legal pirating is called 'marketing'. You give away some portion of what you have to get the word out.

Brandon

[sonyman]

Did you even get the point neuroking? It doesn't matter what the circumstances are...it's stealing. plain and simple. It doesn't matter how you try to rationalize it. You can't make stealing an ethical right, no matter how hard you try. So to you I also say bad analogy. If it's my work of art or CD or whatever I do and I sell it in a store and some two bit wanna be hack pirates my work it is STEALING. If they want to enjoy my art or CD, then let them pay for it. If not, tell them to keep hacking DOS. Nuf said.

[neuroking]

Originally posted by sonyman
Did you even get the point neuroking? It doesn't matter what the circumstances are...it's stealing. plain and simple. It doesn't matter how you try to rationalize it. You can't make stealing an ethical right, no matter how hard you try. So to you I also say bad analogy. If it's my work of art or CD or whatever I do and I sell it in a store and some two bit wanna be hack pirates my work it is STEALING. If they want to enjoy my art or CD, then let them pay for it. If not, tell them to keep hacking DOS. Nuf said.

Actually, it is a nearly PERFECT analogy. And notice that the ppl being tagetted are NOT the ones downloading. Those evil stealing theivish horrible ppl are being left alone. It's the people that are making the music available. If we were to put this in physical term, it is the person that leaves the CDs on their porch unattended that are getting sued, not the people that run up and grab them. So someone should get sued if they forget to lock their doors at night, and someone else walks into their house and steals? There's your physical item analogy. See how it doesn't work?

Another thing. You 're thinking in terms of large items existing as a single entity. This is media. This is stuff made to be replicated, duplicated and distributed. Now there is a more efficient way to do it, and because no one at the RIAA can think of a decent way to harness it, they instead figure they will essentially sue their distribution competition. iTunes and the others have the right idea. There was just a story on /. citing that 13-24 year olds are on the internet more than they watch TV. Now tell me what the RIAA has done to promote what is now the most popular media for their targetted demographic.

Personally, I only intend to buy DVD-A and SACDs, but I guess the money to promote them is being used somewhere else. Why would I buy CDs when I fully intend to buy the same exact albums later? Notice that I simply will not buy a CD. Right now, that artist makes $0 ($.07 less than if I did buy it). If I have no MP3s by the artist, then I forget about them. I don't go to concerts, I don't tell friends, don't request songs from DJs. Since I never hear them, someone else takes their place. The opposite happens when Ihave an MP3. This is what I mean by marketing. If you were an artist, which woudl you have me do?

And by your last response, if you actually had that attitude, I would say you don't belong in music. I'm not stealing 99.9% of what you are paying $.93 out of every dollar for. You're simply thinking business, and might as well be another mass produced band.

Brandon

[sonyman]

If you put a CD on the internet for millions of individuals to download you are just as guilty as the 13-24 yr. old downloading the pirated music. RIAA is not stupid. The artists with copyrights are not stupid. They know what is going on when someone puts their music on the internet for everyone to download for free. It is called COPYRIGHT infringement. The music is COPYRIGHTED. Get it? It's been registered with the Library of Congress. A COPYRIGHTED work and its owner deserves the respect of their work. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BUY THE MUSIC, THEN DON'T LISTEN TO IT. It's that simple.

[Ioman]

Stop the name calling please Sonyman. We will not tolerate that in this forum.

Thanks

[sonyman]

So tell the world Ioman. Are you for or against illegal copyright infringement and illegal pirating. Tell the world so we know where you stand.

[neuroking]

Originally posted by sonyman
If you put a CD on the internet for millions of individuals to download you are just as guilty as the 13-24 yr. old downloading the pirated music. RIAA is not stupid. The artists with copyrights are not stupid. They know what is going on when someone puts their music on the internet for everyone to download for free. It is called COPYRIGHT infringement. The music is COPYRIGHTED. Get it? It's been registered with the Library of Congress. A COPYRIGHTED work and its owner deserves the respect of their work. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BUY THE MUSIC, THEN DON'T LISTEN TO IT. It's that simple.

Hehe, you're annoying. You haven't actually argued any points, you haven't answered any questions, and you can't even keep this debate in the realm ofr civil discourse. I don't buy the music on the radio... should I stop listening? Are ppl being forced to download every piece of music they see? Maybe we should sue anyone that hears the music coming from my car... And if you had been paying attention, I do want to buy it.

Well, I'm done with this thread. Not even an interesting discussion. At least the Minidisc debate had a little meat to it.

B

[neuroking]

Originally posted by Ioman
Stop the name calling please Sonyman. We will not tolerate that in this forum.

Thanks

Permission to start messin with him, sir!?!? I promise to keep it fun!

B

[Archon]

Originally posted by neuroking
Permission to start messin with him, sir!?!? I promise to keep it fun!

B

me too! (but I promise nothing!)

[neuroking]

:)

[Archon]

ehehehe