RIAA impending lawsuits (1 Viewer)

[BrianB]

Every bit of it is in the public domain - it's stuff from Bach, Beethoven, Pacabel, etc - so don't tell me I'm an Evil Pirate(TM).

Well, the /music/ may be public domain because of the writer being long dead, but that doesn't make every recording of it public domain.

 

[Mark Schermerhorn]

I have several disjointed thoughts here.

1) The market that exists for music is NOT A FREE MARKET, in a theoretical sense or even relative to other industries. The music industry has matured to the logical conclusion of any industry: consolidation into an oligopoly controlling almost all levels and channels of distribution as well as promotion. Thus the reason that CDs are almost universally 16 or so dollars. Until MP3s came along, other options were extremely limited. I may dig up some articles on this if I have time.

2) The costs of accepting campaign donations from the recording industry will soon be too high for politicians to bear. If the RIAA goes forward and prosecutes a large number of people, especially teenagers, the public backlash will reach a frenzy, even with our generally apathetic citizenry. The politicians will have no choice but to support the public if they want to remain in office. It will only get worse as inevitably a politician's child will end up being prosecuted.

3) Business models obsoleted by technology need to die for technology and capitalism to move forward. Legislation designed to keep obsolete models alive do severe harm to capitalist economies. Instead of new gains in efficiencies, consumers instead get taxed for the privilege of buying an obsolete product. Everyone should think about this, because you don't need to be anti-corporate to support the unraveling of the RIAA.

Hmm, I had a few more, but they're probably too political for this forum. I'll leave it at this.

 

[Ryan Wright]

Well, the /music/ may be public domain because of the writer being long dead, but that doesn't make every recording of it public domain.

Well, these performances aren't modern in any sense of the word. I don't think any are recent within the past 30 years.

 

[Malcolm R]

Exactly, because in most cases the only format available by which to purchase that song is an $18 CD album.

I would buy a $3 single, or a similarly priced download, but will no longer buy an entire album for a single song. I used to buy 3-4 CD's per week. But due to increasing prices and decreasing quality, as well as better value DVD's, I now buy about 2 a month.

Give the people what they want and they'll pay for it. But make them feel like they're the victims of highway robbery and they'll resent it. And why singles remain available in the rest of the world, but not in the US, is just bizarre.

 

[David-S]

I forget which band it was, but there are several that have pulled out of the I-tunes program, because they are afraid of declining album sales if singles are available...

 

[Malcolm R]

Sort of makes you wonder how the music industry ever survived in the era of singles then, doesn't it? Perhaps because they had multiple revenue streams coming in from singles as well as album sales? Not to mention 12" singles/maxi-CD singles which were yet another product offered, and another source of revenue.

I'd always buy a couple singles from an artist if I liked the songs, and if I decided after a while I liked the artist I'd then buy the album. Then afterward I'd still usually buy any singles released because of the b-sides which were usually non-album tracks. Plus, I was into club music so I'd often buy the 12" singles with remixes as well, usually $5 each.

So, say the labels were getting $3 per single as well as $12 for an album. Get 4-5 singles deep at $3 each, plus two of them remixed on 12" singles for about $5 each, plus the album for $12 and that's a total of about $37 out of my pocket and into the label's for this one album release.

Now all they want is the $12 for the album? Seems like they're giving up over half their potential revenue while consumers resist spending that much on a product they may not even like.

Limited product + declining sales = big trouble

 

[Carl Miller]

Where is this any different from thousands of other industries?

It's no different Jeff. However this is an entertainment product, and I prioritize my spending. I wish I didn't, but I have to.

If I see a hammer at Home Depot for $15, it'll be $17 at my local hardware store, and maybe $14 or $16 at Loews.

Why such a big difference with CD's? Amazon and Tower have huge buying power. Amazon doesn't have the same overhead as Tower does, but then again they're not sitting in the busiest shopping district in all of downstate NY as our local Tower does.

The bottom line is that I strongly doubt Amazon is paying much less than Tower for Pink Floyd's Meddle, if at all. And therein lies the problem. Just exactly what is the profit margin to the retailer? We're talking an item that is 33% less at one place, than another. That's a huge difference, and you're not going to find that large of a percentage difference on most retail items between two stores on non-sale items.

Jeff, it's the perception that is the problem. The perception is that CD's are overpriced. And seeing one store charge $18 and another $12 for the same product, and knowing both are profiting from the sale only serves to solidify that perception.

I don't want a fixed price, I want a fair price. If I don't get it, I don't buy it. Many music fans perceive this situation the exact same way...And I'm quite sure this only adds to the rationalization that file sharing is ok. I'm not saying it justifies it, just rationalizes it in some peoples minds.

The music industry suffers in the PR department, and as I said earlier, it really needs to change the way it does business.

 

[Thomas Newton]

There is nothing forcing you to buy something you don't feel is worth the money. That doesn't justify stealing it though.

That statement is irrelevant to this conversation, since the RIAA is going to be suing file traders (not shoplifters).

Copyright is about social utility. If the public decides that it wants to eliminate restrictions on non-commercial music sharing, or to move copyright more towards a compulsory licensing model, it can.

That said, it would be interesting to see record companies go after actual infringers for a change. For the last few years, they have been attacking technology, companies that make technology, and the interests of law-abiding citizens.

Too bad this sudden interest in prosecuting infringers was not matched by a sudden interest in dropping "protection" on DVD-Audio discs, Super Audio CDs, and those round discs that resemble audio CDs but aren't.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

They already do, but that shouldn't stop them from earning money from record sales as well. Your suggestion is the same as me saying that although you work 40 hours a week at your day job, if you want to be paid you need to work weekends too. This also eliminates all the talent that is behind many of the best songs out there, which aren't written by the performers, but by songwriters.

(bold emphasis is mine)

But that's the thing though. What I'm suggesting is not the same thing as what you're saying. What you're saying (and do correct me if you feel so otherwise) is more akin to a temporary, but rather unfulfilling solution (pretty much the same thing as what the RIAA is doing right now).

What I'm suggesting is a shift in a paradigm of thought of how to go about making money in the music industry. It's pretty evident that record sales are going down. So why rely on a sinking ship?

But I will concede the point though that my business model would leave a lot of songwriters out of a bigger piece of the pie.

If there ever is an analogy to what I'm saying, is that you've driven the same model car for the past so and so years, and it's not cutting the job anymore because of the roads. You don't blame the roads or try to change the roads. You shouldn't drive the same model car either. You just buy a new type of model of car that accomodates those new roads.

Or if you want a to stick to the job analogy, suppose you want to make more money, and your job sucks. Working weekends might get you more money in the short run, but it's a not a good idea and not exactly pleasing either. The better idea would be to quit and get a new job altogether. Sure it's difficult for a while, but things in the long run will be better.

 

[Karl_Luph]

So when can we expect to be issued a lawsuit summons? Does it matter if the downloads are of music from radio shows of the 40's?

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

What I'm suggesting is a shift in a paradigm of thought of how to go about making money in the music industry.

So how is the public supposed to know that they should be spending $100 to go see a band in concert if they've never made a record? That is what you are suggesting isn't it, stop making records? If not, then why should the artists simply give away their recorded product (after paying to make it), then have to do all the additional work of performing live in order to make a living? People (generally) only get to know bands through their recorded work, and only then are they willing to pay to see them live, that is unless you include playing covers on the B circuit the way the industry should be headed.

Instead, I think people should try supporting the new pay download services if that is what you want, and encourage the industry to deliver the product in a way that is both profitable for them, and valuable to you.

 

[Stacie]

This will be long and boring, but some of you might like to know.

Rob Gardiner wrote:

On the issue of legality of downloading MP3s, I don't think it's any different than taping off the radio or buying a used CD, for that matter. In all three cases, you are obtaining a copy of the work that has not been authorized by the studio, nor do they collect any $$ from the transaction. And the used CD transaction is most certainly a commercial one. Yet no one would suggest that taping off the radio or buying a used CD is illegal (even though the labels have tried to stop that in the past).

Well, I'm not sure which part of the law deals with taping off the radio, but the resale of used CDs (LPs, DVDs, books -- whatever) is explicitly allowed by Section 109 of the Copyright Act (USC Title 17). This is where the "first sale doctrine" is codified. It states that the right of distribution (one of the rights exclusively reserved for copyright owners in Section 106) ends with the first sale of a copy of a copyrighted work. In other words, once you have lawfully purchased a copy of a work, you are free to resell it -- the copyright owner can't stop you, demand a share of what you make on the sale, or require you to sell your copy at a certain price. The first sale doctrine has been a part of US copyright law for a long time -- it goes back to property law in English common law.

But Section 109 does NOT apply to works in digital format. When Congress passed the DMCA, it asked the US Copyright Office to report on the effects of digital commerce and new technology on the operation of the first sale doctrine. The Copyright Office did so in 2001. In their report, they completely bought in to the interests of the RIAA, the MPAA, and big media, and argued strongly that first sale applies only to copies of works in tangible form, since the resale of a purely digital work implicates the reproduction right (also exclusively reserved for the copyright owner) as well as the distribution right. So as long as what you're reselling is a shiny little disc that you legally purchased, you're good to go. But an MP3, even one you paid for and legally acquired, cannot be resold or redistributed in any way.

IANAL, but I wrote a big paper on this issue recently.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

My understanding is that this round of lawsuits is going to target people distributing music, not those downloading it. I don't think the idea is to make money off the suits, but to intimidate others into not sharing files.

I think the strategy is likely to backfire by causing bad publicity. Suing your customers isn't a great PR strategy. It will just reinforce the stereotype of the big, greedy company going after the poor, defenseless person. (Note that many of those being sued are college students who probably don't have much money, and aren't trying to make money off their actions.) I think it will also piss some people off to the point where they'll start distributing files to make up for the people getting sued.

 

[Carl Miller]

Well, I am currently looking at refrigerators. I can buy a Maytag MBB1954 at Future Shop for $1299, while the exact same model is sold at Sears for $1799. Should I be concerned over a $6 difference on a CD or a $500 difference on an appliance? There are pricing discrepancies everywhere in retail, and it pays to keep an eye on average pricing at different stores. That doesn't mean the whole industry should be killed.

I never said the industry should be killed. I simply said it needs to change it's business practices and that it is perceived badly by people for reasons that are the industries own doing.

The posts here on this thread should be enough to show this. Even those like myself who support the industries right to protect its product have a negative perception of the industry itself.

Far as the differnce in prices between the two stores you sited. Huge difference, but still not the 33% difference of the CD's. Probably one on sale as well, where the CD prices are regular prices. A disparity of that size on a major appliance isn't all that common. The disparity on CD pricing is.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Suing your customers isn't a great PR strategy.

If they are stealing the files, they aren't customers.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Downloading an MP3 is not stealing.

From Webster's:

Theft, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief.

EDIT: Found this wonderful link: RIAA: Redefining the English Language

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> If they are stealing the files, they aren't customers.

Fine, if you want to assume that people who download music never legitimately buy any music.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Oh no, I'm sure they always shoplift the CDs that they rip and share.

 

[Dave Poehlman]

reinforce the stereotype of the big, greedy company going after the poor, defenseless person.

I'm sorry, as big and greedy as they may be, I have to side with the RIAA a little bit on this.

You can argue and say CD's cost too much and that's why people download, but, you can't tell me if CD prices were cut in half, or even less, people would stop downloading free music.

People are trying to justify their file sharing by calling the RIAA a bunch of greedy fat cats who are sticking it to the artists and consumers. And that may be true, but downloading music does the same thing by lowering sales (sticking it to the artists) which will also drive up CD costs (sticking it to consumers).

Now, do I download music? Yes... but not because I think it's right... I do it because I have no scruples.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

I can't see your logic at all, Dave. If the price of CD's went down to $9.95, you can't tell me that people wouldn't buy more of them?

And I guess you're not one of those people that download music to try it out, and if you like it ypu would buy it (as soon as you can afford it).

And then you support the RIAA but rip your own? There is logic in there somewhere, but I cannot see it.

Back to square one - What radio stations do is promote music. If there weren't any radio stations then no one would ever buy anything - excepting the concerts that we have now.

But the current prices don't reflect anything but greedyness. If the artists get $1 per CD and we have to pay $17, does that sound anywhere near 'right' to you? I could see them getting 10% (and setting CD prices down to $10), but they are getting nowhere near that, and have to run the concert circuit in order to make money, and there are way too many concerts out there that are just shows now. The music is crap but our eyes are having a grat time. This makes sense to you? I don't even want to get into the price of concerts, either, but the artists are not getting their fair share, and CD prices are way too high.

The studios are just being stubborn here. Supply and demand dictates that the price should go down if the sales are down, and this follows in the wake of that huge lawsuit. I just don't think that they get it. We know that they are gouging us so we are not buying, and now they are mad so they are going the legal route. Dumb.

Glenn