Beware..the RIAA is getting into the hacking business... (1 Viewer)

[Damin J Toell]

Your average jazz, blues or indie-rock artist doesn't get an "astronomical" advance and has to live primarily on performing income.

Well, if they're indie, they're not signing any major label contracts, right?

DJ

 

[Paul McElligott]

Nope, I'm talking about most artists on a major label.

If that is really the case, then my reaction is similar to the baseball situation. You can't spend money like a drunken sailor on talent and then expect any sympathy when you later claim poverty.

 

[Bill Hunt]

There are some interesting points here that get lost in all these arguments. File-sharing is not the enemy of either the recording industry or artists. It's merely a tool for distributing digital music.

Let me put it another way. Prior to file-sharing, the record industry suffered from years of declining sales. Then, the year that Napster was running in its prime, record sales skyrocketed. Post-Napster, we see another decline in CD sales.

Now consider the way I use file-sharing. I'm a registered copyright holder, and I'm also a file-sharer. I make no bones about it. But I'm sick of paying $17.99 for a CD sight-unseen. So often, what I do, is download a few songs from an album I might be interested in and kick them around for a few days. If I don't care for them, I usually delete them or simply never give them a second listen. But if I do like them, I'll go out an buy the artist's CD (either on sale or via Amazon, at a reasonable price). The year Napster was going gang-busters, I probably purchased 30 CDs in this way, and I discovered a lot of great artists I'd never heard before.

Since Napster, although I still occasionally download a song or two, I've purchased maybe a handful of titles a year on CD, and then only from artists I know I'm going to like. And judging by many of my friends, their music buying habits mirror mine pretty closely.

Another case in point is the Dave Matthews Band's recent CD, Busted Stuff. The entire album was leaked (as the Lilywhite Sessions) to the Internet more than a year ago. Just about every DMB fan online downloaded and burned a copy of this CD. But when the actual studio CD came out a few weeks ago, it debuted at Number One on the sales charts. These same fans went out and purchased it legally, as soon as they had the option to do so.

Look at what's happened since file-sharing began! The record companies have dropped CD prices, at least slightly. And more and more often, they're creating added-value reasons to purchase the CDs, by including bonus DVD discs and material available via weblinks, etc. They're actually having to work a little bit to meet the demands of the consumer! Imagine that.

But there's another reason I download music as well. The bottom line is that the record companies have a VAST library of material that is out of print - stuff that's been on CD maybe once, or never made the transition from vinyl to digital at all. There is a TON of stuff that I and others would pay good hard cash for RIGHT NOW if was made available. I could make you a list of material I’m dying to buy that would make your head spin. But the way the recording business works today, there's just no incentive for the record companies to re-release this material on CD. It just isn't cost effective to release and promote material with only a small audience.

So what if the record companies were to convert all this languishing back catalog material to MP3 files, and the make it available in a joint online library? Charge $9.99 a month for all you can download. Even $19.99 a month! Boy, I'll tell you... I'd pay that in a heartbeat. So would millions of others. As long as they don't try crap like the file only works for a set period of time and then self-destructs, or you can only play it in a certain way, with a certain player, I’m right there. Sure, they'd lose a little money to piracy when these files spread around the net. But they'd be making VASTLY more money than they are now. And they’d be making this money on material that isn’t earning them a single dime now. MP3 could actually be the best thing that ever happened to the industry.

The problem is that the industry doesn't see MP3 as a potential goldmine or asset. They see it as the end of the world. It reminds me an awful lot of the way Jack Valenti and the MPAA rallied against the VCR in the 1970s and 1980s, claming that it would mean the end of the movie industry. And now look at the industry... most of these studios wouldn't even be financially solvent if not for home video (first through the VCR and now with DVD). Is copying a program with your VCR technically illegal? Yes. Is it technically piracy? Yes. But we don’t live in a black and white world. The VCR saved the industry. Period.

File-sharing can do the same thing for the recording industry. And it probably will. The record companies will just have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it. Ultimately, they’ll be laughing all the way to the bank, either way. They will still find plenty of ways to screw artists out of their fair share of the profits (by the way, for every recording artist you can name who is against file-sharing, I’ll name you ten who think it’s the best thing since sliced bread). And there will always be some hard-line, old-school reactionary like Jack Valenti to shout that the sky is falling to anyone who will listen.

We just have to hope that common sense prevails, before these idiots manage to do real damage to the Bill of Rights. Has anyone actually been watching all of these corporate scandals lately? Let Enron be a lesson. There’s this noble idea in America that big corporations in the global economy always operate in the public good. I think we’ve seen that that idea is a load of crap. The bottom line is all that matters and if you think otherwise, you’re kidding yourself. If “copyright holders” get the right to hack into people’s computers anytime they “reasonably” suspect an act of piracy is going on, does anyone REALLY think that’s in the public good? Does anyone really think these big studios and record companies (notice I don’t say “copyright holders” – the actual writers and filmmakers and artists who created these works) wouldn’t abuse this power? Does this mean that I, as a published writer, could hack into anyone’s computer if I think someone is stealing my work? There’s just WAY too much dangerous ground here.

Anyway, that’s just my soapbox two cents. ;-)

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

Well put, Bill. That's pretty much my take on file-sharing as well. I have a ton of mp3s, but they're almost all rare tracks or b-sides or one-off songs that are impossible to find. I also own over 1500 CDs and about 300 LPs, many of which I got after hearing music I first downloaded.

The arguments here range from the level-headed to the "screw the labels, I'm free to do what I want!" knee-jerk reactions of the mass downloaders to the frightening, almost draconian rhetoric of those who are too wrapped up in their own personal situation to see the bigger picture.

The major labels have courted this nightmare and need to figure out how to adapt to the situation by courting consumers and not alienating them. I'm glad to support indie labels with my purchases, but when it comes to the majors, I feel little but contempt.

If the RIAA is allowed to snoop into our systems for music, it seems like a first step toward losing many of the protective rights of privacy that we take for granted. Why, particularly during an administration which stated that they wanted less government in people's lives, do I feel like I live in Stalinist Russia these days?

 

[Andy Olivera]

Game manufactuers NEED to create a region 0, because there are tons of games that will never be licensed outside of their home country that some people might like to play.

You said yourself, the PS2 can be chipped to play bootleg discs. I'm sure you can find those games that aren't released in the US available in ROM format(or whatever format PS2 games are extracted as). If the game companies don't want to release a game, then they obviously don't care about the money you would pay for that game. Their loss.
Same thing goes for OOP albums and music in general. If they don't make it available for sale, but it's available anyway, why would anyone have a problem getting it from somewhere else?
Also, I wouldn't worry about the bill passing, but if it does think of this: there are more people willing to hack the RIAA to make a point(or just for the hell of it) than there are to hack the average file traders PC for a profit. The people they're up against obviously don't worry about laws as much as they do, so they're outnumbered and outgunned.
PS. Good article, Bill...

 

[Bill Hunt]

Indeed. Too many people are being “fundamentalists”. It's all fine and good to argue that, regardless of any other consideration, file-sharing is stealing and is therefore wrong. But that's an absolutist argument. And we don't live in an absolutist society (at least most of us don’t, anyway).

Yes, file-sharing is technically stealing. But so too is using your VCR. Anyone who records a program to time-shift is technically stealing as well. When you watch a recorded program, few people watch the commercials - you skip past them. But advertisers have spent good money so that you'll see their commercials, and that money in turn gets used by the network or station to pay writers and actors and directors - the people who create the programming in the first place. When you skip past the programming, you're stealing in a way. And what about when you lend that tape to a friend who might have missed the program? You're not paying anyone, and he's not paying anyone. And odds are he'll skip past the commercials as well. Technically, it's wrong. But in the grand scheme of things, it's no big deal.

The bottom line is that if I download a piece of music and really like it, I’m likely to go out and buy it. I become a legitimate consumer of that product. And file sharing gives me more opportunities to find music I like, ergo, I’m likely to spend more on CDs in the end. But if I don’t care for that downloaded music, it gets deleted eventually. And if I don’t care for it, I was never likely to be a consumer of that product anyway. All that’s happened is that I’ve saved myself from spending money on something I didn’t like. And that money can now get spent on something I do like. Sure, there will always be people who steal just for the sake of stealing. But those people are likely to steal anyway. There’s this ridiculous idea in the minds of entertainment executives that their most avid customers are going to become digital pirates who download and burn all their music. That’s hogwash! As a serious music fan, I’m not anymore likely to download all my music in the future than I am, as a serious movie fan, to watch all my films via pay-per-view or streaming 120x120 MPEG video clips! Why would you ever want to? I want to hold a CD or DVD in my hand. I want to read the liner notes. I want to see the artwork. I want to have it on my shelf – something tangible to show for my hard-earned money – with the rest of my music and movie collection.

Plus, file-sharing allows more consumers get to be exposed to a wider variety of music than what you’ll hear on the average, record industry-controlled AOR or Top 40 radio station. Anyone remember when MTV used to play all kinds of obscure and interesting music? Now all they play is the garbage they get fed by the record companies.

File-sharing levels the playing field for the benefit of consumers. And that’s what the record companies object to. You hear all this stuff about the rights of copyright holders, but the reality is that the record companies don’t give a crap about copyright holders – they care about their bottom lines. That’s what all businesses do – they work to make money. The record companies see every song downloaded as a song they don’t get $9.99 for on a CD single. It’s as simple as that. File-sharing weakens the iron-fisted stranglehold the record companies currently have on the music business. It puts power in the hands of the consumer again. The mistake the industry makes is that they assume all consumers are inherently going to use that power for nefarious purposes.

Remember back in the day when good salesmen, to build their business and customer base, would give out free samples of their product? The contract was simple. I let you try my product for free. If you like it, you come back to me sometime in the future to buy more, and I promise to give you a fair deal. If you don’t like it, there’s no obligation. Sure, I might be out the price of the sample I gave you, but I’ll more than make up for that from the orders I’ll get from the good customers I develop. And we’ve developed a respectful relationship. You appreciate the fact that I let you try the product, and you appreciate the fact that I give you a fair deal when you come back to buy more. I appreciate the fact that you come back and that you’ve become a loyal customer. I want to do right by you, and you want to do right by me.

But respect isn’t something today’s mega-sized entertainment conglomerates are interested in anymore. They just want dictate all the terms and take your money. Here’s what you can buy, when you can buy it and how much you can buy it for. If you don’t like it, tough shit. I control the market and you have no other options. Everything’s hunky-dory for me. Sure, product quality is basically irrelevant and you’re screwed, but I can live with that as long as I keep getting your money.

Think about how DVD has developed over these past few years. If not for the power of avid movie fans on the Internet, who demand a certain level of quality and features (like anamorphic widescreen), do you really think the movie studios would be producing the kind of quality discs they are now (for the most part)? Hell no! If no one held their feet to the fire, they’d do what made the most business sense. They’d look at their spread sheets and see that most people prefer full frame on DVD. And they’d look at their balance sheets and see that creating BOTH full frame and anamorphic widescreen DVDs cost more. So they’d pump out tons of full frame, movie-only discs. And they’d make more money.

And therein lies the beauty of file-sharing for music. It gives consumers a way to get the record industries attention and hold their feet to the fire. Consumers can now basically say, “Look… give us a better product for a fair price, or we’ll just get it for free instead.” And the record companies WILL listen. They already are. File-sharing makes record companies have to care about what consumers think again. Right or wrong, stealing or not, it’s going to change the entertainment industry for the better.

Wow… I’m really on a tear today, aren’t I. ;-)

 

[Andy_S]

One of the best arguments I've heard is that what the RIAA is doing is basically vigilante justice. They're taking the law into their own hands. It's one thing to prevent something from being stolen (ie video camera's in a store) but something else entirely to have a store owner come into your home and go through your stuff because he thinks you stole something. That's what law enforcement is for, so people (and corporations) don't take the law into their own hands.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

“Look… give us a better product for a fair price, or we’ll just get it for free instead.”

Gee, I'll have to use that when I go to buy my new car, or take a girl out on a date. "To hell with your rights, give me what I want or I'll just take it." What a philosophy!

Nobody forces you to buy anything. If you don't like the product or the price, don't buy it. That does not give you the right to just take it.

I would hardly equate the campaign for anamorphic widescreen with stealing music via downloads. That's a pretty big stretch.

 

[Bill Hunt]

Come on, Jeff... you've just taken one line of two pretty reasoned (and huge, I might add) arguments and debated it's validity alone. And I think the date analogy is the real stretch.

But imagine that the car company was making lousy cars. And there was only a handful of car companies that controlled the market, so you had only a few choices. What are you gonna do? Buy the car or not buy the car. Doesn't matter if the cars are lousy and over-priced, you still want a car. As long as you have no other options, the car company has no reason to produce better cars. They have no reason to care what you think. You'll buy whatever they give you.

With all of the vertical integration and media mergers in recent years, the vast majority of the mass-market entertainment we consume is now created by a handful of massive corporations. They are powerful beyond anything we've seen in human history. Many of these corporations are more powerful that most nations. As long as you continue to buy what they give you without question, what do they care whether you're happy or not?

It's funny, when I first moved to L.A. to work in the film industry, I was all idealistic about it. Film was art! And I still believe that. But then a friend of mine showed me something that changed my perspective – the corporate mission statement for one of the major Hollywood movie studios. Basically, it said:

“We are in the BUSINESS of filmmaking. We are NOT in the business of making art or winning Oscars. Our goal is to make money. If we happen to make art and win Oscars in the process of making money… fine. But this is a business, plain and simple.”

I was shocked at first. I mean, in the business world (and even in Hollywood) that’s nothing earth-shattering. But as a serious lover of film, I was mortified. It’s like someone coming up to you and telling you – right to your face – that your baby is ugly. I mean, sure… deep down maybe you realize your kid isn’t the prettiest one ever, but he’s your kid and you love him. He’s the most important thing in the world to you. You just don’t go up and say something like that! It just isn’t done! But here’s a major studio basically admitting that they don’t care if they make crap, as long as they make money.

This is all just business, Jeff. And business operates by specific market forces: supply and demand, public perception, consumer attitudes, etc. How can you argue moral issues of right or wrong, when that doesn’t even begin to factor into business considerations unless consumer pressure demands that it does?

I don’t disagree that stealing is wrong. I’m just saying that it’s an almost totally irrelevant argument here. Nobody hates that more than I do, but reality is reality.

By the way... I totally respect your argument. We're just framing this issue in different ways. You're framing it as a moral issue of right and wrong, and I'm framing it as a practical issue of affecting change in an industry that's resistant to change.

Either way, this is a darned fun debate. ;-)

 

[Jeff Kleist]

And if you don't believe Bill about that mission statement, I give you every single teen movie and rah-rah patriotism movie ever made

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I hate being subtle.
There is a very easy way to affect change in the music industry - buy what you like, don't buy what you don't like. There aren't only one or two sources, there are thousands of car makers. If you don't like what one has to offer, get something else. There is enough music in ths world that you could live a thousand years and never hear the same thing twice. It's not like your options are limited.
While piracy advocates hoot and holler about getting their way at the industry's expense, what they are really doing is giving the big corporations all the amunition they need to lobby for more and more stringent controls, and bills like the one that sparked this thread.
The industry does need to change, but doing it by supporting piracy is not the answer.
I have no argument against wanting to be able to hear something before you buy it, but that doesn't give people the right indiscriminatly distribute material they have no rights to. In fact, it is because of the abuse of the liberties in copyright that have been occuring that lawmakers will be making reforms which revoke some of those rights. It will happen.
If you really want to affect change, find an artist you like who is selling online. Give them lots of financial support, and make their business flourish. Then find another artist and do the same. If artists could work independent of the majors, they wouldn't have to feel the pressure they do to sell out. In fact, most artists could make far more independently than they ever could with a label, but they need the customer base.
There is no need to go after the majors. Like Hollywood, their business is burgers. They aren't out to make filet mignon. They want numbers. The only way to get them to change is when they see their dollars going into someone else's pocket, and by that I don't mean a bootlegger.

 

[Thomas Newton]

Whether artists are being ripped off by their record companies is no one's business but their own

The Constitution only allows Congress to grant copyright monopolies for the purpose of serving the public good. While copyrights are one of the more obvious ways of addressing the problem of "How does the author who works for a living recover enough of his or her initial investment to keep creating?", there is always some harm to the public good from such monopolies. There is a point beyond which incentives do not serve public ends, and a point beyond which they do not motivate the recipient.

If record companies consistently rip off artists for most of the artificial copyright monopoly incentive, this raises some questions about whether Congress has done its job of writing copyright laws to secure the greatest net benefit for the public.

1. If the minimal incentive that artists actually get is sufficient to ensure creation of a lot of new works, isn't that de facto proof that music copyright monopolies are too strong? Most of the "incentive" -- which comes out of the public's hide in one way or another -- is going to parties other than the "writers [artists] and inventors" whom the special reward is intended to motivate.

2. Why should the record companies -- who provide a lot of commodity services such as replicating plastic/aluminum CD discs -- be shielded from competition for the manufacturing and distribution of particular recordings? Why shouldn't the copyright law provide for compulsory, non-exclusive licensing of published recordings, with artists keeping their copyrights and receiving royalties from all of the competing distribution channels (record companies, online distributors, etc.)?

 

[Bill Hunt]

Ahhhhhhh... you see?! Healthy, vigorous, civil debate on the HTF. Better than the smell of napalm in the morning... ;-)

Good arguments, Jeff. But as a practical matter, it's pretty tough to affect meaningful change by relying simply on mass consumer spending habits. If we had relied on mass consumer spending habits to mould the shape of the DVD format, we'd all be watching full frame, movie-only discs right now.

Here's another auto industry argument. Pretty much everyone with half a brain agrees that cars emit air pollution, which cumulatively contributes to global warming, which is potentially pretty bad in the long run. Additionally, we live in a time when we’re talking about invading the country of Iraq (which was the 5th largest source of oil imports into the U.S. in 2000) and drilling in national wildlife refuges. So what is the ever-wise mass consumer doing these days? Buying gas-guzzling SUVs like they’re going out of style. Not much incentive for Detroit, Japan and Germany to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles is there.

The bottom line is that it’s not the majority that gets its way… it’s the most vocal minority. And, at least in the case of DVD, that’s been a good thing.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

While I don't disagree with the basis of your premise (I like the keeping the royalties part!), there are a few functions of the record company that warrant some (perhaps not the current level) part of that copyright pie for the following reasons:
1. If the record company is bankrolling the artist, they are assuming all the risk. As with any capital investment, he who takes the highest risk is entitled to the highest return.
- no record company, no product.
The good of the public is being served by the investment made in the artist which facilitates their being able to produce, even on a speculative level (ie no records sold)
2. The record company also serves as the promotional force that allows the artists work to reach its maximum audience. Here again, the interest of the public is served by the record company's promotion department.
3. Distribution is also handled by the label, fascilitating the market access to the artist's work. Another service of value.
Now, there is no law that says an artist has to sign with a label. They are free to finance their own careers. They are also free to promote their own product, and do their own distribution. This can and is being done. However, not everyone can afford either the expense in dollars or time to do all this themselves, and many do not have the business savvy to properly undertake such an endeavor. Enter the record company, whose expertise in these fields allows the artist to concentrate on what they do best - the trade off being a lower return at the end of the day.
What the artist gains from the record company, aside from the money to let them create their work (which must be returned of course), is the convenience and experience they need to fulfill the product chain, without which, in many cases, there would be no product to speak of.
Man do I hate arguing the side of the record companies.

 

[Thomas Newton]

There is a very easy way to affect change in the music industry - buy what you like, don't buy what you don't like. There aren't only one or two sources, there are thousands of car makers.

There are only five major record companies, and they control most of the music in the world, including a lot of the good music.

All of these record companies were eager participants in SDMI -- an effort best described as the mutant offspring of CopyCode and DIVX. It inflicts "checkout" and "checkin" requirements on your own purchased music. It reportedly involves two "phases" -- the better to get SDMI-restricted hardware off the shelves before the record companies flip the Phase 2 restriction switch.

Several of the record companies have released corrupted CD-sized discs (which legally are NOT Red Book audio CDs, due to the intentional corruption). The record companies' fingers are also obvious in the copy protection mechanisms of DVD-Audio and Super Audio CD. Everything the public supposedly got from the AHRA has come under attack, while the public continues to be subject to the AHRA's SCMS and royalty taxes.

That's before you get to the major civil liberties threats such as the DMCA, the SSSCA/CBDTPA, and this latest mind-boggling notion that record labels should be free to commit computer crimes.

Buying a CD of good music from a big label does nothing to prevent the industry's attacks on your rights. If anything, it puts more money into the pockets of their lobbyists, to work against your interests all the harder.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

A great debate! I had to check in and bring in a few points.
Before this whole mess got started, if I brought a CD (from a store), really liked it and told my friend that it was great, and he wanted to borrow it, this would be illegal?

He doesn't own the rights to play the CD, but everybody has been doing this since 78's came out. I could have him over and let him listen to it while I do, and there really isn't much of a difference here. I feel the same about 'loaning' out a VHS tape of last night's episode of "Friends", because he just happened to miss it.

As for skipping the commercials, how did 'commercial advance' on VCR's and Tivo's become legal? If we had to watch the commercials, the companies that produce products would have stopped it before it got off of the ground.

Back to music, what Napster did was to just exchange borrowing a CD from someone else to the Internet. Even if Napster is no more, it doesn't mean that we can't find the songs somewhere else, and for those of us that want to, we do.

But I am still worried about this bill. I'd have to insist upon a search warrant BEFORE they hacked into my PC. Didn't Bill Gates want to do this too?

If this does pass, are they going to look for illegal software too? (We won't get into finding porn). What if you made a copy of a song off of your CD and put it on your PC so you could play it 50 zillion times in a row? Illegal?

Glenn

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Back to music, what Napster did was to just exchange borrowing a CD from someone else to the Internet. Even if Napster is no more, it doesn't mean that we can't find the songs somewhere else, and for those of us that want to, we do.

No, what Napster did was allow the unauthorised distribution of music. I can't argue the legality of the lending issue, but in that circumstance, only one copy of the song was available for listening at any given time. The distribution method meant that millions could use the material simultaneously.

The software issue brings up an interesting point. Copy protection has been in place on software for over a decade. My interpretation of their licensing agreements (which is backed by the behaviour of the copy protection) is that I can only use the software on one machine at a time per license. If I try to open two copies with the same serial number, it doesn't work.

The commercial skipping idea is one that is being addressed too late. I see people complain about paying $40 a month for cable then having to deal with commrcials. I would suggest a commercial free service was feasable - if we all wanted to pay $4000 a month for the service. Most people would take issue with this.

If (and that's a big if for reasons sited in this thread) the bill passes, there will have to be some checks and balances in place before this is implemented. There would have to be some proof that the files are illegal in the first place, or that they are being shared illegally.

Despite its privacy implications, having illegal files remotely removed from your computer is a much better solution than some of the alternatives: arrest, seizure, fines or jail time (Fahrenheit 451 anybody?).

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Despite its privacy implications, having illegal files remotely removed from your computer is a much better solution than some of the alternatives: arrest, seizure, fines or jail time (Fahrenheit 451 anybody?).

The law as proposed is still in the territory of Fahrenheit 451. Whether the file is seized electronically or if the file is deleted following the physical removal of the computer from the offending user is pure semantics.

 

[Jeffrey Gray]

Here's something that baffles me...when the RIAA says they're going to be able to hack into other people's computers to find illegal files, they act like it's for the good of America. However, when the RIAA's site gets hacked, they call it an "act of terrorism." If the hacking of the RIAA's site is terrorism, then shouldn't the RIAA's hacking of people's computers qualify as terrorism also? Hmmm?

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Stir the shit storm people!!

Call, write, e-mail your representatives (and those supporting these, I dare say, anti-American bills like this RIAA thingy and the Hollings Bill), not only about this bill but those like it!

Democrat, Republican, Independent, non-committed. It doesn't matter, we're all affected the same way by these Draconian measures.

This is just the tip of the iceberg and I'm afraid that for the few ugly-on-the-outside bills that get stopped we are missing those that have been either attached as "riders" (truly a terrible loophole in our law making procedures), or buried in some other form of legislation.

I'd love to hear what Mr. Staddon and Mr. Blythe have to say on these subjects, as consumers and U.S. citizens themselves (putting aside your mantels as Hollywood employees). Please speak up too!

Dan