RIAA Sues Radio Stations For Giving Away Free Music (1 Viewer)

[Seth_L]

Do you personally see anything morally wrong with making a copy of a CD for a friend who more than likely would buy the CD if CD burners didn't exist? I'm not talking about making a copy of a CD to introduce a friend to a band he hasn't heard of before.

As far as a tax being built in to recordable media, I believe that applies only to cassette tapes and possibly minidiscs. When I can buy 100 blank CD-Rs for $8, I have a hard time believing there is any tax in there.

Brian,

First of all I don't make copies of CDs for my friends.

Secondly, computer CD-burners which you refer to are not covered under the AHRA. It may be illegal to use them to copy a CD. Even then there's the whole issue of are you making money from someone else's work aspect to copyright law. It would be hard to prove in court that you're guilty of copyright violations even with a computer CD-R drive.

However standalone CD recorders that comply with SCMS and require the use of more expensive (taxed) "Audio-CDRs" are fully legal to use. There is a tax on both the recorder and the blanks to compensate artists for the money they "lose".

The question I suppose is do we derive our morals from the law, or does the law derive itself from our morals?

I myself have no problem copying CDs to MD. I'm not depriving anyone of any money. Why? Because I wouldn't have bought the CD in the first place. If I actually like the CD I will buy it. I generally only copy the stuff that is perhaps worth the occasional or casual listen. That stuff however, I don't feel is worth the money to warrant a purchase. Because I've already paid for my "guilt" when buying the MD deck and the blanks I sleep just fine at night.

Seth

 

[Brian Perry]

Seth is correct about the AHRA.

Jeremy,

I don't think Seth's reference to the AHRA defines what is legal. If you can, please elaborate on the limits, if any, there are on the AHRA. If I purchase 1,000 CD-Rs (less than $100), make 1,000 bit-for-bit copies of the latest best-selling album, stand in front of Best Buy and give them away, the AHRA will save me from being arrested or sued?

(Seth, I see you have posted while I was typing my recent post. I agree that making personal copies of recordings you own is acceptable, both legally and morally.)

 

[Ryan Spaight]

I'm with Jeff on this. I normally love the Onion, but in this case their satiric point is wrongheaded. (However, their bit a couple years ago about Kid Rock starving to death because of Napster was a scream.) Material played on radio is licensed for such use. Suggesting an equivalence to unlicensed filesharing doesn't even fly on the level of parody. If the P2Pers paid license fees and still were targeted by the RIAA, then the article would have some bite. As it is, it comes off as a bit naive and desperate. ("Hey, *radio* distributes songs and it doesn't cost me anything! How come they're allowed to do that?")

Beyond that, comparing small-scale home taping to large-scale P2P activity is comparing apples to oranges. The Home Taping Act was certainly not written with global file sharing in mind. That it applies is a loophole, an example of real-world technology outstripping the laws on the books.

There are reasonable solutions to this (emusic, for example, has the right idea), but expecting unlimited free access to everything to stand up forever is wishful thinking. Sure, P2P will always exist in some form as long as public networks exist, but the legal loopholes *will* get closed eventually.

Pointing to those loopholes as justification sounds to me like the those companies moving the HQ to the Caymans as a tax shelter -- yeah, it's legal, but that doesn't make them any less of a cheat.

Mike's comments are spot on. The *real* issue here is that the record industry's business model is outdated. In an ideal world, the decision of whether or not to release stuff "into the wild" for promotional purposes should reside with the artist, not the RIAA or some 15-year-old with a cable modem.

Ryan

 

[James Q Jenkins]

It's not morals, it's ethics.

In my mind there's no justification for giving music away. Whether you make money on it personally is irrelevant. Somebody went to a great deal of trouble to write, record, distribute, manufacture, and manage those songs. They deserve their due. Radeo gives them their due, filesharing does not.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

In an ideal world, the decision of whether or not to release stuff "into the wild" for promotional purposes should reside with the artist, not the RIAA or some 15-year-old with a cable modem.

Amen!

 

[Benson R]

I can understand why everyone wants to stop unauthorized file sharing but I can't believe some people here actually posted they are against concert bootlegging.

Maybe I could understand if you had a problem with the people that sell copies but the trading of concert recordings is something that all true fans of a band do. I am not familiar with Crimson but if that is really their attitude its a shame. Even the sale of concert recordings doesn't really hurt a band though I can see their problem with it. Hell Pearl Jam had a problem with it so what did they do? They released cds of all theirs shows. This is getting off my original topic but that demonstrates how providing legitimate product into a market negates the illegal one in many cases.

Someone might prove its technically illegal but it doesn't really hurt anyone. I think this demonstrates how the music industry is slowly being destroyed.

 

[Ryan Spaight]

Buying bootleg (not pirate) CDs is probably unethical, though stealing them might not be.
Ryan

 

[Mike Broadman]

I see the problem with the article, too, but it is just a joke. I got a chuckle.

I am not familiar with Crimson but if that is really their attitude its a shame.

It's also the attitude of a lot of bands. Not everyone is Phish. Most, however, don't take it to the extreme that Fripp does- stopping concerts to retrieve the film of flash photographer.

It's just a matter of respect. If a musicians feels that he cannot perform when people are bootlegging, that is his prerogative.

NP: Spock's Beard, Day For Night

 

[Mike Broadman]

I see the problem with the article, too, but it is just a joke. I got a chuckle.

I am not familiar with Crimson but if that is really their attitude its a shame.

It's also the attitude of a lot of bands. Not everyone is Phish. Most, however, don't take it to the extreme that Fripp does- stopping concerts to retrieve the film of flash photographer.

It's just a matter of respect. If a musician feels that he cannot perform when people are bootlegging, that is his prerogative.

NP: Spock's Beard, Day For Night

 

[mike_decock]

I see the problem with the article, too, but it is just a joke. I got a chuckle.

Exactly. All humor is at the expense of someone's sensitivities so I can understand why some people too offense.

Makes me wonder... Is humor ethical?


-Mike...

 

[RaulR]

Makes me wonder... Is humor ethical?

I dunno, but it sure has an amazing ability to whoosh right past some people's heads.

 

[Benson R]

Just so you know I hate Phish...with a passion. I don't doubt that there are bands that don't like their fans making recordings but that doesn't change the fact that it is a poor attitude on the part of the artist.

 

[mike_decock]

Just so you know I hate Phish...with a passion.

"Rift" is one of my favorite albums and they are a lot of fun to see live.

-Mike...

 

[Benson R]

I can respect Phish for being so devoted to their fans, and I know lots of people love them, but I just don't get their music.

 

[Christ Reynolds]

Well, if the satirist knew anything about the music industry, he would know that radio stations license and pay royalties for the music they play, which would preclude any such action on that basis by the RIAA, especially since the RIAA has nothing to do with performance licensing. Every radio station is required by law to log every song they play, so that appropriate royalties can be paid to the authors, composers and publishing companies by their respective performing rights organisations.

thanks for the buzzkill buddy, we understand your post, but its a joke. lighten up

CJ

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

thanks for the buzzkill buddy, we understand your post, but its a joke. lighten up

Thanks for your meaningful contribution to the subject.:rolleyes

 

[mike_decock]

Thanks for your meaningful contribution to the subject.

Actually, I posted that link as "comic relief". It's a joke. Like all jokes, it's at the expense of someone's sensitivities and I apologize.

I'm fully aware of the fundamental difference between Radio Broadcasters compensating the artists whereas free downloads do not.

On the other hand, there's good data to support that free downloads actually boost record sales and that the RIAA's attempts to shut them down is actually hurting the profits they are trying so desperately to save.


-Mike...

 

[MickeS]

The article wasn't that funny, because it targeted the radio stations, which already pay for their music, so the satire fell flat.

It would have been a LOT funnier if it had been about RIAA suing the radio listeners for not paying for the music. I'm a terrible writer but something like:
--
RIAA decided to take this action after realizing that the last, and most important, link in the chain does not pay at all for the privilege of receiving the latest hits completely free in their radios. The RIAA said in a statement "We can no longer sit idly by while the public takes advantage of the artists by not paying a single cent to them for their creativity and hard work, yet can enjoy the fruits of the artists' labor by simply turning on their radios."
--

/Mike

 

[mike_decock]

The article wasn't that funny, because it targeted the radio stations, which already pay for their music, so the satire fell flat.

I don't think it targeted the radio stations. I just drew the similarity between the radio and free downloads that the consumer gets it for "free".

I'm sure all the readers on this forum are aware that the radio stations pay for the right to broadcast it, etc.

It's an absurd article. Whether or not it is funny is purely subjective. I know I got a chuckle out of it.

-Mike...

 

[Christ Reynolds]

Thanks for your meaningful contribution to the subject.

thanks for yours as well.

CJ