Blogcritics: Comments on The RIAA is rilly, rilly stupid

Comment by bhw

Tue, 1 Jun 2004 09:29:43 EDT

Cool....

Comment by particleman

Tue, 1 Jun 2004 01:45:24 EDT

no worries, i knew you were kidding. what i failed to mention was that he was an engineering major too, which more often that not doesn't qualify as exciting even for engineers. As the son of two engineers, trust me, it's boring shit. I understand what you're saying, and i guess we'll just have to wait and see how copyright law plays out over the coming years in reaction to all the changes in technology and whatnot going on right now. I hope someone writing law codes in never-never-land wises up and makes some changes. Or maybe ol' Larry Lessig will make some noise and drive change.

Comment by bhw

Tue, 1 Jun 2004 01:03:29 EDT

I realize, particleman, that some people find copyright law r-i-v-e-t-i-n-g. No need to defend your [boring] friend. [That's a joke. Relax.] As for copyright protection, it used to balance the preserving the rights of the copyright owner [which used to be an individual, much of the time] with the good it would do society to have the work in the public domain. But now it clearly favors the copyright owner, which in our society is usually some big business and not an individual. But I don't know that copyright ought to serve "consumers" in any way, just the public.

Comment by particleman

Tue, 1 Jun 2004 00:46:42 EDT

What's boring to you might be fascinating to another. One of my friends is going into Patent law. He's psyched. copyright doesn't exist to "serve" consumers at all. Maybe that's the problem.

Comment by bhw

Mon, 31 May 2004 22:02:03 EDT

Comment by particleman

Mon, 31 May 2004 21:25:13 EDT

bryan / bhw - i see your points and they do make sense. but something just doesn't seem right. if the RIAA has legal legs right now, then the laws need to change. nothing they are doing serves the consumers or the industry well. maybe i should go to law school...

Comment by bhw

Sun, 30 May 2004 21:42:43 EDT

bhw- good points. i would think, though, that accessing a hard drive with intent to download a song is different than accessing the data for evidence in a criminal charge. e.g., inviting your friends over to your house/apt does not seem equivalent to letting the authorities in to run a search for a case you do or do not know about. Thanks. But I still disagree with your point. When you use Kaaza, you open you hard drive to anyone and everyone else using Kaaza. Doesn't matter what their intent is. Also, in this particular case, the RIAA arent' authorities filing criminal charges; they're corporate rep. types filing lawsuits. Also, the analogoy you give doesn't work because sharing your hard drive with Kaaza is not like inviting friends over. It's like opening your doors to several hundred thousand strangers. It's an open invitation to anyone on Kaaza. I think the RIAA is being short-sighted, but until the copyright laws change, they have the legal legs to stand on.

Comment by bryan

Sun, 30 May 2004 20:32:28 EDT

Remember that tapes and VHS tapes both came out before the advent of cheap *totally digital* reproduction, with no noticeable loss in sound quality. In order to get an LP quality reproduction on tape, you would need to invest in some heavy equipment to reproduce that more than a couple of times would be a pain in the butt. Now, CD reproduction can replicate an album in original form many times over, with *no loss* in quality. Most of the rules changed with the advent of the DMCA as well. Finally, when you pay for IP, you are not buying total rights to the product. You can't *do whatever you want to* under copyright law. That's just the common misperception.

Comment by Al Barger

Sat, 29 May 2004 21:48:15 EDT

re: comment 6- I'm generally not in favor of cops kicking people's asses. Now, if somebody does something obviously stupid like take a swing at a cop- well, then, brother you asked for it.

Comment by particleman

Sat, 29 May 2004 03:31:44 EDT

everyone: thanks for the comments. i did not know that we pay a royalty on every blank tape. it would only make sense, then, that we also pay a rolyalty on blank cds. Lono- if they figured how to implement the charge with tapes, why not also with cds? is cd production that much more widespread than tape production that it prevents tacking on a few extra cents? ...of courese i don't expect an answer here -- just thinking out loud. bhw- good points. i would think, though, that accessing a hard drive with intent to download a song is different than accessing the data for evidence in a criminal charge. e.g., inviting your friends over to your house/apt does not seem equivalent to letting the authorities in to run a search for a case you do or do not know about. the fire-fighting comment was intended as an illustration of various ways to combat a problem. there are constructive and destructive approaches. the RIAA appears to be adopting the latter.

Comment by bhw

Sat, 29 May 2004 02:21:00 EDT

Jesus. I've got to get some sleep. Typos and nonsensical sentences abound in that last comment.

Comment by bhw

Sat, 29 May 2004 02:19:18 EDT

And to comment on the five points made at the end of the original post: 1. The RIAA isn't 'sneaking' onto anyone's hard drive. When you use Kaaza, for example, you automatically share your hard drive with everyone else on the network. Anyone logged in to Kaaza can see what songs you have on your hard drive. 2. It's very different from tapes. First, fair use does allow you to make a copy for yourself. But it definitely does not allow you to make copies for potentially thousands of people you don't even know. That's caled distribution. 3. Agreed. But it's legal, at the moment. 4. Agreed. But, alas, poverty is no excuse for a life of crime! 5. I have no idea what you mean, unless you're talking about the RIAA trying to level the file sharing community. In that case, I think the RIAA is being short-sighted, but that's their right. I also don't think some of the alternatives to bootleg file sharing sound like very good offers. A buck to download a song that has restrictions on it? If I pay for it, I should be able to do what I want with it except to give it out for free to people who haven't paid for it. And why does it cost just as much to download on a per-song basis as it does to buy a CD of songs when there's no physical manufacturing to pay for when you download [CD, case, etc.]?

Comment by bhw

Sat, 29 May 2004 01:50:16 EDT

These would actually be the edicts of lawyers more than cops, but I get your point. That said, next time I hear you going on about some idiot getting himself beat up by cops for doing something stupid, like breaking the law, I'll remember this post.

Comment by Al Barger

Sat, 29 May 2004 01:32:06 EDT

BHW, since when did you think that I believe in a moral obligation to follow the edicts of cops?

Comment by bhw

Sat, 29 May 2004 00:47:29 EDT

Oh Al, are you saying it's okay to download just because you don't agree with copyright law? Civil disobedience and all that? Ah, the moral relativism.

Comment by Al Barger

Fri, 28 May 2004 23:35:34 EDT

Lono, there certainly well IS a question as whether we are "stealing" by downloading music. I reject that categorically. Go back and check your inventory at Sam Goody's. Nothing's missing on MY account. Besides which, by traditional American copyright law and general presumptions of reason, most of this stuff should absolutely be public domain. Originally, copyrights lasted 14 years, and you could renew for 14 more. Round that up to 30 years, and that's surely the absolute longest that a copyright should last. Look, if the record company and the musicians can't make their nut on a record within 20 years, they're not going to.

Comment by Lono

Fri, 28 May 2004 19:22:50 EDT

Tom Johnson - you are correct. On every blank cassette we pay a surcharge that goes right back to the industry to compensate for implied lost copyright money. Making tapes and distributing them to friends is still illegal. Technically you are only allowed to make cassette tapes as 'backups' for yourself. Since the industry was making the surcharge money... they didn't pursue it and every one was happy. So the logical question is why not do that to blank CDs? The manufacturing is probably too widespread to implement it, and consumers are smarter now. The way I see it, as long as the industry charges $20 for a CD that I can burn for 20 cents... they can blow me. I still buy CDs of quality music and bands that I like. another point of interest on this is that there was a study very recently released that said downloading is NOT killing the industry. The point being, I just downloaded a great track from Megadeth, them covering 'Anarchy in the UK'. Now, if that wasn't available would I have gone out and bought the whole CD? not a chance, I would just live without it. Without question, when we burn CDs we are stealing. When dealing with the RIAA though, I feel more like Robin Hood. Plus I see all the bands live, which is the way most make money (CD royalties to artists are about 50 cents per unit sold, then they have to pay back recording fees and promotion). Screw the RIAA< and vote Democrat

Comment by Tom Johnson

Fri, 28 May 2004 17:17:52 EDT

2. How is this any different from the historical method of file sharing: mix tapes? Buy an LP/tape/cd, copy it to tape, and share it with your friends. As many friends as you want. I don't recall reading about massive legal efforts back when mix tapes were all the rage. (I still use them, RIAA be damned). I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that when cassettes started coming out, manufactures faced a lawsuit about the damage they would do to the industry. In the end, cassette manufacturers added in a charge that would get paid, pretty much unknowingly by consumers, back to the industry. I'm sure someone else knows more - Eric?