Recently, the RIAA chose to sue about 400 students. Apparenlty they're now trying to crack down on piracy on I2. I can understand their position (RIAA). I don't agree with it, but I can see it from their point of view. They see I2 as yet another domain to worry about. If I was the RIAA, I'd be worried about a network that could transmit a DVD in 30 seconds too. But the RIAA are approaching the problem wrong. They want to outlaw I2 entirely. That's hardly possible, because they don't control I2. I2 is a high speed academic network. They would be be alienating a lot of customers ( read students), by outlawing I2. However, the RIAA's biggest problem is also probably its biggest saving grace. The student's are easy to sue. They're easily intimidated. Once caught, they'd do probably anything to avoid a payout and possible jail time.I2 is however just a part of the problem. What is the problem ? Piracy, declining music sales (to whatever extent) etc. Is there a way to stop this ? Frankly, No. At least I don't think so.
The Current : As Andrew Orlowski said, music has always been free. Today is music free ? I think not. Copied music is not legal and thus not free. The RIAA has gone to great extents to avoid piracy (I say avoid because they cannot prevent piracy). They have promoted DRM like no technology before. However, this attitude raises a question. What happens when the copyright expires ? Will I have to pay the RIAA for eternity just to enjoy Vivaldi's Spring. Besides, the DRM models will always fail. I cannot imagine that music encoded with the state of the art in DRM today will remain DRM'ed ten years form now. I find that quite improbable.
The Future : The RIAA should be more worried about the future that it is about the present. The digital distribution model is important for the RIAA. There however is no way to embrace this model without DRM. But they have a problem with this too.DRM willl never be secure. It isn't now. It won't be in the future. Besides there is nothing to pique public interest as much as the unobtainable. DRMed music is gonna be available for 'free' sooner rather than later** on the p2p networks.The 'only' way to permanently lock down music is to lock it down at the source. At the computer/OS itself. Will the computer manufacturers comply. Hell No. It's a dog eat dog world. Royal Philips Electronics openly said they would not comply with the whims and fancies of the music and film industry. They also went on to say that even if other manufacturers did make equipment to prevent recording, they would not. And Philips is a huge.I don't think the RIAA would want to piss them off. In any case, who would buy a computer that prevented recording. I'd bet my last penny that we won't see any such computers in my lifetime.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Temple Stark
You should think a little more clearly before posting. It's not the RIAA that's worried about DVD downloads. It's the MPAA.
You really should explore the RIAA Web site a little more. They don''t care about you copying music. They care about someone doing it on a massive sale and never paying for it. College kids - or anyone - has never before been able to do it on such a massive scale.
It's called licensing. Why won't people, downloaders, do that and pay for something? Better than taxing everyone. however, I couldn't quite tell whether you just meant taxing students or not. That might work - drop an extra fee a quarter / semester for downloaders.
Lastly, Vivaldi's Spring, I'm guessing, is not under copyright. I could be wrong.
A timely post and I appreciated it. But it seems slightly misinformed and /or presented in a confused way where it seems misinformed.
2 - Eric Berlin
Temple / trenchier:
I'd love to see a definitive list of what's cool and not cool to use under RIAA rules.
You brought up a good example: I'd love to know if I can legally delve into my not insubstantial collection of classical music for my podcast.
3 - trenchier
Thanks for commenting.I appreciate the feedback.I said the RIAA is worried about I2 because it can transmit a DVD in about 30 seconds. That implies they(RIAA) are worried about the speed of the network and not about the DVD(s) being transmitted.
The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA 1992) esplicitly states that I can make a copy of music that I own *only* to tape. I am not allowed to make a copy to a computer or upload it to an mp3 player.Also, according to Cary Sherman, the senior executive vice president and general counsel, the RIAA takes the position that any copying of music to CD that you perform on your computer is copyright infringement. Whether the source is digital or analog, whether the disc is a complete copy of a CD, tape, or LP that you own, or whether it is a compilation of songs from various sources that you own, the RIAA considers making such a copy to be a violation of the right of reproduction granted to copyright holders by the Copyright Act of 1976.
(Source : http://www.digitalproducer.com/2001/09_sep/features/09_24/cdlaw2.htm)
You talk about licensing. I mentioned in the post why licensing will not work. The licensing model will always be broken. History has shown this. Also, I meant tax everyone with an internet connection. You'll probably say that this is unfair, but there are'nt a lot of alternatives. CD Burners are currently taxed in Germany. Why can the same not be implemented for the internet in the US?
I hope this clears things up a little.
Thanks for posting again.
4 - trenchier
Eric Berlin
As far as the RIAA is concerned, you cannot. They do nevertheless acknowledge the immunity provided by the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA 1992), which states that you are allowed to make a tape copy only. The AHRA does not provide for backups to a computer (or a MP3 player).
5 - Dave Nalle
So, what you are suggesting is that the government step in, hold a gun to every internet users head, take $5 a month out of their pocket and hand it to a private industry group for distribution to wealthy artists? That's going to be one hell of a hard plan to sell to the constituencies of the legislators who have to vote on it, especially to the large number of internet users who aren't downloading music or movies.
Oh, and while the sheet music of Vivaldi's Spring is out of copyright, most performances of it are still in copyright, unless you want to transfer it to CD off of your grandfather's old 78s. Each new performance of a piece of music is copyrighted in its own right as a unique work unto itself. Thanks to Sony Bono's whoring for Disney copyright now lasts for 20 years longer than it used to, but works recorded prior to 1922 are still out of copyright - thank god Steamboat Willy is safe!
Dave
6 - trenchier
Dave
Actually I did'nt suggest it. Andrew Orlowski did in his keynote address on what the RIAA needs to do to make money.I just suggested a modified taxing system.
I agree with the idea though. As bizarre as it may sound, I think it will work. Besides, I think a significant percentage do download music...at least on broadband.
7 - Mark Saleski
what has always bugged me about the idea of a broadband tax is the assumption that downloading has 'hurt the artist'.
most recording artists, except for the really big sellers, have never made much (if any) money from the sale of records. this goes back way before the internet showed up (when we were apparently killing the artist using a different medium, those evil audio tapes).
i've said this many times here, but what seems to always get lost in the shuffle is the indirect benefit of people hearing music, becoming interested in the artist, and purchasing other records. this happens to me all the time.
then there's the fact that people who download tend to buy more music than people who do not.
all of that said, i don't like the idea of somebody having contact with a band's music only through 'free' downloaded material. it's bad music karma and just plain, uhmm....icky.
8 - Dave Nalle
My observation is that there are some notable bands out there who have embraced the whole idea of internet downloading and it doesn't seem to have hurt them at all. Look at Rancid. They were giving their last album away for free on their website for a while. They had two top alternative chart hits off that album and don't seem to be starving in the streets.
Dave
9 - Temple Stark
Thanks trenchier for the response. It does reassure this observer that you have delved more deeply. I didn't come away with the idea that you can only tape a track for use. Go to RIAA.com here and tour more
I think you may want to relook since the advent of iTunes and so forth. Of course, I do understand that most people won't try and be legal, but that doesn't mean shit about what's right and wrong. And I understand that any band that gives some of its work away free gains instant fans - these days. But very few bands will release their entire catalog for free. Why is that if it won't hurt sales?
And you didn't answer whether you were just talking about students being charged this tax or all broadband users.
Until last week, I hadn't bought any new mmusic in about four years. Now I'm plugged into iTunes and plan to buy more. But I don't have to buy.
Again I always go back to, there are more consumers than creators. The consumers will always be the bigger voice. But that doesn't make their wishes and desires for free music everywhere.
However saying all that I am trying to find bands that give away some free music to see if I like them and to see if they'll also allow me to use their music on podcasts.
10 - Temple Stark
Actually I guess you did answer the tax issue - and therefore, I disagree. People need broadband nowadays not to download pirated materials but to put to good use the Podcasts and the other video-laden, picture laden Web sites out there.
Web sites I like, I love - because now I have broadband. You shouldn't charge dial-up users anything - believe me - they are suffering enough. :-0
11 - Dave Nalle
I've been using iTunes myself because it's both cheaper than buying CDs and more reliable than downloading P2P where you never know what weird problems there are with the files.
My main complaint about iTunes is how lamentably limited their selection is. If you want current hit music it's fine, but forget it for old or obscure songs alltogether. It's not even good for hit songs from more than 10 years ago.
Dave
12 - Victor Plenty
Selection is my #1 reason to prefer file sharing over commercial download services. On file sharing networks I have found recordings from as far back as 1910. And the best part is, the recording industry doesn't have to pay a dime for the disk space or bandwidth required to host these files. People volunteer their own computing resources so they can participate in file sharing networks.
Of course, file sharing would be much more reliable if the entertainment industry wasn't wasting millions of dollars on attempts to cripple it by flooding the networks with corrupted or otherwise useless files.
They're treacherous scum, trying to bite the hand that feeds them their ill-gotten supper.
13 - trenchier
Temple Stark
Thanks for replying again. I said before that the AHRA act of 1992 does not provide for recording on computers etc.
The RIAA site explains it in more detail.The relevant section is "Multipurpose devices, such as a general computer or a CD-ROM drive, are not covered by the AHRA. This means that they are not required to pay royalties or incorporate SCMS protections. It also means, however, that neither manufacturers of the devices, nor the consumers who use them, receive immunity from suit for copyright infringement."
The source is http://www.riaa.com/issues/copyright/laws.asp#infringe
As for the taxing issue, I hardly expected anyone to agree with me. There must a lot of people who have never downloaded music, so it's probably unfair to tax them. But on the other hand, suing everyone is hardly a good idea. Maybe there should be an iPod tax or something, to tax recording devices, mp3 players, CD burners and the sort.
14 - trenchier
I neglected to add this earlier. In the post, I did not mean that artists should give away their music for free. They should definitely charge for it. But once I buy the music, I should be free to to what I want with it.
The tax would be to offset their 'losses' due to p2p networks.
15 - Temple Stark
Ah ... big neglect there :-(. Then I think we are probably in almost unanimous agreement. Hooray.
16 - Victor Plenty
Yes, artists should be paid. Tracking their popularity on file sharing networks and compensating them accordingly would not be difficult, if fair compensation for artists was really the top concern of the music industry.
But, if making sure artists get paid was the top concern of groups like the RIAA, they would not have spent so much of their history enforcing so many contracts that actually prevent any more than a tiny trickle of money from ever reaching the artists.
File sharing could make the RIAA, the MPAA, and all similar oligopolies obsolete. File sharing can create ways for artists to keep far more of the money their work generates, while enabling consumers to pay far less than ever before.
That is why the entertainment industry is against file sharing. Not because they suddenly started giving a damn about artists.
17 - Mark Saleski
what's more, i'm not convinced that every downloaded/shared file equals money swiped from a label's pocket.
18 - Eric Berlin
Mark - You bring up a great point about distribution of the income generated by music sales. I think everyone knows in their heart of hearts that the old way of making music is just about dead. A new model is being developed and will take some time to get set in place. I think, in the end, whatever happens will benefit both musicians and music fans, and that's a good thing.
19 - Victor Plenty
Right, Mark, not every file download would ever have been a CD sale, any more than every radio airplay repetition could possibly represent a "lost" CD sale.
However, since artists are (supposedly) compensated for radio airplay, it would be fair to come up with some method to compensate the artists when their works are downloaded across file sharing networks.
I don't know exactly how much they should be paid per download, but I estimate that 99 cents per track is at least 100 times too high.
20 - Al
First off, where does this tax money go? Who is the direct beneficiary? Is it the artists, or the record labels? And more importantly, who does the RIAA try to protect, artists or record labels? Canada already has a Blank Media Tax. I'm taxed yet I don't know where this money goes. I don't know if it's distributed evenly and fairly, I don't even know if artists see a dime of this money. I think the artist/label relationship is due for a change. Artists have alot more power than they think they do, especially with a huge potential market base through the internet. Established artists need to take that iniciative to become self reliant and hopefully it will trickle down to up and coming artists.
21 - trenchier
It would go to both the lables and the artists. I don't know how the money is divided between the artists and the lables right now, but I guess they could use the same or a similar division.
In this post, the Amazon ASIN is a Prince CD, because he was one of the few artists who spoke out against the record lables.
22 - trenchier
This comment is a little off topic. Amazon.com is offering free DRM free music downloads. Does that mean I'm free to use this music as I see fit. ie. can I post the music on my blog or something to that effect?
23 - Eric Olsen
I would say so if you don't see any posted restrictions
24 - Eric Berlin
Wouldn't downloading for "personal use" be quite different than distributing the music that Amazon is offereing i.e. use on blogs, podcasts, file-share networks, etc.?
25 - Paulina
music should be free.
"."