Well, not really, but I hate them both...
Today's topic du jour seems to be the RIAA's new tactic of suing people that download music from the internet. Of the 261 that are in the current crop of suits, everyone involved had apparently uploaded more than 1000 songs to the internet. Thus, it seems, people that strictly download songs are safe from the RIAA's (misguided) wrath as their plan is to attack those who are responsible for making those songs available online. Among those under duress from the RIAA are a 12 year old NYC student whose mother said paid $29.99 for Kazzaa and a 71 year old grandfather whose computer was taken over by his grandkids and used for this "illegal" activity. Is the internet free or not?
So ... a few questions:
1) Who exactly is getting sued here? The person that holds/pays for the ISP account being used or the person doing the act of downloading? Are both at fault?
2) What if a guest uses your computer to upload / download music without your knowledge? Who is at fault?
3) How do the record companies initiating the lawsuit know that the user that downloaded these songs didn't erase them after listening to them a few times?
4) Do the 1,000 songs in question include live tracks or remixes that are not available to consumers commercially?
5) Is there really that much difference between downloading songs from the internet, burning a CD for a friend, or recording songs off the radio or webcast?
6) Aren't the bootleggers hawking $5 burned copies of the latest titles down on Canal Street more of a threat to the RIAA and the artists they protect? Why are they allowed to sell these CD's on the street with the police department's full knowledge? Wouldn't it be better PR for the RIAA to go after these real criminals?
The RIAA's problem (along with the labels) has continually been that they think they can snuff out filesharing with bullying and scare tactics rather than embracing it and working together to come up with a model that can be universally compatible and yet profitable for labels (and hopefully artists as well). More than one record label has spent millions on Napster but yet they don't have a new, legal, fee driven version available to the public yet. More importantly, why has it taken this long for the labels to put an alternative on the market? Apple's iTunes Music Store sold its 10 millionth download this week. It's a proven winner considering the minute market it is serving. Out of all Apple users (which currently make up 2.7% of the computer market), only those with OSX are able to use the iTunes Music Store, which I'm guessing cuts that number in half.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
Very nice summary of the situation Kyle, thanks and welcome!
2 - Coolfer
As I've told the Leafblower a number of times, the industry it too big and slow (for better or worse, that's just how it is) to react quickly. Going through the courts takes a LOT of time. If download services are ever to take off, illegal downloading needs to be stamped out. If Kazaa is not going to police its users, the RIAA is absolutely right to sue people to stop. What they're doing now is going to affect the health of the industry in the coming decades. It's important to go about it right. This is not time to panic, drop prices, cave in to P2P, and hope that everything turns out for the better.
It would be great if they dropped prices a long time ago, but it's a risky proposition. Companies just don't take such a chance without putting a toe in the water. Again, these things take time.
Expensive CDs....c'mon. The prices haven't outpaced inflation since they came out in the mid 80's. In NYC you can buy a CD for less money than a decent pizza. And price gouging? People don't mind paying $1.50 for one cent of Pepsi syrup and a bunch of carbonated water. People understand just as little about Pepsi's fixed and variable costs as they do a CDs fixed and variable costs, but never bitch about the price of a soda. (The manufacturing is never and will never be a big part of a CD's total cost, just as the soda syrup isn't a big part of Pepsi's cost.)
3 - TDavid
CDs are overpriced, even still at $12.99
4 - Eric Olsen
I would almost mever pay more than about $8 for a CD - that's why when I do buy them it is almost invariably used.
5 - Eric Olsen
I should add "used" but unopened, ie promo. I won't pay more than a couple bucks for something that's actually been used.
6 - Coolfer
$12.99 is a good deal for CD, assuming that the packaging doesn't totally suck. At that cost you can be assured that neither the label nor the retailer is ripping you off.
7 - BRICKLAYER
Mr. O: Where do you get most of your cd purchases? Do use online sources like half.com? Just wondering, coz I buy a buttload, and I'm always looking for the cheapest prices. I buy alot of promo's on half.com but alot of them are opened. Thank you Sir!
8 - Mark Saleski
you can use the words "illegal downloading" over and over again...but that doesn't make them true.
downloading is indeed a 'problem'...which will not be solved in the courts.
9 - cassandra
you are so hot??????????????????????
10 - TDavid
Huh? Did the temperature in this thread just rise up or something?
11 - tiffany
i like zack and amy as well they are so nice but i hate tara and dave and keith and charla but the rest i like them all kisses from tiffany