My Lil MP3 Vs RIAA Editorial

[Joe]

After reading a well written editorial on Designtechnica this morning (Dougs picture makes him look like a Jr Lawyer or something so maybe thats why his Ed. is wrote the way it is hehe), I decided to strike back with my own. While DM's viewpoint was well presented it missed one of the main facts of the industry... Assumptions that every download would have been a purchase.

In DM's editorial it is pointed out there are 3 classifications of "pirate". These would be 1. Geeks who download it for their own enjoyment - Loss of minor sales, and almost impossible to track. 2. People who duplicate media and sell it - Big problems with that. 3. Mass share folks ( like the MP3 monsters on Kazza, etc.. )

To me, the first 2 groups sound strangely like pot smokers and dealers... but that’s just me I guess. ( 3rd one doesn’t apply cause there aint no one just handing out mass amounts of pot for free) the regulation aspect the RIAA is looking at is similar to the war on drugs… just a digital version.

The aspect of "loss" is something I always have trouble understanding as an argument. Just because I download an MP3 off a P2P network, or rip a friends CD, it doesn’t mean I am causing any loss. The question of "would I have bought it if MP3's weren’t available" is one that’s never asked. The answer MANY times is no. I downloaded it as a mater of sampling the full CD and if its real good and worth the money I will buy it right away (hence the fact I have 200 CD's on the shelf, with another one I just bought today). There’s no loss to the company for me listening to the product to see if its worth it. What about music stores that let you listen to a CD before buying it... are they pirates? they achieved some kind of gratification listening to the music... what if they don’t buy that CD... did they just rip off the artists?! **** no.

Now there is a difference between the people who download music to ensure they are buying something worth it, and someone who downloads it just because he wants the music for free. There’s a very gray line in all this that I believe will result in many geeks getting in trouble and in the long run cost the RIAA More money than anything MP3's could have hurt.

The placement of a monetary value on pleasure and enjoyment in someone’s life is just the most ****ed up thing there is in all this. Since the RIAA would like to say that because I listened to the music, it provided some gratification, and therefore it was a service they provided and I should pay them. But is that always the case? How often have you bought CD's just to get a CRAP disc that has 1 good song? Can you bill them back for mental anguish?

I myself just dumped now over 200 Audio CD's I own to MP3 and have amassed 20GB worth of MP3's. Over 2700 tracks in total. The fact that I OWN the Cd's I ripped makes it 100% legit due to the Fair Use Act, that was introduced back in the days of VHS tape and cassettes when the MPAA and RIAA were freaked about their pending demise ( or so they thought). What happened then? the motion picture industry and recording industry had the best 20 years in a row even with minor economic downturns.

Now in the biggest Economic downturn in quite a while, the RIAA blames the kids on the internet for the reasons they are loosing sales.... Well DUH. How about the fact disposable income has fallen, 20,000 people a week are laid off work. You think maybe some of the population who’s been hurt in the economic times maybe bought CD's now and then before and don’t now? Hmm you think so?

the law suits are just the biggest show of arrogance by the music industry thinking that they are WORTH it, and that their customers owe them something. How about making music that’s affordable, music tickets that are not taxed by ever middle man in the world, and how about making GOOD freaking music people WANT to buy.

This is all just backlash against the music industries steady price hikes, and overall evil business practices. I know in the back of my head at every CD purchase I am thinking about not buying it and looking for it on the web just to spite the RIAA. Just because the music industry as a whole wont evolve past the 1980's ( I think they are still trying to reason with the creation of cassette tapes). They wont embrace this new technology today, and would rather just outcast it as simply a method made for piracy.

If record labels let me download CD quality MP3's instead of driving to a store, I would be all over it ( at a reduced price of course.) Just as with the war on drugs, the RIAA believes that restriction and patrolling of MP3’s is a solution, where many industry people favor the "give the people what they obviously want" and people after a short while will find the MP3’s more a standard thing they buy vs a think they sneak around to download. (Very similar to the whole “legalize it” campaigns for narcotics.)

Anti-Copy protection on Digital Media is absolutely stupid. Look at DVD's, that 40 bit encryption was bypassed no more than 1.5 years since its public rollout. If you make an encryption in 2003, you think it wont be broke by 2005?. Also I believe it defeats the Fair Use act, by locking in someone to use only the media and method the RIAA prescribes. If the argument is "quality", I can’t see that either. Just because technology has legitimately grown to the point a audio fiend can enjoy music at excellent qualities on different medias and transfers as technology progresses into the future doesn’t make it bad. I mean how many of you have 8 tracks that are so dry rotted they snap the first time you insert them into a player? Who wants to be stuck with a rack of SACD's down the road with no viable conversion path off them to the next gen media?

This whole deal reeks... and I believe its all just to cover up for the fact the RIAA is run worse than Enron, and the fact the economic down turn hurt them WAY more than they want to let on about.

So now I am going to sit here, and enjoy my MP3's and other peoples MP3 as I find them. And if a band makes a CD that’s worth it and provides the satisfaction I am looking for in a good CD, I will buy it.. and more than likely rip it also.

So that’s my lil editorial on this ****ed up time in the music industry. As far as the MPAA goes, I don’t have too much of a comment, I buy DVD’s like they are going out of style, and can honestly say I have never downloaded a single movie. TV programs on the other hand I have done quite a bit with, and I have a REAL bitch with the folks at networks and such who claim that editing out commercials is theft. Wait… So you broadcast these signals over the air, and for free I happen to pick it up, and only parts of it are worth watching… So I am wrong to not look at the commercials? What if I go to take a piss during a commercial in CSI… am I stealing from CBS? Also lets look at reality here, if someone is recording an episode its something that will be archived for viewing later on… you think the promoters of the “SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY Monster Truck’O’Thon” this weekend will care if people don’t see their commercial 5 years from now? Or the dozens of dot com ad’s that the companies will be gone before you even get to watch the tape again? This again is just a smoke screen, for the fact the economy has taken the advertising industry and sent it down the shitter. So the networks can demand more money they need to make it LOOK like they care about devices like TIVO and etc…

I have many of the Tick Episodes (yeh that corny live action version that was on for a ¼ a season hehe) in WMV format that I watch now and then… with no commercials… cause really I don’t give a damn if some reality show from 2 years ago was coming on next. I record tons of stuff off TV, edit it, and burn it to DVD for my personal archives. Unlike MP3’s which fair use says you CAN transfer media for personal use, editing out commercials seems to cross the line of… something… Its all very gray, and really they don’t care about me or my collection, they care about people who post that collection online, and let others download it all. But even at that the question of “loss” comes in. I mean they sent most of these programs for free over the air, just because someone else had the capability to record them and you didn’t doesn’t really mean there’s any loss on the part of the networks.

Well **** the RIAA, **** the Networks, and **** the MPAA for trying to attack the kids and adults that have made them who they are simply due to the fact they refuse to grow with technology and call the lawyers when it grows faster than them.

[murray13]

Kudos!!! Nice editorial.

Thought I should fill in for BB2K and be the first to say it.

Seriously, nice.

[jaydee]

I think you might have missed one minor possibility. What if the RIAA is trying to put a stop the P2P networks giving away music free just so they can make their own similar network but charge for it instead. Would you be more inclined the get it free off P2P or pay for each song off the RIAA network? This is the only logical explaination other than just sheer greed I can think of. I think they know the internet and downloading is going to be the wave of the future and they are just trying to secure their intrests in it. Only way to do that is to crack down hard on the current free P2P networks. I wouldn't be suprised to see this from other media industries aswell.

From what I can see downloading what you want when you want it from anywhere you want to in a near instant process is rapidly approching reality with all this modern wireless bandwidth tech coming out. I think they are doing what they can now to make sure they can take advantage of it when it does become a reality.

Kinda like the pre-imtive strike on Iraq. Take them out before they can take you out.

[pHaestus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3117505.stm

BBC writer has some reasons very different from file sharing for dips in RIAA revenues. I think they are reasonable.

http://negativland.com/albini.html

Explanation for how the music industry works from someone who has been involved in it for decades (Albini produced Nirvana FYI)

My $0.02: I look at mp3s as being the modern equivalent to radio. The RIAA does too, to a point. They think that they are entitled to revenues just the same as if the music was being broadcast on airwaves. The difference? A radio station sells advertising and makes money by having music playing. MP3s do not. I just find it ridiculous that I am able to take a cassette tape that I own and legally convert it to crappy quality mp3 by running it to line in on my PC, but if I download 256kb mp3s from the web of the same exact songs that I have broken the law.

[Zhentar]

I've been following this whole stuff at overclockers.com, there have been a lot of interesting articles there and I mostly agree with what he says, especially the stuff about lack of compromise, it often seems to me like both sides are little kids.

I personally don't have too much interest in this stuff; I've never downloaded an MP3 in my life, and the only music I regularly listen to is whatever my sister is playing (most of which is illegal copies from friends, though she does download MP3s a bit too).

As for tv shows and commercials, thats something harder for me to decide on. For example, my sister and I have downloaded almost the entire inuyasha series from Kazaa. On the one hand, no one is getting paid for my use of their copyrighted material... but on the other hand, there is no other way I can get this material. Most of it hasn't been dubbed yet and the fansubs are the only way I can know what the characters are saying.

And commercials.... what about when I tape a late night show and fast forward through all the commercials. Is that stealing then too? Of course not...so downloading with the commercials edited out should be fine. But you're still taking a copyrighted work and not paying anyone for it....

[PaperPlate]

The solution
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030724.html The first write up.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030724.html His follow up.

Basically it creates a legit P2P network. The creator buys all the cds, and puts his company on the stockmarket. The consumers then pay money for songs and in turn by stock in that company. They own part of those cds (.0000001%). When the stock splits, dividens past out, or whatever the consumer wins. This creates a WIN/WIN situation. The own wins because he's making money from song buys, and the consumer wins from stock payouts. Why does the RIAA not create a network like this, or me for that matter! Thats the gist of it, I suggest reading the article, it's a good one.


I'm all for a Million Filesharers March on DC if this goes on much longer, which I doubt.

[Yo-DUH_87]

The RIAA is being unreasonable with all that bs about MP3s being illegal, you can't copy your CDs, etc.

I do agree, that people downloading music off Kazza and enjoying it (without paying) is not legal, however, sampling, IMO, is completely legal. It is like a "trial version" that you can download. I imagine if the record companys offered samples that self-distructed after x ammount of days, that it would be a smashing hit. But, that is just IMO.

If I want to see what a movie is like either before buying it or going to see it in a theartre, I go watch a trailer that I download off the internet. What do I do if I want to decide weither or not I like the latest release of "hIapPy asYlum b0unD freEks" if I can't "legaly" sample it? Most stores I go to won't allow you to return opened music, so if you don't like it, you're screwed. You just gave the RIAA 18 hard earned $$$, and they are loving it

Personaly, I don't buy much music (I own all of 12 albums), but the CD copying thing is a problem. All the CDs I use are copys, I have all my origonal CDs boxed up and put away, so that if I drop a disc and dammage it, I don't have to go purchace a replacement, I just spend $0.10 and burn another copy.

I was letting a friend borrow one of my games, and his dad got all over my case because it was a CD-R and not the origonal disc. He went on about how the software company payed money to produce this product and how copying it and redistributing it is illegal and considered stealing...

Yeah, sure. If you want to borrow the origonal disc as well as the copy, fine with me. But, if anything happens to the origonal disc, you're buying me a new one, either before or after I hurt you badly

Software rights and such is getting greyer by the minute. I just purchaced my copy of this game, but I can only use it on one computer? That stinks! Windows XP takes it to the extreme. I don't want my computer tallying up every hardware change I have made in the last 3 months to decide if it wants to boot for me or not. Eventualy people are going to get fed-up, and hopefuly that will be soon, or the software industry is going to be extracting a lot more $$$ than they should be from the average joe

All my MP3s, WMAs (evil M$), WAVs, etc. are completely legal (every stinking one of them ). I either a. own the CD, or b. legaly obtained the music from the artist via free downloads (offered off the artist's website). Never used Napster/Kazza/any other P2P software in my life, and here is the RIAA saying that my MP3s are illegal. I don't think I'm letting my friend look at my music directory any time soon...

I do have copys of TV shows on my HDD as well, most have been stripped of comercials as well. Do I think that is illegal? No! I could have watched that movie when it was on, and muted the TV though all the comercials, or gone to the loo like Joe suggested . Comercials are so that the networks can stay on the air, and I understand that, but me watching a comercial for a fast food chain that moved out of my area 5 years ago isn't going to help fund the TV networks! Please!!

People are making way too big a deal out of this, and the industry is taking advange of it to raise prices. The fact that a single CD can cost upwards of $18 is insane, that is at the most 70 min of music, and I'm paying $18 for it? If they'd lower CD prices/allow MP3 track purchaces, things may look up for the music industry...

BTY, before anyone mentions it, the Apple music download is bs, and someone else like Sony needs to pick it up, and make the music avalible in a non-propriatary format, or in a format that has a player avalible that doesn't suck so badly

[pHaestus]

The apple implementation is about as kind as you'll see: you are allowed to burn it to an audio cd, and once you have done this then you can rip it to mp3 or ogg without restriction.

You guys are naive if you think that people are going to get fed up and things are going to return to the good old days of more freedoms. Things are going to change, but via DRM. This whole P2P issue with mp3s is just throwing it to the forefront. And it is something MS has been preparing for for a long time.

Ted Turner has said before that if you dont watch the commercials then you are stealing television. I don't see it personally.

I look at the success of Bit Torrented movies and tv series as just being an obvious example of how the media industry hasn't figured out how to provide what people want. Everybody wants the tv shows and movies that they feel like watching, WHEN they feel like watching them, without leaving the house. People are willing to deal with slightly less than dvd quality and the hassles of all these codecs and players and P2P apps to get this. But the providers want you to just watch what they are giving you when they want to give it, or else you can go rent a movie or go pay a premium to own dvd and watch when you wish. Where is the happy medium? TIVO is to some extent, but the concept of a "shared tivo" is many times better. And when you share it and fully unlock the potential of the idea of TIVO then it becomes a crime. Silly.

[yoshana]

Ok.. I've lurked for a while but have to get my .02 in

Here is the problem as I see it.. the RIAA is just the hitman for the money/music companies..the bag men.. the money they collect will go to suing other people not to the artists they are 'representing'.

They didn't file on Napster the companies like BMG, Geffen and Sony did, but the reason the bitch about MP3's is all about money.. the industry is loosing money and needs to blame something other than themselves.. this is an industry that will not evolve....

Here is the kicker.. want lower prices.. then you have to buy the albums that the companies back with capital.. like that flop of Michael Jackson.. that was $100 MILLION in promotion and payouts and mad $18MILLION.. ok my bad math says that we.. as customers have to make up that $82 Million on other albums..

NOT.. I say buy nothing from the companies.. buy from the artists directly.. give them your money.. go see them in concert... enjoy them.. screw the music greed!

[The Tick]

I like your taste in cartoons Joe

I like the article. If you could find some good supporting sources and such, I'd like to see it given to Ed over at overclockers.com. I have a hard time reading his RIAA articles (which seemed to be the only thing that went on his site for awhile, it approached blog status).

[Leuf]

It sounds great from the consumer's perspective that they will download the music first and if they like it they will pay for it later. But you can't expect the record company to ever see this as a good thing, without even painting them as greedy bloodsucking monsters who just want to steal $15 from you for 1 song you'll actually like.

Imagine if you boss came to you one day and said, "You've been working here how long? 20 years? About that. Well things are going to change now. From now on you're only going to get paid if I feel you've done a good job that week. Also, I may not get around to actually giving you the money for a few months, because you know, I may think you did a good job at the time, but later on it may turn out that it wasn't as good as I thought, and I really don't want to get ripped off."

You wouldn't be very happy. Even if there is some fairness in there, you do a good job you get paid, you don't do a good job you don't. Except you have no control over what that decision is based on. Your boss may just make up a reason not to pay you. There is no accountabilty. There is no appeal. And you have a mortgage to pay.

Try going to a stockholders' meeting and saying that your new business model is based on the honor system.

And while it seems very counter-productive for the industry to sue its customers, it must seem counter-productive to the industry for its customers to want to destroy it. Because that's what a lot of its customers do want to see happen, it to not exist.

Now that said, music is a luxury item. You should be happy with what you buy. And for the long term health of the music industry, fewer happy real fans are better than people who feel they've been ripped off. But the companies are all about how much money can I make off this artist today. And just how bad can their sales really be if Avril Lavigne can go quintuple platinum?

On the television side, the problem in the US is the completely outdated Neilsen ratings, the syndication market and its resulting ridiculous delay in getting programs released on dvd. You shouldn't have to wait YEARS to get a series on dvd.

The other problem is the total lack of respect the television stations themselves show their own programming. They do this by slapping advertisements for other programs across 1/4 of the screen. At a time when there are more and more options for entertainment, the stations are making watching their programs less and less enjoyable. And when was the last time you saw the end credits of a show air without being sped up and squished into a little box you can't even read, even if it were going slow to be able to? Shouldn't the giant box that comes up to tell me that I'm watching Friends be on during the ads that I see when I'm flipping, not when the show is actually on and I can see with my eyes that Friends is on? It doesn't make any sense at all, and it just keeps getting worse. I refuse to watch anything on FX because their ads are just so bad. So forget taping/tivoing the shows, it's getting to where you are going to have to download a wildfeed off the net if you want to actually enjoy the program at all.

I'll also say I got in trouble a couple years ago for posting a tv multimedia file on usenet. The thing is, it wasn't an episode. It was their own promotional material for their show. So I almost lost internet access and can't ever post anything there again because I promoted their show. This just goes to show how far removed the people/bots doing the reporting are removed from the actual producers of the shows, and from any common sense.

[pHaestus]

Those are good points Leuf, and it is also important to note that failing to aggressively protect a copyright can set legal precedence for that copyright being worthless. So companies HAVE to protect their interests as much as possible or they may become worthless.

The issue I have with your "what if your boss only paid you if you liked the end result" analogy is that the musicians (the people who would be in the same position as me in your analogy) are NOT getting paid properly by their bosses either

There has been a real lack of sophistication in dealing with fans; a fundamental failure in realizing that music evokes strong feelings in SOME people. Everyone has bands and musicians that they really really enjoy. There are some bands that I own their entire catalog (even a few import titles). I will go to the store the day the cd comes out and buy it no matter what. MP3 distribution doesnt really affect the sales of those bands to me because even if I snag the mp3s when they are leaked before release, I will still buy the albums to get the cover art, the uncompressed music, and to support the band. There are probably 10-12 bands who I feel this way about.

In another category, there are a lot of bands that are recommended to me by friends or music reviews on the strength of one or two songs. I often will download one or two good songs by and band and listen to them for a while. I usually put them in folders based upon what genre the music is in. Most of the time, I don't buy the cds, but I sometimes become a real fan of a band this way too and end up picking up their stuff.

Then there are mp3s I have for entertainment value (sometimes you just wanna jam Cameo's "Word Up" really loud and laugh your ass off). I am never going to buy that cd no matter what, but the 128kb mp3 has entertainment value.

And for genres I know little about (acid jazz, trip hop, electronica) I dont have any mp3s and instead listen to shoutcast streams. Same as Cameo, I am never going to buy a cd and prefer to just listen to a variety of stuff on shoutcast streams.

So there is only ONE category of the above where there is even any validity to the theory that my music downloads are hurting the industry. And even in the music I am a "casual fan" of, there are some examples of band who have been elevated to "I buy everything by them" status.

I download a lot of music and I have over 150 CDs. My purchasing rate has gone up over the last couple years because (a) I personally have more disposable income now and (b) I feel more confident that purchases I make will be good ones because I am familiar with the bands before I buy. If you go back to say 1998 and before, my music collection has way more "one hit wonder" albums but not any more cds per year.

Of course the above discussion, no matter how valid, has no real legal meaning. If you go to most band sites, they have a policy that "sharing is ok, profiting is illegal". I wish the RIAA would take this approach and go after the cd pirates who are REALLY threatening their livelihood. That's much more difficult than harassing middle class families though.