A burning issue: Music piracy and downloads

USA Today ^ | 6.4.02 | No byline

[jpsb]

"Wouldn't singing in the shower be considered a First Ammendment freedom of speech issue?"

If you live alone you might not be breaking the law by singing copyrighted material in the shower. But if live with family or friends then you are breaking law. And that's a fact jack.

[SamAdams76]

I went and bought a CD burner for my computer just when Napster went down. Are there any other sites out there?

Indeed they are. And as the article states, file-swapping is far more prevalent today than it was during the heyday of Napster. As I said back when Napster was being shut down, the genie is out of the bottle and there is no way the music industry can shut it (file-swapping) down.

I use WinMX which has almost the exact same interface as Napster. WinMX is recommended by me because they don't insert "spyware" on your computer and you can find pretty much anything you are looking for.

I have discovered a lot of great music on WinMX that I never would have heard on the radio. The band Nickel Creek is a good example. I discovered their music just last week and I already ordered the CD through Amazon.com (can't find it in record stores either).

[Nick Danger]

Lawyers should be familiar with the concept that if you are served with notice, but you do not respond, you can reasonably expect the world to go on without you, and you have no right to complain about that. In some cases this can cause you to lose certain rights or to be ruled against in default judgements.

And so it is here. The record companies and their attorneys were warned by the technical community that shutting down Napster would be a mistake, and that they should instead try to work a deal with Napster in which Napster would charge some monthly fee and everyone would share in the proceeds.

But no, they insisted that Napster had to be closed down. When the technical community warned them that this would cause Napster users to shift to new, decentralized methods of file sharing such as Gnutella, and that there would then be no way to ever shut it down or to collect money from it, they chose not to listen.

Now they are hosed, and I have no sympathy for them. Had they been less arrogant, a deal might have struck. Now there is no one to make the deal with, and no one to sue... just millions of small-time consumers in fifty-odd countries sharing their files as they please.

Technology 1, Lawyers 0

[Tribune7]

I'm not a big fan of popular music hence I'm not a general user of song swapping software albeit I did use Napster once in tracking down an obscure song I hadn't heard in a long time. It worked. If I had violated the law I think I'll still be able to sleep at night.

The question I have is tangential and concerns Metallica, which may be the highest profile musical group fighting digital copyright infringments via the Web.

My knowledge of this group is quite limited. Have they in their lyrics ever encouraged their fans to question our laws and traditional social mores or implied that it was appropriate to violate them?

[eno_]

You're right. They're not completely analogous. But analogies are rarely apples to apples. I'm pointing out the flaw in the underlying ethical justification.

There is a BIG difference in this particular distinction: The Founders created strong and indefinite protection for real property, and they reluctantly created limited protection for intellectual property, for the reason that taking real property results incontrovertably in the former owner being poorer and the taker being richer. In intellectual property law, fair use, for example, cannot be characterizered as a limited legalization of theft because the IP owner is poorer only is a very theoretical sense. The same goes for the end of the term of protection.

Digital Rights Management is also a bad libertarian issue in that the downside of laws like DMCA and its evil progeny are that everybody's privacy suffers from mandated snoopware in our PCs and other devices. That does evil things to our security in our documents and effects. This is a battle the publishers should lose if we are to retain our rights.

[tdadams]

in 10 years artists in studio's will be able to upload entire albums directly to the internet

This is 10 years from now. It's already happening. Several artists have released albums over the internet. Todd Rundgren did it years ago.

this is actually less about copyright protection as it is organizations like the RIAA are seeking to block an emerging market

That is emphatically not true and illogical anyway. Why would a business try to supress any emerging market? Businesses love new revenue streams and mroe efficient distribution. The RIAA would love nothing more than to distribute music digitally. It would mean almost pure profit for them without the cost of the CD and packaging. The concern with online distribution is that there is, for now anyway, no way for the record company and artists to make their rightful profit from works they create.

The record companies logically can only invest so much into a pay-per-download system as long as there are channels of free file swapping. When and if PTP file swapping can be stopped, only then would a pay-per-download system make good business sense.

[mconder]

WinMX Seems to be the best

[jpsb]

75 years after the death of the artist is ridiculas. Copy right protection should last no longer then patent protection. The copyright laws are another example of congress selling us out to fat cat lawer and greedy big business.

[gilor]

[Sungirl]

ALERT!!!

I received this from a friend of mine and I just CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!! I am SO UPSET!!!

==================================

Can you believe this!!

This is really scary..... Now you can see anyone's Drivers License on the Internet, including your own! I just searched for mine and there it was, picture and all.

I don't think this is a good idea at all!!! I think we should write our congressperson!

Go to: license info

[tdadams]

Have [Metallica] in their lyrics ever encouraged their fans to question our laws and traditional social mores or implied that it was appropriate to violate them?

More interesting than that, they used to encourage their fans to trade bootleg recordings of their concerts. It's ironic that they have such an incongruous position on the two matters.

[Tribune7]

Super cool. It looked just like me, too.

[tdadams]

In intellectual property law, fair use, for example, cannot be characterizered as a limited legalization of theft because the IP owner is poorer only is a very theoretical sense.

First of all, PTP file swapping is not fair use. Not ethically and not by definition.

Secondly, a copyright owner who is denied profits due to PTP file swapping is only losing money "theoretically" because he can't file an insurance claim to be made whole, like a victim of auto theft. When someone downloads a song instead of buying it, the copyright owner is denied profits. He's poorer because of that. No amount of rationalizing changes that.

[tdadams]

This is 10 years from now. It's already happening.

That should have read "this isn't 10 years from now."

[cascademountaineer]

This is 10 years from now.

No kidding. Yes I know, my friends have done it. I bleeped out a line there by accident, I meant as part of a distribution deal. Right now there are only a handful of companies offering download for profit but it will probably go to a subscription service further down the road.

Why would a business try to supress any emerging market?

I think thats already been stated. No middle men means no mark ups.

One more time for the cheap seats, no middle men means no mark ups.

The RIAA would love nothing more than to distribute music digitally.

No they dont and they've moved to block download for profit repeatedly in the past. Its the same reason they were sued by the attorney general several years ago, they attempted to centralize distribution contracts to a handful of labels and prevent competition.

New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who led the case, said that the price fixing represented a few dollars per CD but the total damage to consumers was estimated to be over $470 million dollars in one fiscal year alone.

The same guys also tried to get the supreme court in the early 1990's to declare the sale of used CDs as illegal and to ban the resale of them. They of course, lost.

To have the RIAA and others, who's members have been screwing the artists since the time of Hank Williams and Chuck Berry, use the bands as a political pawn in their chess game is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

[tdadams]

75 years after the death of the artist is ridiculas.

What claim to you have to the creative works of others? You should be thankful is not protected in perpetuity.

[webstersII]

Some of that "digital information" is the copyrighted creative work of a person who makes their living doing it. The creative people who do it will cease to do so if you take away the financial incentive.

As I'm sure you are aware, the original copyright law was for 14 years. That's what was considered "reasonable". Now it has been extended so long past the creator's death that the original intent of the law is not even recognizable.

File sharing is not appropriate in a moral sense, but the law should reflect a more reasonable time period for creative works and intellectual property.

[Tribune7]

Regardless of intent of this law or, any new laws, I think it's going to come down to practical enforcement. And this means the paradigm for musicians with talent to acquire wealth is going to have to change.

I think the Grateful Dead had one top 40 hit in their long career. They were, however, among the most financially successful groups in history, with the money mostly coming from concert sales. I think that's the future, which is probably a good thing.

[general_re]

First of all, PTP file swapping is not fair use. Not ethically and not by definition.

'Tis a bit dangerous to overgeneralize. Whether it's fair use or not really depends on who's downloading it and why, doesn't it? If I own the album, I am entitled to archival copies, and therefore, downloading MP3's for archival, backup purposes is perfectly legitimate, don't you think?

[tdadams]

I think thats already been stated. No middle men means no mark ups.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you mean artists can then be free to sell directly to their fans.

This seems logical, but the reality of it is that very few artists have the interest, patience, or skills to handle all the administration that goes into marketing music. A lot of artists complain about how the big bad record company is screwing them, but it's a symbiotic relationship or it would have quickly died in favor of other business arrangements.

I am an artist's advocate if there ever was one. But I've been on both sides and I see how much hard work, talented people, and coordinated sales efforts a good record labels puts behind its artists. Most artists would rather bath in boiling oil than do this work themselves and in truth, even if they did, that wouldn't leave them with any time to do their creative thing.