Students put their own spin on downloading music

USA today ^ | 4.20.03 | Jefferson Graham

[freepatriot32]

LOS ANGELES

[bfree]

If the recording industry does not adapt, it will die. Yes, the law says you can't do it ,but a whole generation is doing it and will continue to use technology to do it. The facts of life are this generation can do it and will do it and so will future generations. Fining a kid with no money a $150,000 per song is totally meaningless because they have nothing to really lose. What are you going to do build more jails to put the kids in? I don't think taxpayers will be willing to be taxed more to build new jails to house "music pirates", do you?

[mrMJ]

You know what is the funniest part about this is...

The record companies and the legal apes who are used to controlling every last detail of thier existance through strongarming and monopoly are now feeling the wrath of the lawlessness of the internet. Its is just straight out beautiful to me that in the end, the internet will never be regulated; not by the record company pukes, the government, or anyone, but the best programmers and the most processing power.

You all can debate these this until your faces turn blue, but the bottom line is that with the computing technology in the hand of the people who don't create the laws-- those who try to enforce them (i.e.- record companies) they will lose in the long run. Remember-- no governement, not anyone rules the internet entirely(maybe locally, but that's it)-- so everyone should keep thier grubby hands out of what happens on it unless they learn to program it themselves.

[longtermmemmory]

they have to prove diminished value. THIS IS NOT PHYSICAL PROPERTY!

[longtermmemmory]

The library has photocopiers. This makes it convenient to reproduce portions of books without the need for an individual to purchase a whole book. For 25 cents a page you obtain a portion of a copyrighted work. At every library copier is the photocopy of the copyright notice. It just an issue of ecconomics.

[mrMJ]

The "it's stealing" argument might be a tired argument but it is an accurate derivative of an earlier statement "Thou shalt not steal." Care to rationalize your position to the one that made that commandment?

I DO!!! You see VomitComet,

It's futile to think that only the strong survive rules don't apply here. Evolution, kidd; they have to conform to what the majority is doing. It maybe stealing by the old rules-- but things are changing. Just because the United States legislature can't keep up with the what majority of thier constituents want, that's not our fault. And remember-- the internet has no governing body, therefore they have no say in it anyways.

[longtermmemmory]

this is intelectual property. The excluse nature of the right is finite in terms. They remake old movies in order to keep the public right to the new version. Mighty Joe Young vs Might Joe Young. Intelectual property rights expire. At common law there were no rights to mere ideas only property. The excusive nature of intelectual property was to produce innovation. There is a public interest to be served with intelectual rights passing into the public domain in time. The problem is that the passing to the public part can now be accomplished in a nanosecond. Will the library of Congress have an online collection of high quality out of copyright works? (not if the RIAA can help it) BUT it would be well within their LEGAL ability to serve the public.

[longtermmemmory]

It maybe stealing by the old rules-- but things are changing.

* * * * *** * * *

There is no real need for new rules. You must must must show diminished value. Show me how peniless college students would have purchased these songs. There must be a remedy for the damage shown.

[Jhoffa_]

You see VomitComet..

"Vomit Comet" ?

You can't even insult someone properly.

How then do you expect to explain issues, such as theft?

You should be ashamed.. but I doubt you even realize it.

[BlazingArizona]

So no, I have little (basically none) sympathy for the music industry, and I am hoping a big shakeout occurs whereby people will rediscover local and regional artists, and that the artists themselves can find a business model that will allow them to continue performing without the BS of the industry. The music industry is comprised of just too many types who use the current distribution system and payolla type schemes to maintain their extravagant lifestyles and act as gatekeepers for artists and fans alike.

Downloading and burning music involves a significant investment of time and hardware. If CD's were priced at $5 instead of $20, the entire file-sharing culture would disappear.

Does it make any economic sense for a movie soundtrack CD to sell for more than the DVD of the same movie?

[longtermmemmory]

ok so where does each dollar go? Who gets how much of each dollar. The teamsters get a slice for trucking the CD. Where do the pennies go in each dollar? Who will loose if there is direct distribution?

[mrMJ]

Okay, I'm busted on the insult... it was stupid.

But theft read the post before yours- its not really up to us anyways...

Ashamed, never...

[Jhoffa_]

What exemption under the US code do you claim?

[CommerceComet]

I chose to ignore mrMJ's response for two reasons:

1) I don't respond to childish insults.
2) There is no need to say anything further about his incoherent, illogical response. It speaks for itself.

Jhoffa, everything you said was right on the mark.

[longtermmemmory]

there are exceptions for educational use for example.

but the damages must be claimed. It is not enough to just have the song. Mere possession is not damage in and of itself.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Whether or not you believe this to be theft, an increasing number of our public officials believe it to be so. And they will continue to believe it is so because they get more money from big business than from MP3 pirates.

What will happen is that government will be coerced or cajoled by the music industry into forcing computer manufacturers and ISPs to make it difficult to trade illegal files.

This will lead to more and more intrusive hardware and spyware that the average user will be required to install in order to continue to have full access to the internet.

This will also lead to more global rather than national or local rules which is inherently creepy.

There will always be ways to hack around whatever they legislate, but more and more people will be spied on and regimented to counter piracy.

Of course, pirates will continue to pirate, so an internet clusterf**k is inevitable.

[Amerigomag]

Vocal performing artists should be entitled to the protection of their work product at a live performance.

When these same performers sell a recording of their work product they should be subject to the fair use doctrine after a reasonably short period of time.

[Jhoffa_]

..there are exceptions for educational use for example.

Irrelevant. Personal entertainment is not "educational use"

but the damages must be claimed. It is not enough to just have the song. Mere possession is not damage in and of itself.

The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work is listed as only one "factor" to be considered when determining infringement of copyright.

[longtermmemmory]

Whether or not you believe this to be theft, an increasing number of our public officials believe it to be so.

* * * * ** **** * * * *

Just because a politician is getting campaign contributions to believe something does not make it so. It was popular to make flag burning illegal but it still did not stand muster. From what I have heard of politicians speaking, non of them really have a serious clue about the subtlties of copyright law.

The question has to be what are you protecting? If the goal is to protect the distribution then you protect the labels. If the real issue is protecting the musicians then the issue is protecting the songs. The comment made above really zero's in on the issue. Why does the DVD of a movie sell for less than the soundtrack.


Abroad Kazaa and I believe the kidd who cracked the DVD code have won in those courts. There has been no case to test the DMCA (or whatever the letters are) in fact the RIAA seems to back down before they really challenge the law or they go after powerless individuals. In this case, what resources are these students going to have access to?

[longtermmemmory]

performance halls pay anual fees to the RIAA.

[tuna_battle_slight_return]

"In fact, he says, he doesn't see it as theft. "This is exactly like going to the library. Do I have to pay to check out a book? I'm just listening to the song, not selling it."

Bad analogy. I don't work for a record company -- never have and never plan to -- however, one borrows a book from a library -- there is no ownership in borrowing a book (unless you copy the entire book, using your scanner or a traditional photocopier).

On the other hand, when you download a song, you do, in effect, own the song. Sure, you may not have (or own) the cover art (if any cover art exists), but not only do you have the song itself, but you also have the song (or file) in a format which can be archived indefinitely.

Do I see downloading MP3's as illegal? In most cases, you bet. Does it stop me from downloading them myself? Not a chance.