Recording industry goes after file sharers

The Oregonian ^ | 08/04/03 | JEFFREY KOSSEFF

[goldstategop]

Its not about protecting copyrights; its about RIAA's wanting to make sure it can make money for the record labels off the customers. Its all about greed.

[yonif]

Using their own logic, can't movie companies begin to track DVD recordables and blank tapes bought by customers to see if they are using it to copy movies?

[goldstategop]

Well movies are protected by Macrovision copyright protection. And TV show recording is protected by "the fair use" exception under the copyright law.

[Banjoguy]

The RIAA is organized and funded by the recording industry. It is not a self interested entity. It, instead, acts as an ombudsman for the vertical market responsible for the, production, manufacture and distribution of recorded entertainment.

Copyright laws were established to protect the originators of creative product so that they could reap the benefits of their work; that would include financial gain. Saying that one is exclusive of the other is an absurdity.

In addition, I submit that it is not greed to expect a monetary payback for the creation of a product. As a risk taker I have every right to legally produce and distribute a product and to expect a financial reward for my efforts. Those who would purloin the product, justifying on the basis of technology, are, to put it bluntly, thieves.

[grania]

As a risk taker I have every right to legally produce and distribute a product and to expect a financial reward for my efforts. Those who would purloin the product, justifying on the basis of technology, are, to put it bluntly, thieves.

What physical product are they stealing? The record companies brought it upon themselves, by continually passing off the junk they do as music, and by reducing what they produce to nothing but computer bytes. If they were to go back to nurturing (and giving creative freedom) to talented musicians, producing albums that were the total package...artwork, photography, historical and informational notes, the words, a cohesive and meaningful theme, people would buy them...just as they still purchase movies and books, even though movies can be copied and books can be borrowed at the library.

Why do you think dinosaurs like Mick Jagger, Bruce Springfield, and Jimmy Buffet keep selling out concerts and having a following? Maybe, just maybe, it's because what they create for their fans doesn't s---.

Why shouldn't the kids download this junk? Even they know it won't be worth listening to two weeks from now.

[Diogenesis]

These "people" are so sick, that they deserve a boycott.

[Sacajaweau]

"What has the company lost?" They are saying that everyone who has done this is a lost buyer. How do they prove that??

[John Doe #1]

Copyright law is no more than a tyrannous tool for
corporate America. If you have the misfortune of having your copyrights violated by them (as I have) ,you'll learn the hard way why it is my opinion having copyright protection on your individual work's is no more than a fantasy in reality.

[afz400]

If anything, Kazaa has increased interest in music that is not heard on the radio anymore. The record companies should view that as a plus not try to stop it. MP3s are not good quality - lots of people hear the song and then buy the CD for better sound.

[sgtbono2002]

Perhaps if they priced their product at a fair price people would not try to copy it. This stuff is priced way too high.

[AeWingnut]

I'll never forget the flap over the PMRC w/ Tipper Gore. Frank Zappa was complaining that while they were out there talking about labeling music - Algore was in the back room giving a private industry the ability to tax us. What he was talking about was the royalties that were being paid to RIAA ASCAP or whoever for blank media. For every sale of blank media they got a percentage. I remember when CD-Recorders first came out. Only CD-Rs marked "For Consumer" would work and they were more than $7 each while CD-Rs that you use in the computer were only $1 - $1.50 each. Why ? Because the demChiComCrimocrat Algore is a corporate statist.

SACD DVD-A surround sound Cds are more difficult to copy but they are barely being marketted. If they really were concerned about piracy they would push the new formats

[Gil4]

Why shouldn't the kids download this junk

If it has no value to them, they won't waste their time downloading and listening. If it does have value to them, they need to pay for it.

I'm not crazy about some of our copyright laws, particularly as they apply to older works (especially those that are no longer produced.) I personally think the Beattles have made their money off of Love Me Do and it should be in the public domain by now, but I won't begrudge anyone the right to make a buck off the song they wrote last month, even if I consider it junk.

[bk1000]

"Perhaps if they priced their product at a fair price people would not try to copy it. This stuff is priced way too high."



I haven't bought a CD in years for that very reason.
(I don't download, either) The record industry is
desperatly clinging to an outdated business model.
Rather than change with the times, they whine.
(sounds like a bunch of liberals!) I'll bet these new
'download a song for a fee' websites are the wave of
the future. Why should I pay for ten songs on a disk
when eight of them stink? Buying music by the song
(remember 45 or 78 RPM records?) is a way for
the industry to return to it's roots and will ultimately inspire
artists to write better songs instead of album filler.
People like to download music. I think most would
pay a small fee per song to keep it legal and fair.

[Gil4]

...royalties that were being paid to RIAA ASCAP or whoever for blank media....

I've heard about this but I don't know exactly what the provisions of that law are - does anyone know where I can get details on this? (I thought it applied to cassettes as well.)

[goldstategop]

One would think RIAA would get into a cozy deal with the P2P networks instead of trying to get rid of them. You know, if you can't beat em, join em.

[Nick Danger]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. It's as if the entire industry has put the legal department in charge of marketing. "These people are not buying our stuff — let's send law enforcement out there to crack their heads!"

It appears that the sales of the recording industry are indeed declining. By definition, that is a marketing problem. That means that the solutions probably lie in one of four areas:

• Price — and in particular, relative price. Music CDs are not the only thing out there competing for the entertainment dollar. DVD sales are going through the roof; they didn't exist a few years ago. Some of that money is coming out of the music industry's hide. It has to be.

  Particularly in the age group that the recording industry targets, console video games are another thing vying for the entertainment dollar.

  The recording industry has not lowered its price in many years, even in the face of these two new competitors for the entertainment dollar. The price spread between a music CD and an entire movie, with sound track, on DVD is becoming smaller all the time. Which is really the better value for the consumer? A CD at $17, or the DVD movie at $21?

• Product — I'm no music critic, so I will shut up on the subject of whether the stuff out there today 'sucks.' It probably can't be worse than the Archies. What is apparently true is that the industry is now more concentrated, and has become more risk averse, meaning that new acts with sounds that "don't fit the mold" are less likely to get any attention. Taking those risks is where new hit bands and new genres come from, so if they aren't taking those risks, what they do sell will sound tired and boring after a while. That will lead to declining sales. They should expect nothing else.

• Distribution — This is the industry's achilles heel. They have enormous sums invested in relationships with bankruptcy-bound retail music store chains. They can't abandon those guys because today, that's where the revenue comes from. So they are trapped manufacturing, shipping, and warehousing millions of little physical objects that add a lot of cost to the distribution process. This is cost that doesn't really have to be there for a large fraction of what consumers want to buy.

Is there stealing? Yes, but is that really the problem? To the point that the industry is willing to become identified in its customers' minds as a kind of legal ogre that goes around suing its customers? Treating the customers as The Enemy is a big step to take. It's a very risky proposition. But it's the first thing lawyers would think of.

Where are the people in this business who are responsible for selling music? How is it that they are allowing their legal department to dictate strategy? To alienate their customers like this? You cannot beat people with sticks to make them like you. Once they come to hate you, you don't get to sell them things anymore.

At some point, sanity must prevail. There are 30 million of these "thieves" out there. Even a 13-year-old can figure out that he's more likely to get hit by lightning than to draw one of these lawsuits. There is no real deterrent in that. Plus, breaking the rules appeals to a teenager's need to rebel against adult authority. The lawsuits just make the fruit 'forbidden' as well as tasty.

Turning the lawyers loose on the customers is nuts. The right answer for declining sales lies in one of those other areas. You have to entice people to buy things; you can't sue them into it.

If Wal*Mart was this nuts, they would have security guards roaming the store, waving guns at people and shouting "No Shoplifting!" to everyone with a shopping cart. They would be out of business within a month if they did that. The recording industry can have the same thing happen to it. There are other ways to spend the entertainment dollar.

[yonif]

BTTT

[grania]

If it has no value to them, they won't waste their time downloading and listening. If it does have value to them, they need to pay for it.

That makes as much sense as saying that if it has no value to them, they wouldn't bother listening to it on the radio. Look at it this way...I have a lot of CDs I purchased and (legally) downloaded to my computer. Why? Because I could. They sound like what they are on the computer...squeaky disconnected bits. I don't listen to them, not at all.

Sure, maybe these vicious, nasty purloiners of quality sound do listen to it. But, if they do, they're more (not less) likely to become familiar with the performer and buy stuff. They'd be really likely to buy anything that was really good, on high-quality vinyl (producing music in waves, not blips), with all of the things I mentioned. Of course, they'd have to be educated first. This whole thing started because record companies wanted something easier to market and shelf.

The other issue someone brought up is out-of-issue music. The computer is where it is stored and found.

You assume people actually buy or don't buy things as a matter of finances. That's ridiculous in the US today. If people want something badly enough, they'll buy it. I don't here anywhere in your argument that the "music" today is actually worth paying for.

[wildandcrazyrussian]

Turning the lawyers loose on the customers is nuts. The right answer for declining sales lies in one of those other areas. You have to entice people to buy things; you can't sue them into it.

If Wal*Mart was this nuts, they would have security guards roaming the store, waving guns at people and shouting "No Shoplifting!" to everyone with a shopping cart. They would be out of business within a month if they did that. The recording industry can have the same thing happen to it. There are other ways to spend the entertainment dollar.

17 posted on 08/04/2003 8:06 AM EDT by Nick Danger
**********
That was great!