Music Industry Sends Warning to Song Swappers

Reuters ^ | April 29, 2003 | Sue Zeidler

[BlazingArizona]

One may not like it--but one should respect it, or get used to being considered a thief. <P As a practical matter, the tendency of consumers to use file-trading networks is a function of price. Using these netwoeks involves going to a certain amont of trouble (ripping files from your own CD's to share, setting up software) and assuming some risk (of spyware). If labels cut out about thirteen layers of perk-slurping middlemen and priced CD's at a more realistic $5, file trading would vanish overnight.

[Jhoffa_]

Absolutely..

There is too much money at stake here for the freeloaders to win out..

This is going to brought under control in time.

I remember FReeper Vannarox had some interesting ideas on the subject and said it was entirely possible with existing technology.

[Poohbah]

There's been a solution to that issue for decades--and some of the smash-the-RIAA purists here on FR absolutely hate it, because it involved paying a small tax on CD-R/CD-RW media.

[rottweiller_inc]

Let's take this a step further so we're in line with hollywood and recording artists. My first amendment rights are violated if speech, including songs, were not free.

[Poohbah]

Of course...one could simply opt to NOT PURCHASE the music at all, AND not bother doing the file-swapping...but that requires people to behave as mature, responsible adults, which has been steadily deprecated over the decades.

If we are to die as a nation of freemen, we must be the authors of our own destruction.

[Mister Magoo]

That's no longer viable. Many people simply download the MP3s and either play them on their computer or stereo. Or transfer them to an IPod. Car stereo are now available as 40 gigabyte hard drives. Soon, you will be able to simply plug in your Ipod into a car stereo and be ready to go.

[rottweiller_inc]

this is especially true since the only way artists are heard of at all is over public owned airwaves..all advertising even is own by the public according to the FCC. Why should artisits profit over a public owned medium?

[Poohbah]

Hey, feel free to not purchase the latest Dixie Twits album if their stupidity is that offensive to you.

But don't pretend that you have some sort of right to get their stuff for free.

There's an amazing fact out there: music recordings are not a necessity of life. You can live just fine without buying them; you can live just fine without having to get them on Kazaa.

[rottweiller_inc]

is haveing artists promoted over public owned airwaves free? if it is to have their music played why is not my right to hear the music for free?

[Drumbo]

SamAdams posted
Personally, I think the music industry benefits by the trading of MP3s as more people are exposed to the music, many of which will eventually purchase the CD . . .

Mister Magoo posted
A recent Business Week article stated that over 60% of teenagers under the age of 18 get all or most of their music from file swapping. I have friends that haven't bought CDs in over 5 years.

You just can't argue with logic like this when people on the same side argue both sides of the street. So I won't.

[rottweiller_inc]

you seem to be saying the public should provide the airwaves to promote music for free but the public must pay for another medium to hear it?

[Poohbah]

is haveing artists promoted over public owned airwaves free?

No. Do you think that radio stations don't cost a pretty penny to own, operate, and maintain their licenses?

[rottweiller_inc]

If the US ever scrapped it's tax system for a national sales tax there would be plenty of tax accountants screaming it was'nt fair to them.

[Poohbah]

you seem to be saying the public should provide the airwaves to promote music for free but the public must pay for another medium to hear it?

The airwaves are NOT provided "for free."

Your knowledge of FCC licensing requirements is, to put it charitably, sorely lacking.

[Poohbah]

Your arguments are getting increasingly inane and off-point.

[NittanyLion]

Of course...one could simply opt to NOT PURCHASE the music at all, AND not bother doing the file-swapping...but that requires people to behave as mature, responsible adults, which has been steadily deprecated over the decades.

The industry's business model will have to change, but in the meantime you're exactly right. File sharing is clearly immoral.

[Koblenz]

BTW, I fully support Free Republic's right to have the articles posted here. I'm just making the argument that it's technically the same thing as file-swapping MP3s.

Personally, I think the music industry benefits by the trading of MP3s as more people are exposed to the music, many of which will eventually purchase the CD and/or attend the concerts of the recording act in question. I also think newspapers and magazines gain a wider readership by exposure on sites like Free Republic. (Though it would help if we all got in the habit of clicking the source link so that the web traffic of the sites providing the articles are duly compensated.)

There are a number of issues here. While we conservatives may not agree with the RIAA's members on many (most/all) political stances, what's at stake here is simply protection of private property. In short, the musician or artist who creates the song lets the record company distribute it for him or her. And don't give me this nonsense about how it's unfair: the record companies take all the risk. They have the right to control distribution of intellectual property, just as book publishers have the right to control distribution of their books. If you went and photocopied a book, you'd clearly be stealing. This is basically the same thing.

As far as FR posting articles, sure it's done, but we don't post articles from places that really object. Most of the other sites that we post from probably don't mind (if they did, they'd tell us, and we could only post excerpts from then on). The sites probably don't care because it drives some traffic to their site, and with sites, traffic is what matters. I'm sure that posting articles from small town newspapers increases traffic to those sites as some people click through, whereas if there was no post here, no one would click through. If we posted articles from a site that charged for access, I'm sure most people would agree that would not be a good thing.

As far as increasing exposure to the music, that's the record company's decision, not yours. You aren't in charge of marketing Avril Lavigne's music, and EMI, or whomever she signed a contract with, has that responsibility. They may decide to release some of her music as "freeware". And then you can copy it. But if they don't, you can't. That's way beyond any fair use. It's sort of convenient that by copying all this music for free, you're really benefiting the record companies, isn't it?

[Not Insane]

"Kazaa and its ilk are for 100% Grade-A idiots. Read the Kazaa license carefully. You basically give Kazaa complete control over your computer"

Amd Kazaa lite?

[KevinB]

Even if a specific statute was enacted criminalizing file-swapping, it would be unenforceable

Huh? One already exists. It's called the United States Copyright Act.

[Poohbah]

Part of the reason we have so many "anti-freedom" laws is that we've wandered further and further from basic ideas of accountability.