File Sharing re: Story in SF Gate Today

[hiphopnation]

SFGate

I know there has been much to-do of late about the RIAA and the file sharing quagmire. I posted my letter to my reps here the other day to little response. (Or maybe it got deleted on the day that GD was losing data).

Anyway, how do people at DU feel about it?? It IS stealing, but why is the RIAA content with vilifying potential customers. I just don't see how on earth this is going to secure them more business and make thier financial outcome any LESS grim.

Fuck the RIAA, that's what I say. All this lawyer power and they can't spend a couple hundred thousand on coming up with a "pay file-sharing system"? Do they think they're going to sue file-sharing away?? I guess it's working for now, but it seems draconian and counter-intuitive.

Here's my letter. If you agree, feel free to copy it and send it to your Rep. or write your own. I haven't heard back from Conyers OR Berman but Pelosi (my rep) sent me a courtesy email.

Wadaya think DUers? (my letter)

Dear Representatives:

I am writing to address the proposed Conyers-Berman bill that attempts to make on-line file sharing a felony. I am writing to urge you to reconsider the bill for the following reasons.

1. It is unrealistic to assume that the RIAA and their lobbyists can end the sharing of music files (mp3’s) while such a wide variety of other types of files are in circulation by the millions over various networks everyday.

2. Criminalizing such a widespread and widely enjoyed activity will only create animosity towards Congress and the music industry, and engender disrespect for the law.

3. Such draconian laws are the reason that, after billions of taxpayer dollars spent, we are still losing the so-called “war on drugs.” There is no logic in taking strategies that have failed to combat one social ill and importing them into the service of combating another.

4. There is no evidence whatsoever that making file-sharing a felony will actually reduce file-sharing.


As an artist and musician myself who stands to lose money from file sharing, I also understand the intrinsic value of the practice. By refusing to embrace a seemingly inevitable technological advance in the distribution of music, the RIAA and their lobbyists have chosen instead to litigate the problem away and criminalize their own customers – people who justifiably feel that $16.99 for a CD with 72 minutes of music is an exorbitant price.

As wildly popular as file-sharing has become I am both surprised and offended at the lack of foresight amongst recording industry professionals for failing to see the simple supply/demand equation here. The RIAA is attempting to criminalize file-sharing while at the same time failing to offer a viable, legal alternative to the consumer.

I urge you to communicate this message to the RIAA and their lobbyists on behalf of these consumers. As is the outcome of any revolution radical changes have resulted from on-line communications. The Internet has changed the distribution of information, goods, and services forever. As a result the onus should be on the industry to be malleable and have the foresight necessary to grow with those changes, not against them, to continue to meet the needs of their customers.

[ChrisNYC]

1. Look at a couple of threads from last Sunday night

And many people, myself included, do not believe it is stealing. So please don't just make assertions like they are universally recognized.

[hiphopnation]

4. I'm a musician...

I write, record, and perform my own music. A song that I sink time, money, and energy into ends up on Kazaa and you download it. I get no compensation for it and you have deprived ME of compensation for my work.

That's to say nothing of the RIAA - it is strictly an artist to consumer relationship. Don't you think I deserve some sort of monetary compensation for my song if you enjoy it??

[bocadem]

6. you should enjoy the publicity

at least people are taking the time to download your songs

[starroute]

13. Loss of income is not stealing

Stealing is what happens if you shoplift a CD from a store -- and that's only a misdemeanor. Stealing means taking an item of value away from somebody that they then have to replace or do without. File-sharing doesn't do that. All it does is deprive you of potential revenue that you might or might not have received in its absence.

There are many things that can result in loss of revenue. If I write an unfavorable review of your product, have I stolen something from you? If I come out with superior goods that compete with yours, have I stolen something from you? If I read a book at the library, have I stolen something from the author?

As our Constitution realizes, the real interest here is that of society, and the question is how best to entice artists and inventors to share their creations freely. The answer implicit in copyright and patents is to give them an opportunity for a limited short-term profit, in exchange for not keeping their work under lock and key. But American corporations aren't satisfied with that deal -- that want a guaranteed profit, forever, with the full power of the law backing them up. And that sucks.

Among other things, this system is terrible for the artist. I'm not sure about music, but I know that these days most books appear in editions of only a few tens of thousands of copies, remain on the racks for only a few weeks, and then disappear. After that, they aren't even available by direct order, because companies can't afford to hold onto their backlists. And reprinting is becoming rarer and rarer as well. As a result, the only way to find a book that is more than a year old is to buy a used copy or read it at a library. If those two sources became illegal, books would effectively cease to exist after their initial distribution.

Given current economics, the best deal for most authors would probably be full copyright protection during the first year after publication, after which it would be legal for anyone to redistribute the work *on a non-profit basis* as long as no changes were made and proper credit was given to the originator. The author (and their heirs) would still have control over creation of derivative works during their lifetime or for 60 years after first publication, whichever came later.

[Occulus]

2. here's a problem with copyright law in general

Don't our brains make an unauthorized electrochemical copy of everything we see and hear? I know it sounds silly, but do any of us really think that if the RIAA found a way to delete that song you know from your memory so you can't sing it again, but have to buy it... do any of us really think they wouldn't argue the "right" to do so?

edit: dyslexia

[SheepyMcSheepster]

3. idealistically speaking

who can own a sound or an arragement of sounds? who can own one's and zero's? music is influenced by the music before, nothing is that original, it all comes from somewhere. I am a musician (i don't make a living doing it) and the music i create doesn't belong soley to me, it belongs in part to the artists i have heard throughout my life. Music is worth more than money.

secondly, you will never be able to stop people from sharing things on a computer network, some 14 year old in belgium will always figure out a way around whatever means you put up to stop it.

[Not a robought]

5. This is true

and perhaps it has come time to separate some notions of compensation from distribution of copyright materials.

The focus on revenues from retail distribution is an old model. It packages and commodifies music which we have been used to for a long time. iTunes seems to be working as a method of distribution but it isn't breaking the bank yet I guess because they have yet to hit the WinPC market.

Perhaps time has come to think of an alternative method of paying musical artists for their work that they personally release publicly.

[LWolf]

7. I'm on the fence.

I like to be able to download music. Sometimes I pay for it. Sometimes I download songs offered by the artists themselves. Free. Every once in a while I share. When I share, though, I've never thought of it as stealing. Because I don't burn it; I preview it. If I listen to it on my computer and like it, then I buy a cd. If I don't like it, I don't. And I obviously don't keep listening to what I don't like. It gets deleted.

One musician told me that they get very little in the way of royalties from the sale of their music; they get more from live performances. I don't know about that; just one musician's comment.

Another told me he would like to market his own music by downloading to people (for $$, obviously) and bypass the recording industry.

It seems like the distribution of music is going through a major shift, and the downloading issues are all part of it.

All that said, I strongly support the right of a musician to own what he/she has created, and to control the distribution. That's why, if I like it, I buy it.

[Heddi]

8. my feelings

It seems that the main thrust of the RIAA's case against file sharing is that

1) it makes it easier for piraters to download and burn cd's and then sell them on the street illegally

and

2) that by downloading music, people are getting music for free that they otherwise would have had to have bought, which has cut into record-industry profits.

I think it's only COINCIDENTAL AT BEST that Napster, Gnutella, etc, were launched right around the time that N*sync, Brittney, Christina, and music of their ilk were being propped as the lastest and greatest that the recording industry has to offer.

I download music. So does my husband. So do 98% of the people I know.

Why do we download music?

1) to replace the oodles and oodles of Cassettes, 8-tracks, and albums onto a more managable music format. As it stands, there is no way to play my cassettes, 8-tracks, or records inside my car (as it only has a CD player). I think it is above and beyond for music fans to have to buy multiple-formats over the years just to keep up with technology. I have REM Green on Album. I have it on Cassette. Am I *NOW* supposed to pay $20 for it on CD? Why is the $40 I spent previously not enough?

2) To 'test-drive' songs of new artists. Not to download the entire album, but to check out other songs that we've not heard to see if we WANT to buy the album (cd)

3) To replace worn, nasty CD"s that have not stood well the test of time. Again---I'm not going to pay ANOTHER $20 for a Jane's Addiction CD because mine is scratched.

Without music downloading, record sales STILL would be down because what is put out now isn't music, it's corporate diarrhea spoon-fed to the MTV generation (a generation which I have long grown out of).

As far as Indy musicians---you are upset because people are downloading your music and not buying it. How are they supposed to know about you without Kaaza? What kind of advertising do you do? How is Joe-Blow records in Podunk, KY that never presses more than 200 of any local CD, going to get their bands heard from anyone outside the greater Podunk, KY area?

Perhaps if there were less corporate radio stations that would play no-corporate music, and would introduce people to obscure bands with original sounds, then people would BUY the CD's---but as it stands, the only way I have to hear new music is to download a song or 2 from a band reccomended by a friend. I *THEN* may buy the CD if I like what I hear.

the problem isn't with music downloaders---we're the music fans and we have been all along. The problem is that nothing is being marketed to anyone who is over 16 years old. I'm not into April, I'm not into Michele Branch, or any of those other people. I don't like listening to the radio because it's all crap, and I sure as fuck am not going to spend $20 on a CD that is worth MAYBE $10 just to make the RIAA and major-label brats feel good about themselves.

[HiroP]

9. Popular misconceptions about file-sharing

The RIAA is always trying to create the image that everybody in the music business agrees with their stance on file-sharing, which is definetely not the case.
Just two examples:
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/02/01/file_trading_manifesto/index.html
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle

Secondly, the theory that file-sharing really hurts the industry has not been proven so far. Pointing only to rising CD-R sales to explain a decrease in music CD sales is just pure nonsense. (Can't be the crappy music .. nah .. or horrendous CD prices .. no way) There have been plenty of studies but they don't agree on what the answer is. Mysteriously, those commissioned by the music industry always support their point of view ;)
Here's one that comes to the opposite conclusion:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/communications/story/0,2000048620,20265043,00.htm

In my opinion people shouldn't just repeat the music industry's claims without being sure that they are in fact correct.

[Occulus]

12. Don't they

tyhe RIAA members, ALREADY receive a cut of the price on every blank CD sold?

[dolo amber]

10. RIAA are the true thieves

Perhaps if it didn't cost $20 for a cd, of which roughly what, .03 to .20 goes to the artist?? I worked in the music business for many years, I've seen many *new* artists who the record companies decided in hindsight weren't all that hot after all (and thus got NO promotion after being given loads of money with which to record their album) end up OWING the company money. The recording industry has gone unchecked for entirely too long, the artists have been getting screwed over for years and this whole issue is just a pathetic attempt by the industry to continue the stranglehold they have on their profit making machinery. Regardless what the RIAA says, it has NOTHING to do with artists' rights.

[dolo amber]

11. ps--

and yes, i do download music, like a bastard. :P

[KC]

14. We all

record movies on VHS or have anyway.
I just don't any difference with downloading music.
I don't do it, because my computer doesn't have that much space.
I can see why they'd have a problem with it if you are burning cd's and selling them, but dang, just to download it on your computer to listen to it ? That's crazy to fine people for doing that.

KC