File sharing and the RIAA

In light of recent developments, what are your feelings on the whole RIAA situation?

The very compressed version of mine go something like this:
The RIAA is an outdated fat-cat organization that is unable to change with the times, and is shooting itself in the foot. The money from recordings should go to the artists, not to some middleman.
What do they expect when they charge $20 for a CD that could sell for much less... then give a tiny amount of that to the artist, and keep the rest for themselves?

Personally, I use it as a "preview method" most of the time. If I hear of a new artist, I download some of their songs.. check them out. If I like them, I buy cds. Exceptions are situations where I only WANT one song by the artist... (Break Stuff by Limp Bizkit is a good example) so I just download the one and leave it at that.

I think that if there was a way for me to download the one song and give a buck or so to the artist directly, I would do it.

What do you all think? (Not just about that, but about the whole situation?)

First, as I said in another post, I think downloading whole albums and storing them or burning them is theft. I also understand that record labels spend lots of money on advertizing and merchandizing and should be compensated for their work.

I personally use it the same way you do Nate, as a preview method. Hell if I don't like the song, or don't plan on buying the CD, then I delete the file. And yes, there are a handful that I've only downloaded one song of cuz that's the only song I liked by the artist.

As for the whole situation, the RIAA has lost their minds and are taking copyright law to a place it was never intended to go. Don't even call what these corporations do as "capitalism". They are seeking to use the force of government to maintain their stranglehold on an industry which has evolved beyond them. A true capitalist would figure out a way to make money off file sharing without screwing file sharers over. I'm SURE there has to be a business model or method for doing just what Nate and I would like (download a song and give money DIRECTLY to the artist).

I think if there were such a system of giving directly to the artist, you could market it and make a obscene amount of money just taking a 5% finders/usage fee. You can market it by saying 95% of the money goes directly to the artist. Something no record label can state.

It just baffles my mind that people who head multi billion dollar corporations can't find a way to adapt to the technology instead of trying to squash it and take copyright law completely out of context.

They need to understand that where technology is involved, as the Borg put it best: "Resistance is futile."

They should go back to the "Listening booths" of the 50s and 60s so that we the consumer can make a decision of buying a CD or not if they are so up in arms about the file sharing.� Blockbuster Music had that type of concept however they used to repackage the CDs after someone listened to them. I don't think you can do that now.� (they had the listening station where you could take any CD in the store and listen to it)

What happened to the CD singles, the 45s, the cassingles where, if you liked one song you could decide if you want the entire CD?

The suits are getting most of the money, not the artist.� That's why they are afraid of the medium instead of using it.

Janis Ian and Courtney Love both wrote articles on that.

Indeed, I was wondering about that myself. They don't have the listening booths, other than the preselected "new" or "hot" releases on the walls. I liked Blockbuster's listening booths.

The suits are just being excessive (I hestitate to use the term "greedy" since there is no fixed definition). They want all the profit at the expense of their long term business. In time, they will vanish and whomever makes file sharing a profitable business for artists, consumers, and themselves will be the new "recording industry".

People like the RIAA are the people who give capitalism a bad name. They ceased being capitalists the moment they turned to the force of government to hang on to their little "empires".
Sadly for them, the free market is an unforgiving mistress and will soon spurn them for the "next big thing."

Sadly for them... but good for us.
This is why I love capitalism.
:)

only a matter of time before someone comes out with a better system.

Future Shop has a listening booth type thing now.� They have almost every album in the store on a computer system. You just scan the bar code and away you go.� It's cool.� As for File sharing: It is technicaly theft, but Its good for getting those instumentals that go behind movies or finding stuff that is hard to find on CD now.� Thats what I use it for.

Saturn (an electronics store, chain, w/ a CD/DVD component) had this type of system in place when I was in munich 2+ years ago. Scan the CD and you got to listen to about 30 seconds of whatever track you wanted to on the cd and every track had a clip. It was a good way of wasting a couple of hours.

There are similiar scan barcode of CD/ listen sound clip systems in Barnes & Noble and at Virgin Megastores throughout NYC.� They're pretty useful when trying to decide if you want to buy the album to get the whole recording.� And definitely a nice time-killer.� Alas, the CDs at both stores are pretty pricey, so I usually make a note of�what I like�and go somewhere else�to purchase them at a more affordable price.

People like the RIAA are the people who give capitalism a bad name.

I figured that the ruthless inhumanity that capitalism tends to inspire would be the thing that gives capitalism a bad name (being slaves to the almighty dollar). But silly me, images of the jungle, current day sweat shops, multinational corporations shopping their operations to countries that have the most misery so that can turn the most profit (like nike or the gap), the destruction of local commerce through large retailers (walmart, target).. come to mind far too quickly, instead of all the wonderful things that raw-capitalism brings.

- b

No system is perfect, every one has its flaws.� The trick is weighing the pros and cons of each system.

"Current day sweat shops" - you mean where corporations go overseas, pay four times the living wage in that country, and put them in *a* better work environment (not necessarily by our standards) than they would find elsewhere in their country?

"shopping their operations to countries that have the most misery" - because no American worker would accept a low wage (and the companies are forced to pay minimum wages), but the public still wants their products on the cheap side? If t-shirts were made in this country by minimum wage paid workers, they would cost a fortune.

"destruction of local commerce through large retailers" - yet you shop at them and tend to enjoy their low prices. Funny how they are demonized for bringing the exact thing most Americans want: highly available products at a cheap price. You can't have it both ways.

Corporations going overseas could be solved by not subsidizing various parts of our economy, relaxing or eliminating most of the government interference in the economy (we do not have a capitalistic free market in the US), and not protecting large firms from up-and-comers.

Sorry, but point to any other system of economics that has yielded so much prosperity in such a short period of time.

"Current day sweat shops" - you mean where corporations go overseas, pay four times the living wage in that country, and put them in *a* better work environment (not necessarily by our standards) than they would find elsewhere in their country?

you mean the places where they lock (i.e. chain) the doors, don't provide emergency exits and when the place burns down it kills hundreds of people. where they jail labor organisers, use child labor don't bother with environmental standards, plunder all the natural resources of an area and then move.. not those corporations. its the good corporations that want to really make a difference in those communities that go to such places.

"shopping their operations to countries that have the most misery" - because no American worker would accept a low wage (and the companies are forced to pay minimum wages), but the public still wants their products on the cheap side? If t-shirts were made in this country by minimum wage paid workers, they would cost a fortune.

Whenever anyone says something like this, it makes me laugh. Because really, do you think production savings for the most part are passed onto the consumer? Are VW bugs made in germany vs. the VW bugs made in Mexico the same price or are they different prices when you see them in the store window? If you want the one from germany it will be XXX but if you get the exact same bug from mexico its YYY. Pah. Bet you don't see the difference do you? But to Volkswagen there is a world of difference. Its the same way with most every other industry on the planet. Shirts made in the US would cost just about the same as shirts made in Taiwan only that the corporation makes a LOT more profit because it can pay workers to work in substandard conditions and for much less than they could if they had to work people here. Of course, there are always industries where production cost is very sensitive, but I doubt that they would "cost a fortune".

"destruction of local commerce through large retailers" - yet you shop at them and tend to enjoy their low prices. Funny how they are demonized for bringing the exact thing most Americans want: highly available products at a cheap price. You can't have it both ways.

funny, I rarely ever shop at walmart or target. Unfortunately most people rarely look at anything outside of their wallet, well, until Jonny can't read or there is a huge chemical factory outside their neighborhood dumping chemicals into their drinking water do they act. But if the chemical factory is in uganda, who cares!

Corporations going overseas could be solved by not subsidizing various parts of our economy, relaxing or eliminating most of the government interference in the economy (we do not have a capitalistic free market in the US), and not protecting large firms from up-and-comers.

Yea and watch the monopolies grow grow grow! We had this system before, it was the late 1800s-early 1900s. I am sure we're all ready go back to the iron law of capitalism. I know I can't wait to work my 120 hour work week for my $.02 an hour.

Sorry, but point to any other system of economics that has yielded so much prosperity in such a short period of time.

oh I am sure the spanards were doing a great amount of profit when they conquered south america and plundered a lot of its natural resources (and killed off most of its population). but we've seem to have thrown out that economic model.. well, until recently.

you mean the places where they lock (i.e. chain) the doors, don't provide emergency exits and when the place burns down it kills hundreds of people. where they jail labor organisers, use child labor don't bother with environmental standards, plunder all the natural resources of an area and then move.. not those corporations. its the good corporations that want to really make a difference in those communities that go to such places.

Yes, and there are *SO* many of those types of corporations. Sure, they exist and they are reprehensible, but you are taking a few bad apples and condeming the whole lot.

funny, I rarely ever shop at walmart or target.

Perhaps now, but you used to when you live here in Texas.

Yea and watch the monopolies grow grow grow! We had this system before, it was the late 1800s-early 1900s. I am sure we're all ready go back to the iron law of capitalism. I know I can't wait to work my 120 hour work week for my $.02 an hour.

Point to one coersive monopoly in history where there existed a free market in that sector of the economy. You won't find one absent government regulation or interference. Case in point: ALCOA (Aluminum Company of America) were a monoply (they owned 98.5% of the aluminum market back in the 1920s (not sure of date)). Were they coersive? Did they charge massive prices for aluminum and have huge profit margins? NO. Because the free market in metals forced them to keep their prices reasonable. Raise them above market value and people either go to alternative metals or competition enters the market.

Coersive monopolies can only exist with the help of government intervention. A monopoly in and of itself is not a detriment to an economy when that economy is capitalism.

Oh, and you still haven't pointed to another economic system which has yielded so much prosperity in such a short time.

Yes, and there are *SO* many of those types of corporations. Sure, they exist and they are reprehensible, but you are taking a few bad apples and condeming the whole lot.

So you're saying that there are so many better types of corporations that come to these despirately poor third world countries with the interest of paying them high wages and improving their economies .. until when, they become expensive and then they move some place else? anyway, i'm pulling the same trick you are, you're saying that they improve things (and in some cases they do, like mexico's GDP has gone up significantly since the passage of NFTA), but they also do LOTS of bad things, like a canadian company suing mexico (under NAFTA) for trying to create environmental standards which would have cost that company money. when your central goal is profit, i think having a healthy distruct of corporations is a good thing.

Perhaps now, but you used to when you live here in Texas.


Really. How much stuff of mine do you think came from wallmart? Actually it really doesn't matter. Texas was a long time ago and well, part of living is being able to change your opinions based on experiences, influences, etc etc etc. So while I may have been the first in class to recite the pledge of allegiance it doesn't mean that I am forever bound to how I believed at one point or another.

Point to one coersive monopoly in history where there existed a free market in that sector of the economy.

Okay, I'll point to one as soon as you point to one post industrial free market economy. Economic theory is great since well, it doesn't have any real world application and while you can say that competition would keep prices down (and it would) i can counter and say that it would also keep wages down and essentially without restrictions (like some trade barriers, anti-dumping laws) or regulation to keep giant companies from buying up smaller ones at the onset or out and out crushing them, it could turn into a giant race to the bottom.

Oh, and you still haven't pointed to another economic system which has yielded so much prosperity in such a short time.

Define what you mean by prosperity and to whom and maybe I'll attempt to answer this request.

Ah, but you forget your economics...

rule #1: why do something when you can get paid for nothing?

As for the whole situation, the RIAA has lost their minds and are taking copyright law to a place it was never intended to go. Don't even call what these corporations do as "capitalism". They are seeking to use the force of government to maintain their stranglehold on an industry which has evolved beyond them. A true capitalist would figure out a way to make money off file sharing without screwing file sharers over. I'm SURE there has to be a business model or method for doing just what Nate and I would like (download a song and give money DIRECTLY to the artist).

I'm going to play devil's advocate here. #1. they are using copyright law *exactly* as it was intended. by having the copyright they are granted a monopoly on the product and its distribution for a number of years (argue as you may about the term of this, but copyright law is a necessary evil). copyright law is there to give incentive to people to release their works and to be compensated for that effort by granting the person a monopoly. artists have just been stupid about how they have given this copyright away. But seriously, how are the record companies screwing file sharers exactly? File sharers are flaunting the existing laws by STEALING property that does not belong to them, whether for sampling or because its the only good song on the album. If you do not own rights to the music, obtaining that music through file sharing for whatever reason is illegal. By bringing these suits the RIAA is doing what every other company (or group of companies) would do if their product was being stolen. The only thing that the RIAA has been majorly guilty of is attempting to push the burden of copyright enforcement (which is up to the copyright holder) from themselves to the government, which has more resources, obviously.

The true capitalist would do the minimum amount of effort to seek the most profit. They can do this by protecting their current revenue stream by making it difficult enough to file trade (the fear of a suit may help keep most people in line or copy protecting cds so that joe blow user can't rip them onto their hard-drive) while neither completely encouraging or discouraging the sale of online music. And if you think that the new online music stores don't give a hefty amount to record companies, you're kidding yourselves.

In general, all they need do is make it "hard enough" so that my dad doesn't put him album collection online. The motivated thief will always be able to get around such measures but if average joe-blow can't file trade, he'll have to get his music elsewhere (and the only reason why there isn't a whole lot of online sales is because the record companies would really love it if they could figure out someway of making you for each play).

Thats the true capitalist, maximize profits (while trying to limit damage). If they can get away with it and it increases their profit, why should they care?

Also, there are methods by which you can give money DIRECTLY to artists. Its called, donations or the tip jar or going to see a band that isn't on a label yet or (i believe, not having used it) mp3.com or asking them to put up songs on their website for download for some cash. There is nothing stopping artists from *NOT* signing record deals that totally fuck them.

Come on Bill, you know there's no stopping technology. "File trading" is here and it's here to stay. It requires a new business model to be formed, just as cell phones have changed the landscape of the telecommunications industry and how things are done.

A true capitalist would never maximize their profits at the expense of their future business. A true capitalist wants to stay in the game, adapt to the times, and continue making lots of green. Sure, companies can maximize their profits by doing all sorts of "mean" things, but in the end, they end up shooting themselves in the foot long-term.

Practical example: Southwest Airlines. They don't expand their routes that often, do not fly out of big "hub" airports, choose not to fly internationally, and limit their equipment to the relatively affordable 737. They also don't have first class, assigned seating, or meals. They could easily make a ton more money short term by simply having a first class section, but they don't.

Result? They've posted a profit every single quarter since they first started up (I think, or at the very least since the early 1990s). During the 90s, they were not making the huge profits the main carriers were, but like the tortise, slow but sure, they made their way.

Southwest is a model of what capitalism is all about.

Come on Bill, you know there's no stopping technology. "File trading" is here and it's here to stay. It requires a new business model to be formed, just as cell phones have changed the landscape of the telecommunications industry and how things are done.

We both work in this industry and you can honestly say this? Hmm. .how exactly are things different in telecommunications industry now that cell phones have arrived? Universal access? Nope. Many incompatable air interface standards (hell, I see that as a step backwards), no phone number transperancy (but that may change, another step backwards, if i switch to sprint from MCI i still get to keep my phone number), outrageous fees for off network use (if i use an MCI phone card to make a call from my hotel room that uses a sprint backbone to carry it, i don't get charged an extra $.35 a minute). As far as the consumer is concerned, the cell phone provides some ease of use that a landline doesn't, but other than that, its a big screw job (ask anyone that has accidentally gone over their alloted minutes in a month). In my opinion, the only thing that cell phones have done have made it easier to communicate at all times (which granted is a big change, and not always a good one IMNHO but not really to the telecommunications industry itself) and allowed for existing companies to garner more profit for themselves by not having to pay the local exchange (like AT&T and sprint). Lower long distance costs.. maybe, but you could probably attribute that mostly due to the break up of ma bell, not the introduction of cellular. But if you look at the cell industry, how has it changed? The major players are all still there, mostly because the cost of entry into the cell market is way to high.

Of course, talk me in about 2/3 years about 802.11 and maybe you'll have something.. telephony over IP (using something like cisco's 802.11 phone) with universal (most likely free) access through wireless hotspots may cause some heart burn amongst telecom execs. Of course, if you think they're not evolving, (see t-mobile's hot spots service), you'd be wrong. Major shake up in the industry, not really.

A true capitalist would never maximize their profits at the expense of their future business.

I don't even know where to begin here.. Enron, MCI, Adelphia, shit.. how about the statistics that were released (I dunno, a year or so ago) about how american companies spend a lot less than european companies on R&D. Maybe in the ideal capitalist world, you wouldn't jeopardize future profits for short term gain, but if short term gain keeps you afloat, then thats what you do. If the RIAA really thought they were shooting themselves in the foot, they wouldn't march down this path. While I think that suing file traders isn't a great idea, it will most likely have its intended effect, which is to *limit* (not eliminate) file trading. You may trade smaller quantities, you may stop entirely, who knows. But if it makes it less likely while not generating a gigantic boycott or something, then its in their interest.

Southwest is a model of what capitalism is all about.

It sure is, until a larger carrier (like say, american) decides to buy them or by having a much larger reserve compete in only the markets that southwest serves at cut throat prices until it drives them out of business when they can jack them back up after they're gone. Since a much larger carrier would probably be able to weather a price war for longer, the temporary loss would be outweighed by the long term gain.

From what I've heard, there's really no indication as to whether anyone is actually losing money because of file sharing; people have cited statistics that work either way.� If CD sales really ARE down, it's probably because: 1) we're in a recession, and sales of EVERYTHING are down, and 2) CD prices keep going up, for no apparent reason.� I really think the whole file-sharing thing tends to be blown WAY out of proportion.� Sharing and downloading files might not be the most legal thing to do, but I don't see it as being all that harmful either.� Besides, as everyone has pointed out a zillion times before,�many people are MORE likely to buy CDs when they've downloaded and liked a few songs.� There's also the question of songs that are out of print or otherwise unavailable.� In these cases, the RIAA or whoever would probably be all too eager to jump in and try to defend their copyright, even though they're just sitting on it in the first place, and there's no way they CAN make any money through the normal methods.

2) CD prices keep going up, for no apparent reason.�

Because the industry was involved in price fixing which is a violation of the Sherman Anti-trust act.

http://www.musiccdsettlement.com

What boggles me about this whole thing is the anti trust part of it.

The RiAA is coming down on the people who are sharing the files, but the record companies fixed the prices so that no matter where you went, you couldn't find cheap CDs. I mean that one CD type "Best Price" or something used to be $12.99 or less.� Then it wound up to be $14.99 or more.

So why is the RIAA coming down on the users/music purchasers when their industry violated a law?� The record companies are guilty or more guilty than the people who are file sharing.