Watch your back, the RIAA is after you!

[Bazirker]

As many of you know, the Recording Industry Association of America has recently claimed that they are going to begin scanning personal computers and suing individuals they find to have "illegal" mp3's downloaded from p2p file sharing networks such as Kazaa and Grokster. This means that if you use a file sharing network, you might want to stop for the time being to avoid RIAA confrontation.

So what's wrong with the RIAA breaking into our computers and suing us? Here's a list.

1. First off, the RIAA is invading your personal privacy. Monitoring the traffic in and out of your computer is no different that spying on someone's house.

2. This breach of privacy continues since the RIAA is likely using programs known as spyware. Spyware can monitor files on your computer and send data via the internet to companies about what files you have, what programs you run, and sometimes even release some of you own private information. This might as well be trespassing since you have unwanted programs that in many cases you did not choose to allow onto your computer. Spyware is somewhat similar to computer viruses; in fact, here are some similarities between the two: they both worm their way into you computer and compromise privacy and performance, programs were designed to block their entry into a computer system, and both frequently cannot be removed without the help of a program. The main difference between spyware and viruses is that spyware is legal. Go to http://security.kolla.de/ for more information on spyware and free programs that battle spyware.

3. The RIAA's purpose in suing individuals is somewhat unfounded. The RIAA claims that p2p networks result in a decrease in music sales, which is statistically an inaccurate claim. Here's an analysis of RIAA music sales that compares them to other large companies.

http://www.p2pnet.net/may03/riaaecon.html

The page is somewhat complicated, but it mathematically analyzes some statistics and concludes that the RIAA's drop in profits is not unique to them; other companies that have nothing to do with p2p networks have experienced a similar trend in the decrease of sales. As the article says, "The CEOs of Eastman-Kodak are in a nearly identical economic situation as the RIAA, yet do not have the luxury of blaiming digital piracy." In other words, the RIAA is just like everyone else and their decrease in sales cannot truely be linked to p2p networks. (Personally, I buy more CD's now that I have p2p networks to expose me to more music.)

4. To the RIAA, this is about money, not music. Note that the RIAA hoardes the money made off of music sales. For a good summary of the crimes the RIAA has committed against musicians and art, check out http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/facts.php

5. Does the RIAA really believe that if they sue me, I'm going to be motivated to buy more of their CD's? "Buy our merchandise or we'll sue you!" You don't see Sony tapping into your computer and threatening to sue you if there isn't evidence that you have bought a NetMD player...What on Earth is the RIAA thinking?

Enough is enough!!! Trying to sue p2p networks is one thing, but threatening us as individuals...the thousands and thousands of users on p2p networks...is just insulting. Since the RIAA is about money and not music, let's fight back by hitting them where it hurts them most: their wallets. Avoid purchasing music from any RIAA labels (namely Time Warner, Sony, BMG, UMG, and EMI.) SPREAD THE WORD!!! Feel free to copy any or all of my words here to post them on other forums. Tell your friends and family about the boycott and the threats the RIAA is making to its own consumers. Our success relies on our numbers; the more we can get involved, the better. Someone needs to remind the leaders of the RIAA that "the customer is always right..."

Protect your digital rights! Boycott the RIAA!

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

[dazzjazz]

While i agree our privacy should be paramount, of no less importance are the rights of musicians who own copyright over the works they produce.

Having played professionally for nearly 20 years, I know just how hard it is to:

Play a musical instrument

Make a living as a musician

Write something worthwhile

I certainly wouldn't want someone stealing my tunes without paying for them, just as I don't play at venues where they don't pay decent rates for musicians.

By STEALING music, you are devaluing it and the people who create it.

So, when downloading music for free, you are STEALING ! People don't just create these musical works for just anyone to take at whim.

So, while you may think the RIAA is some big bad company with more $$ than they know what to do with, step back and think of the impact you're having.

Dazzjazz

[Bazirker]

The thing is that the artists don't make any money off their music anyway. Take a look at the statistics on the very bottom of this page.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

In the short term view of things, the artists are gonna lose a little bit of money if we boycott the RIAA. However, everything is a trade off; if we can successfully boycott the RIAA, it increases the chances of a reform within the system so that the artists don't get screwed anymore. Note that in the final statistics, if the artist makes $4000, the labels make over $700000. Well, the trade-off here is that if the artist makes a little less, the RIAA makes A LOT less. If I was a professional musician (I am a musician and have previously been paid to play,) I'd spare a few hundred dollars and tighten my belt a notch to see a reform in the music industry.

The reform is coming. The RIAA is a dinosaur, and it is nearing the end of rule. It needs to either evolve or prepare for extinction.

[dazzjazz]

Your argument does not hold any water with me.

Firstly, artists negotiate with record companies for a percentage of sales.

So, if they've signed, I can only assume they are happy with the contract for the most part.

So, by stealing their music, you are denying the creators theire due royalty.

I doubt if the domain wasn't the internet, that you'd be doing the same.

For instance, I doubt you'd walk into a CD store, and take a CD, saying to the sales staff "I am stealing this as a protest against the RIAA".

You'd be locked up for sure.

Your motivations are purely selfish - you just want free music.

[porio]

Maybe the RIAA is the biggest theft in all of this (or maybe not), but please remember that always the thinnest thread is the first to be broken. So if you are stealing music, the least damage will be to the recording companies and the greater will be either to the musicians or the medium and small music shops. This is what is going on here in Chile, where you can see everybody (musicians, record companies and music shops) pleading against piracy, but the only ones that really have had to close their doors are some smaller music shops (Some have had to lower their prices, and make 'buy 3x2' bargains and things like that, which is a good side of the situation). And we can see musicians, one after another, that cannot succeed because their CD's are being pirated and sold in the streets (well, IMO many of them don't deserve to succeed, but that's another discussion... :wink: )

So, the bigger ones will be the very last ones to be damaged by piracy in any of its flavors. Because of that, I'm really happy of the RIAA being after you!!

[Bazirker]

I want free music???? Would you like me to take pictures of all the CD's that I own? I have hundreds!

I'm pissed because some company seems to think they have the right to violate my privacy because I download mp3's that you can't even buy on CD.

Did you guys actually read that link I posted about what the RIAA does to the artists? How they sign bands? How the label gets approximately $125 for every dollar the band makes?

This isn't about the right to download music, this is about a company that thinks they have the right to violate my privacy and take me to court because I can't afford to buy a $20 CD everytime I want new music. Hell, it's frankly getting tough to find CD's worth buying anyways.

As a side note, I am a musician and have some experience working with professional musicians. I understand what their lifestyle is like, what kind of money they make, and the loopholes and crap they have to put up with every day of the week. If you think that I'm some idiot kid that just wants to pirate free stuff and doesn't care how his actions affect others, think again. I don't just want this lawsuit junk to end, I want to see artists emancipated from RIAA.

[porio]

OK, Bazirker, I didn't know what kind of 'downloader' you are. But let's face it: there are many forms of unpunished piracy are doing more damage to the weaker than to any other. And that has to be stopped, or at least reduced to a minimun (after all, I do have some copied CDs -~5% of my collection- but you must agree that this is unharmful).

Maybe the whole point is that I (and many others maybe) am not so sensitive about privacy; I don't care if they monitor my traffic because I can't imagine what harm can that do to me (besides, it's some time since I gave up downloading MP3s because of poor quality). I guess they will focus in traffic through p2p software which we know that does not have any security. Perhaps I'm being naive about spyware, being confident that they will not be interested in my private information. And as they say "who does nothing, fears nothing" (I translated an spanish saying).

I agree with you in the sense that chasing mp3-downloaders will not be a solution, 'cause there will always be a way of escaping it. Maybe the companies have to focus on the added value of buying an original (attractive booklet with lyrics, some key to access online material, etc) rather than punishment.

And finally, if someone has to emancipate, they have to be the artists. 99% of non-musician people pleading against RIAA will sound suspicious to me, as if they were trying to justify piracy. That was what I thought of you first, but now I see I was wrong.

Just re-think the 'thinnest thread' thing before calling to raise arms against a giant.

[Bazirker]

Yanno, another thing you guys are focusing on is how p2p networks will automatically result in a drop in music sales. I posted an entire page analyzing figures, and the RIAA's drop in profits mirrors those of the rest of the entire USA economy. In other words, everyone seems to be losing money, but the RIAA has the conveiniece of blaming it on digital piracy. In the cases of nearly every single downloader I know, p2p networks have done exactly what Napster wanted them to do: they have exposed people to more music, raised interest in music, and gotten more artists out on the scene. And, logically following that, people have more CD's they might be interested in buying. I buy twice as many CD's now as I did before digital piracy because I have an easier time finding bands I like. I have actually heard today referred to as the Golden Age of Music because it is so easy to find music you like.

And, as stated before, if file sharing is stealing, why isn't selling a used CD stealing?

[Guest Anonymous]

I can say as a personal experience that that's true. I was never much of a music guy before one of my friends finally convinced me to try out this odd little thing called Napster. Before then, I had never bought a single CD. Then, when I got to listen to my own kinda music (not the complete crap they play on the radio), I started to get into new bands and new genres, and after I got exposed I became a near music-addict, and I'd buy the CD cause I needed to get better quality, portability, etc...

p2p takes the guesswork out of buying music. You don't wind up with CDs that suck, you can buy the music that you know you like, instead of relying on some secondhand and often unreliable critic.

That is how this rise in p2p networks has, as zirk said, NOT hurt cd profits. RIAA is pointing fingers to make up for their own problems, and innocent people are going to get into lots of trouble. We can't just let this happen.

[Lysander]

And, as stated before, if file sharing is stealing, why isn't selling a used CD stealing?

It is. As far as any record label is concerned, even LENDING a CD is a copyright infringement.

[Bazirker]

So why aren't they after all the larger franchises that allow the buying and selling of used CD's? As stated before, they're having a great time using p2p networks as a scapegoat, I'm sure all the other companies in the economy wish they had someone to sue everytime they had a drop in profits.

[davidhawkins768]

I agree with the fact that it is stealing, but the question needs to be asked why do people do it?

I will freely admit that I download mp3's, I listen to them, and if I find I like it I will buy the record any way. If it's no good, I don't. In this way, I can't see it being any different to listening to it on a radio, or on the tv etc. I don't find I am buying any less records as a result. The only thing is I have a better quality collection (open to argument by my girlfriend)!

I think the reason people do it needs to be addressed, ir prevent rather than cure the problem!

[BJ]

As far as any record label is concerned, even LENDING a CD is a copyright infringement.

:shock: Boy, I'd better borrow as many CDs as I can from my public library before the RIAA shuts them down.

Seriously, though, for each one of us librarians out there (someone who must have the original CD to archive and appreciate) there are at least ten rednecks who download an MP3 and keep it with no intention of buying anything. But how can anyone tell who is who?

One more scrap to thow on this burning pile: if memory serves, the Dixie Chicks (not a band I listen to, but one I admire) sued Sony for breach of contract. I guess Sony was underreporting sales and pulling other accounting sneakiness to defraud them out of due royalties. Cute! I'd say if the RIAA gets to monitor MP3 trading, maybe the government can start monitoring the RIAA. And since we commoners like to pretend we monitor the government, it comes full circle.

And finally, if it wasn't for MP3 trading, I never would have found (and subsequently purchased every last album from) three of my top 10 favourite groups.

Eh...maybe I really don't have anything substantial to contribute to this thread...

[Bazirker]

I'd say that's a substantial contribution...if RIAA monitors us, government should monitor RIAA. Turnabout is fair play, and that's an excellent thought. Too bad everything else doesn't work that way...

[Guest Anonymous]

It is. As far as any record label is concerned, even LENDING a CD is a copyright infringement.

are you sure it's illegal? i cannot believe so many legit-looking used record stores, including such chains as cd-exchange, music warehouse etc., are out there and doing business when used cd trading is illegal.

as for leding cd's to your 'real' (not on-line) friend, i heard it falls under the 'fair use' category, which is an exception to copyright infringement. but they might have changed that law already in order to prosecute that kind of friendly interactions. anyway, that's a pure bs.

[davidhawkins768]

I've been reading up and copyright varies. basically it comes down to what is in their disclaimer on the cd/covers. Read below taken from copyright service uk:

COPYING, DUPLICATION, REPRODUCTION:

The right to produce a copy of the work.

Do you wish certain groups to be able to copy your work? if so what terms would you attach?

SELLING & HIRING:

Normally this would be expressly forbidden without the copyright holders consent.

DISTRIBUTION:

You may for example have written a shareware program which you will allow to be duplicated and distributed freely so long as you are identified as the author.

COMMERCIAL, PERSONAL, EDUCATIONAL:

Will you allow your work to be used differently by certain groups or individuals?

For example, perhaps you want to allow copying for private use but not for commercial gain.

LICENCES:

For software, commercial and educational documents in particular, the copyright disclaimer may carry information about obtaining a licence to reproduce the work.

By not obtaining a licence, use of the work may be considered in breach of copyright.

RIGHT TO BE IDENTIFIED AS THE AUTHOR.

If for example, the work is distributed without your control, you will wish to ensure that you are still identified as the author/copyright owner.

Hope this helps some . . .

[meko_01]

I've read several posts on this discussion and people wonder what can happen to me "the little guy" at the other end of a p2p network with the RIAA "watching". Well... I can tell you because it happened to me. I am a professional musician who writes and records my own music as well as playing in a "covers" band. So, I've been on both sides of the download issue.... but I did come home one afternoon to find an email in my inbox from my internet service provider saying that a certain file that I was sharing on p2p had been picked up by the company that owned the copyright. It had been traced to my IP address and if I did not remove the file immediately my internet service would be terminated and I would be turned over for prosecution. It can happen, so don't laugh it off!

[Guest Anonymous]

Just to add a point that has been brushed (e.g., unreleased tracks) but not discussed, I'd like to mention that many people downloading MP3s are doing absolutely nothing illegal. Ok, I'm not naive, I know that this is the exception rather than the rule. Still, there are plenty of tracks out there that can be freely traded. I don't like the idea of having someone looking into my private life, just to check in on me. Pardon me if I don't care to live in 1984 (Orwellian, not Reagan).

*Disclosure: I have no idea what these "spyware" applications can do. The following argument assumes that you ARE NOT SHARING copyrighted music.*

Let's take a trip back to the Metallica v/s Napster days (to use an example everyone should remember). We'll say that I have every last track from "Ride the Lightening" (and I do). Guess what: I also own the CD. I have the right to make copies of the media for personal use. It's the same thing that allows you to make back-up disks for programs on your computer. Or, to really strike a chord, it's what allows copying music onto blank MDs. So what if I want to download a copy rather than rip it from my own CD? Were I to find that I'd been cut from internet service or called to court for one of these files, the inconvenience alone would be enough to make me blow a fuse. No flame, please, only playing Devil's advocate.