RIAA Responds to Senator

Actually the RIAA stated when this all started that they will go after people that have traded as few as five songs.
Take a look at the history of this and you will see.
Yes, it is true the Courts were shown a small sampling but they aren't telling the whole truth and that will eventually come out.

It's easy to think that you can't beat a free product but how do you explain the massive market for bottled water? You can get drinking water almost anywhere for free but people still pay up to and sometimes over $1 for a single bottle of water. And that's just the small bottles. I know this question has been brought up here several times before but it still has a point. I saw Jack Valenti being interviewed a while back and he said you simply can't compete against free. I'd still like to see the MPAA and the RIAA explain bottled water then.

If you ask me, it all comes down to bad business decisions. In this kind of business, consumers drive the market. If you don't meet the demands of the consumers, you're going to fail. They failed by not providing what type of distribution the people wanted in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. What they've come out with so far has hardly been effective because the price they're demanding is hardly justifiable.

I don't run any file sharing progs but I also don't buy music in the store or online. Not because I don't want the music, but because I just don't think they deserve my money. If they would invest that money into finding better artists and giving me a better music experience that would convince me to put some cash into the system. But, if they're going to use my money to pay a bunch of lawyers to take some college student's gas money away then I'm going to keep my cash.

said by joebear29:

---

The five songs listed in the subpoena are considered a representative sample of the songs available.

---

I agree with you on this. Go into Kazaa, look up some random mp3, then check "Find More From Same User". I have yet to find someone is only sharing 5 or less songs. If you're sharing, it tends to be at least 10+.

the RIAA admitted to price fixing. several times. and all we got were a few bucks back if we asked for it. where's THEIR punishment? lousy middlemen...

said by whiteshp:

---

In my opinion this is how things will play out. With penalties so high even if they RIAA gets money 1 out of 20 from peons with 1-3 songs it’s still quite a bit of money in the bank.

---

They aren't expecting any real money from this. It's part of the tactic to curb trading, as you mentioned later. They might not be going for small time song traders because of the bother, but I think there's more to it. Copyright law states in order for their to be an infringement violation there has to be evidence of considerable loss in the market made by the infringing person. I'm guessing people are finally getting wise to the RIAA's rampant coloring of copyright law and are letting them know it. Now the RIAA has a back pedal a bit to avoid an incident.

Sounds like they are back pedaling in response to some hard questions about their tactics. Technically small traders have a defensible case in regards to what is considered a punishable offense of copyright infringement. Maybe the glass house the RIAA made is starting to gets some cracks.

Ok, so I set my computer up to "Share Files With Other Users" and the folder I am sharing is my music folder. So if somebody networks (right click on my computer), MAP NETWORK DRIVE, and puts in my computer \\24.158.***.***\JDBhome\shared music that means that whoever can get my music. So why want everybody do what I just did? and have a big network of computers sharing only their music folder?

I give out zips of music on some IRC network (won't say which one), try getting me you RIAA punks!

.99 cents for music on apple? I'll take it.

There is no reason I should have to buy a full album at the cost of $12-$20 dollars, just to listen to 1 track.

If I paid that amount just to buy a full CD, i'd go broke. In with the new, out with the old.

Becareful what you wish for, it might come true!!!

quote:

---

RIAA is gathering evidence and preparing lawsuits only against individual computer users who are illegally distributing a substantial amount of copyrighted music.

---

Ah. Too bad they never explain exactly what they mean by "substantial." What is that? 100 files? 500 files? 1,000 files? Reminds me of Comcast's recent exploits telling a user they "exceeded their bandwidth limit" -- without ever actually saying what that limit was.

Of course, if RIAA said the limit was 500 files, I'd just share 499, which would defeat the point. Too bad...we can always hope.

A little money to shut the senator up?

Don't ISP's block netbios ports?

Senator Coleman said on Tech TV that he intends to hold hearings about RIAA and how they are manhandling the copyright laws...He is not the only one...Senator MaCain is another who feels things have gotten way out of hand...Just because some congressmen have been bought by RIAA already, doesnt mean they all have...Yet....

said by SRFireside:

---

They aren't expecting any real money from this. It's part of the tactic to curb trading, as you mentioned later. They might not be going for small time song traders because of the bother, but I think there's more to it. Copyright law states in order for their to be an infringement violation there has to be evidence of considerable loss in the market made by the infringing person. I'm guessing people are finally getting wise to the RIAA's rampant coloring of copyright law and are letting them know it. Now the RIAA has a back pedal a bit to avoid an incident.

---

The DMCA specifies penalties independent of actual damages, so the RIAA need not prove any damages.

said by fifty nine:

---

Don't ISP's block netbios ports?

---

Most cable ISPs do. DSL and dialup ISPs don't.

Joe,
You really don't control the uploading of songs that are in your shared folder, Unless you choose to shut it off...... Then what's the point! If nobody shares anything there wouldn't be anything to share at all. The movie industry cried when television came out ..then they cried when home video came out the record companies cried when the tape recorder came out then they started wringing their hands when DAT came out. Even though people can copy tapes and to a lesser point DVD's(some can be copied) and of course the burning of CD's using dye(inexpensive) compared to the great expense of the recording industries foil based CD. They're pissed off that some genius figured that one out,you can bet on that.
The only sales that are really down are CD's. If you look at Kazaa you'll see plenty of out of print and old stuff on there. Of course,I'm not saying that there isn't new music too..but these "fat cats" are going to have to cut back on at least one new lexus and that house in the Hamptons and price CD's more on a realalistic level and scale. The artist,in most cases,(unless you're a superstar) doesn't get a fair share of the profits anyway.I know this from personal experience. On the other hand artists and technicians should be paid for their work so it's an extremely thorny issue.
Getting back to KaZaa ...most of the time you don't even realize that someone is getting a song from you as A) you're doing something else on the computer and it's automatic without a prompt from you.
B) They only got a small piece of the song from you as there were anywhere from 2 to 30 others sharing a piece of that song file.
So,technology keeps on getting better and faster and now involves millions of people. I can't see any practical solution unless they plan to do the same thing they did to napster.
-LF
[text was edited by author 2003-08-20 01:31:22]

I agree with you completely. I dislike the RIAA as much as anybody.

Having said that, I see no reason to believe they are going after small traders.

said by joebear29:

---

The DMCA specifies penalties independent of actual damages, so the RIAA need not prove any damages.

---

The DMCA doesn't apply to copyright law though. The RIAA might be using parts of the DMCA to go around proper legal channels, but when it comes right down to it copyright law (and maybe the NET Act) will be what the courts will base any decision on.

Sharing music shouldn't be illegal considering no money is changing hands. Granted the people who abuse the whole file trading philosophy make it look bad, but we are talking about music here. It's an art form. It should proliferate without the constraints of a corporate iron fist.

Small time traders need not worry. We'll make it quick and painless.
Love,
The RIAA

I can understand there position,but I don't understand there tactics.They spend all this money going after people downloading music instead of useing that money to encode future investments.I wouldn't waste my time downloading crap like Metalica.The only songs I look for are not available on CD.Should I be sued for downloading a song that I can't buy?Just try to get George Harrison the best of dark horse on CD.I don't wanna fight I just wanna ROCK!

I disagree with their position and their tactics.

Overall, I'm an honest person. I don't break laws routinely. But watching the RIAA's actions over the past few years has made me want to both share and download files.

Is it their CD prices? No. Is it a desire to have the latest garbage that they wish to push on the public playing on my radio? No. Is it because downloading and/or sharing music is a "cool" thing to do? No. Is it because I want to have something for free? No.

Then why? Simple. I'm angry at the RIAA and completely disagree with their tactics. If I were to download and share, it would because of that, plain and simple. It would be because I'd want to see these lousy jerks put out of work. It would be because I'd want to hurt them in a manner that they can understand and in a manner that would be "painful" to them-- taking money out of their wallets.

File sharing and file trading, for me at least, would be all about spite, anger, and wanting to strike a blow against one of the most parasitic organizations I know of. The RIAA and MPAA are social cancers, and I think it's time that society undergoes some chemotherapy to remove those malignant tumors.

said by SRFireside:

---

said by joebear29:

---

The DMCA specifies penalties independent of actual damages, so the RIAA need not prove any damages.

---

The DMCA doesn't apply to copyright law though. The RIAA might be using parts of the DMCA to go around proper legal channels, but when it comes right down to it copyright law (and maybe the NET Act) will be what the courts will base any decision on.

---

Now, any the illegal sharing of files over P2P falls directly under the DMCA. That is why there are statutory penalties ($750-$150,000 a song) that have nothing to do with actual damages.

said by whiteshp:

---

In my opinion this is how things will play out. With penalties so high even if they RIAA gets money 1 out of 20 from peons with 1-3 songs it's still quite a bit of money in the bank.

---

I don't think that they are trying to get money from users. I think they are trying to destroy the network effect that several million users online have created. They don't care destroying a single user so much as destroying Kazaa.

Like they say "for everything else there's master card"

Ok. So we need everyone to host 4 or 5 different songs. I think we can be diverse enough to cover most music. Everyone shares a few songs, and there are no problems!!

(Like they would even let that happen.)

puritan

The bottled water answer is the same answer as to why people still buy music CDs. Because they are stupid. People know full well that they can get water for free, which is arguable because someone still pays for it. But they buy expensive bottled water because it is cold, because it is convenient, and because it gives them the image that it is better than their tap water.

People buy overpriced CDs because they think they are doing a good thing. The big problem is that the CDs are overpriced, and not a lot of money goes to the artist, like it should. Some people are also convinced that a store bought CD is better, or more convenient, than a custom burnt one.

puritan

said by wentlanc:

---

People buy overpriced CDs because they think they are doing a good thing.

---

Not only that it's a "good thing". It is the right thing to do. It's the moral thing. It's the legal thing.

said by wentlanc:

---

The big problem is that the CDs are overpriced

---

While I would love for them to be cheaper (I'd love for everything to be cheaper), I don't consider $10 - $14 for a CD to be overpriced.

said by wentlanc:

---

and not a lot of money goes to the artist, like it should.

---

If you don't buy a CD and download it instead, no money goes to the artist.

said by wentlanc:

---

Some people are also convinced that a store bought CD is better

---

That's because it really is better. The MP3 compression is lossy. It is not as good as the original CD (which some people feel still isn't good enough). Not to mention the nicer packaging.

said by wentlanc:

---

or more convenient, than a custom burnt one.

---

Going into a store, buying a CD, taking it out of it's package and placing it in my car CD player to listen to sure seems more convenient then searching around the net for it and burning it to a disc.

People buy bottled water because they feel that it's more healthy, which in many cases is. Some city's tap water is rather bad. Also, thinking of health, it's better to drink bottled water then a Coke if you are out somewhere and need to buy something to drink. Personally, I typically don't buy bottled water but I did buy a few this past weekend during the power outage (tap water was considered unsafe to drink for 5 days here).

Supporting your favored artists by buying their CD is definitely a good thing to do. As is going to see them at overpriced live performances.

However, keep the facts straight and don't generalize. Most CD's are more than $10 - $14. CD's are definitely great quality, however properly encoded mp3's (192kps. and up) sound great and can be, in fact, CD quality. The packaging is nice, however IT CANNOT BE COMPARED to full scale works of art that were LP covers. The addition of "extras" is the only thing that has come close, and should definitely become commonplace on CD's.

I do like the bottled water analogy. It has "extras" that tap does not (mainly less impurities) , and you don't have to buy a full case to drink one bottle...