Is the RIAA getting out of control?

With the proliferation of file-swapping technology like Morpheus and Kazaa, what is to be done?

The RIAA is suing to shut down the services (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,107528,00.asp), but they are apparently going further, with the Berman bill, which would legalize RIAA hacking, with no penalties if they hit the wrong file (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-945976.html).

Look, if people are using Madster or something like that, get the proof, then turn the evidence over to the FBI if the company will not deal with it. Becuase quite frankly, I am extremely uncomfortable with the notion of cyber-vigilantes.

 

I find that pretty scary. Since when was it ok to use illegal means to solve a problem? Also, aren't people allowed to make backup copies for their own use? Almost all of the songs I have on my computer are ones I own CDs of.

 

Since when was it ok to use illegal means to solve a problem?

since always if you are the American Government

 

The RIAA is hardly the American government.

 

For the most part, the same is true for me - there are some downloads that are of songs I could not find (at least one was a notorious gangster rap song) or a live cover of a song (another notorious gangster rap song). Others were parodies NOT AVAILABLE on CDs (mostly from Rush Limbaugh's program).

Quite clearly, there is a place for file-swapping. But you cannot blame developers when people hijack the technology for piracy, and that is the biggest beef I have with the RIAA's cyber-vigilante justice.

 

since always if you are the American Government

 

I don't see how it's relevant since it's the RIAA we're talking about, though.

 

I see your point. I just meant that seeing the US Government acts like its ok to invade the privacy of its population, can you blame people like the RIAA acting the same way too ?

I'm not happy about the idea either, but we all know what will happen........

When Napster died we all cried, but what happened ? Other networks and p2p software appeared and we rejoiced ! It was better, faster and more useful than before.

If they close Kazaa etc down, the system will evolve again and we'll be back online again within weeks.

Because no-one is hosting the actual files being shared on p2p networks, the RIAA will fail unless it closes the internet connections of everyone around the world who shares files.

The RIAA can do what it likes, it will fail.

malkie

 

So... since I could theoretically rename all my MP3 files to look like text or Word files to hide them, does the RIAA have the right to go snooping through all of my documents to see if I'm concealing any stolen music?

 

The RIAA is fighting a losing battle here. They must either conform to the new distribution system or perish. There will always be musicians, but at this pace there may not always be labels.

 

I agree. I think they're really going in the wrong direction by trying to shut down file sharing. If the RIAA were a little wiser, they would admit change is natural and try to adapt to it rather than suppressing it.

Of course, the major record labels will also have to get a bit less greedy and stop artificially inflating prices on popular titles when it probably costs them less than a dollar to mass-produce CDs.

 

Of course, the major record labels will also have to get a bit less greedy and stop artificially inflating prices on popular titles when it probably costs them less than a dollar to mass-produce CDs.

I totally agree !!! I remember seeing a pie chart of where all the money goes when you buy a CD in the store. Like $8 goes to the record label, and $4 goes to to the store you bought it from. The rest goes to the manufacturer etc, and like 10c goes to the artist

Does anyone remember when CDs first came out ? The industry were going wild saying that it would hugely reduce the price of music as CDs where cheaper to produce that tapes or LPs. Yet, tapes are *still* cheaper to buy than CDs.

Same thing is happening in the DVD market. Its cheaper to (mass) produce DVDs compared to VHS, yet DVDs are like $10 more than VHS.
Not too far in the future we'll all have DVD burners and extremely fast domestic internet connections and we'll be p2p'ing entire DVD images (its only a maximum of 9.4Gb)

If the record companies weren't such greedy theiving gypsies then p2p wouldn't exist as we'd all buy the cheap music as it would be less hassle than downloading tracks, converting them and burning them to CD.

For example, its perfectly possible to brew your own alcohol, but no-one does it as its far less hassle to pop to the store and buy a six pack. There's no mess with a six pack, and it comes in pretty packaging. Get my point ?

malkie

 

Full Discolsure: JediSmuggler is my older brother.

I am a hacker. I'll admit that outright. I am a hacker in the traditional sense of the word (one who "hacks" equipment or software to make it do things it was not originally designed to do or to make it perform better). I find this proposal (as well as certain others brought before Congress related to it) dispicable and abominable.

It removes legal protections from citizens in order to maintain artificially high profits for a small portion of the population. There is no burden of proof required. Indeed, the RIAA or MPAA (abreviated as *AA) would bear no responsibility or penalty for any damage that they caused. This is wrong. It would shut down P2P networks for all legitimate uses as well as those illegal ones. All they would need is the suspicion of guilt (which they already have for everyone out there) in order to receive such a "license to hack".

For example, I use P2P file sharing. Why? Because it is the best way to get some of the files I need. I use it to download updates to software (like Counterstrike) when the main download sites are usually overloaded. I use it to locate and instal Linux ISO files (freely distributable under the GPL). I use it to help recover some of my CDs that have been damaged or lost (since I have already paid for a license to use the work).

Of these three uses, the only one that the *AA groups can come close to claiming is infringing is the recovery of CDs, but I still have the original media or jewel cases, so I do have a right to listen to that music, regardless of the format (under fair use doctrine).

The only time I come anywhere near supporting cracking (not hacking) a system is in a circumstance where you are defending one of your own systems against a sustained attack, and then only to the extent needed to halt the attack (as in the case described in this article). Even then, I would hold the person defending himself to the strictest standards.

Kimball Kinnison

 

great explaination of terms Kimball_Kinnison I agree with everything you've said

I agree that p2p has many perfectly legitamate uses - its great for finding maps and mods for some of the games I play online. Its becoming harder and harder to find these files on website, especially seeing as certain file download sites are now subscription only

I could suppose you could call me a hacker too as I play arcade games on my digital camera its certainly not designed to do that, being seeing as you can change the Firmware, and its got a huge memory I have various games uploaded onto my camera for moments when there's nothing worth photographing !!

malkie

 

Kimball Kinnison:

That is very true, bro.

The thing is, if the RIAA were to start dangling carrots (say, a reward for turning in pirates), they'd look a lot better.

They're acting like bullies, and Americans in general don't like bullies.

 

Rewards for turning in "pirates"?

I could turn in 75% of every college campus and cash in, cha-ching!

This is ludicrious. If my computer gets hacked by the RIAA, I will find out, and I will find the best tort, civil attorney in the land...maybe even Johnny Cochrane for flavor.

The RIAA is already paying out a huge settlement to those who have filled the forms on cdsettlement.com, for their anti-trust suit, for price fixing in the mid-late 90's.

Hopefully this will be the first step of many that will bring down prices, and maybe increase quality of albums that are being crapped out by the dozens daily.

 

The fact is, this technology is around, and people are going to use it. RIAA can either adapt, or perish. The free market can be VERY Darwinian for companies and industries that do not adapt.

 

The RIAA is also going about things the wrong way by looking for better ways to stop online file sharing when there are so many other ways file sharing can occur. For example, since it's so cheap now to buy a read-write drive and blank CDs, anyone can burn copies of their own CDs and sell cheaply to others. Better yet, they can swap. In fact, I think it's perfectly legal to give away your own copies of CDs (can anyone confirm or deny this?).

 

Companies and artists may charge what they like for their products. The opinion that they charge too much does not justify stealing.

Proliferation of hacking materials makes it easier and easier for me to hack into your bank account and steal your money. So, you should get with the times, accept this, and come up with an acceptable plan to share some of your money with me, or I'm going to have to resort to stealing all of it.

Look, frankly this is one of my favorite issues of the day, because it's a win-win scenario for me. The record industry is losing a fortune due to poor products and attempts to legislate invasion of privacy. Online thieves lose because soon they will destroy the very industry that creates the music they want. And the day the likes of Eminem, Nelly, Christina Aguilara, et al. are no longer making money, will be a happy day.

 

The RIAA is fighting a losing battle here. They must either conform to the new distribution system or perish. There will always be musicians, but at this pace there may not always be labels.

This is absolutely true. Trying to evolve legislation to the point where the recording industry's bloated distribution model can continue lumbering along unfeasibly and incapable of standing on its own two legs is not the answer.

File sharing, piracy, etc. are something they cry about... saying they're losing revenue... but you hit the nail on the head here. They're not worried so much about short term losses as they are about people... artists and consumers, both figuring out that they, the record companies, do not need to exist any more in the digital age.

It's now possible to create, distribute and promote music entirely in the digital realm... and is quickly becoming feasible to do the same with film/video.

The RIAA and MPAA are both anachronisms.

Music wasn't always about making millions of dollars, at least not for the people who create it... So, for those of you who are thinking there are some people who still need record companies to distribute their trash and that's the only way they can get promoted? Well, this may be the new paradigm... find another job if all you want is money. Music may cease to be a commodity which rakes in millions for a select few (less than 1 percent of the whole) artists and producers.

In the end... it will cost the artist less, anyway. Even Michael Jackson, who is worth a few hundred million, is sitting on $200 million of debt owed to Sony... and he's going to be paying the interest on that for a very long time. The average entry-level major label artist accrues half a million dollars worth of debt the second they sign a record contract... and less than 15 percent of them are able to break even.

So, where does that leave the consumer? Far greater access to a diverse repertoire, and better quality, at less cost.

And the artists? Better to sell five copies on the internet and keep all the profits... than sell 500,000 copies in the stores and keep none.

 

To update this thread a little, Microsoft has announced development of a new technology to counter CD piracy. However, the last effort was a flop. (I will not mention it here - mostly to salve my conscience).

The RIAA may or may not be pushing for the Berman bill in this Congress, but certainly it seems clear to me that there are alternatives to "hack and destroy" methods like the RIAA wants a license to do.

 

The RIAA pretty much is a monopoly. Every major music publisher is a member. They pretty much control what is played on the radio and on MTV, so they control what's cool, even if it sucks, as it often does. Look at a lot of the music from the last ten years. With a few exceptions, it sucks.

It's stupid of them to think that file sharing hurts their business. If anything it helps. I have never downloaded an entire CD. If I download a song, and I like it, I will buy the CD. Buying the CD after hearing a song on it I downloaded is just like buying the CD because of a song on the radio. The only difference is that I like the song I downloaded.

As for the hacking, i'm sure someone will come up with a defense against it. After all, you there are programs to kill popups, and spyware. Every time there is a new type of internet pest, someone will come up with a response.

And Jedi Smuggler, you can buy parodies from Rush Limbaugh's show on CD. I have one of them. They are done by a guy named Paul Shanklin, and you can buy them at almost any record store, or off his website.

 

The RIAA has no right to do this so they're trying to make it legal? That's just messed up. I hope the RIAA has plenty of money if they do this because people will sue them.



The RIAA is also going about things the wrong way by looking for better ways to stop online file sharing when there are so many other ways file sharing can occur. For example, since it's so cheap now to buy a read-write drive and blank CDs, anyone can burn copies of their own CDs and sell cheaply to others. Better yet, they can swap. In fact, I think it's perfectly legal to give away your own copies of CDs (can anyone confirm or deny this?).


Technically, yes, you can do that. Well that's what I've been told. See the loophole around copyrighted material has always been that if you're caught selling it then you're in doo-doo. If you give it away though they can't touch you, technically, but I've yet to see anyone try this. I know that's what my brother and I used to do when we had a VHS tape that one of our friends wanted. We'd always joke about that. I don't think the RIAA cares about fair play though so they're more than likely gonna try to sue you and win.

 

Patriot_Wookiee:

I was actually looking for "The Philanderer" among other parodies. Those have been hard to find.

 

Just up today:

WASHINGTON - Internet providers must abide by music industry requests to track down computer users who illegally download music, a federal judge ruled Tuesday in a case that could dramatically increase online pirates' risk of being caught.


The decision by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates upheld the recording industry's powers under a 1998 law to compel Verizon Communications Inc. to identify one of its Internet subscribers who was suspected of illegally trading music or movies online. The music industry knew only a numerical Internet address this person was using.


The ruling means that consumers using dozens of popular Internet file-sharing programs can more easily be identified and tracked down by entertainment companies trying to prevent the illegal trading of movies and music. For consumers, even those hiding behind Internet aliases, that could result in warning letters, civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution.


"Just because you can doesn't mean it's legal to become a digital Johnny Appleseed," warned Michael McGuire, an industry analyst for Gartner Inc., a research firm in Stamford, Conn.


Verizon promised Tuesday to appeal and said it would not immediately provide its customer's identity. The ruling had "troubling ramifications" for future growth of the Internet, said Verizon's associate general counsel, Sarah B. Deutsch.


"The case clearly allows anyone who claims to be a copyright holder to make an allegation of copyright infringement to gain complete access to private subscriber information without protections afforded by the courts," she said.


Deutsch said Verizon planned no immediate changes to disrupt sharing of computer files among its customers.


Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites), which won the case, said piracy is a "serious issue for musicians, songwriters and other copyright owners, and the record companies have made great strides in addressing this problem by educating consumers and providing them with legitimate alternatives."


The judge acknowledged the case was an important test of subpoena powers Congress granted copyright holders under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (news - web sites).


The judge said that controversial 1998 law, enacted to uphold copyrights online, lets music companies force Internet providers to turn over the name of a suspected pirate upon subpoena from any U.S. District Court clerk's office, without a judge's order.

Clearly, the RIAA does not get it.