RIAA has got it all wrong

[Humus]

Joe, don't you think suing "every last one of the offenders" is being overly harsh? Yes, pirating music is wrong, legally and morally, but how serious of a crime is it? I would place it roughly equal to shoplifting. Or even less, since when you shoplift you also steal the physical CD and not just the music.

 

[Sxotty]

Joe if you know something is wrong and you do it, most people consider that worse than if you think it is ok. Just pointing out that it seems a little weird to hammer that point so much.

I mean when I d/l the CD I bought already I did not find it "wrong" I thought it might be illegal but I really did not think it was morally wrong.

 

[Sabastian]

Joe, don't you think suing "every last one of the offenders" is being overly harsh? Yes, pirating music is wrong, legally and morally, but how serious of a crime is it? I would place it roughly equal to shoplifting. Or even less, since when you shoplift you also steal the physical CD and not just the music.

It really is not comparable to shoplifting ether. Someone paid an extravagant amount of money for the CD in the first place in order for it to be shared. Christ, what about CD to CD copying? I have been making copies of music sense I was a kid. It is not really stealing if you are taking something that is freely given. I say this Humus, when the recording industry begins suing children for getting a copy of some song they like there is something wrong with the laws that allow a company to sue over fucking music. It isn't secret product information. (like in the case of valve.) Heck when is the recording industry going to start charging fees from "cover bands" for using this supposed "IP"? Music should be excluded from copy right protection and not be considered IP at all.

 

[Jackl]

I don't agree with piracy(Although I admit I sometimes partake in it )

But I also do not agree with the RIAA's gestapo-like tactics(Ok, thats alittle over the top, but I've seen equally overkill analogies in this thread.) They're current anti-piracy project must have been thought up by someone very dense.

As someone else stated, actual physical piracy does more damage than online piracy. But I suppose I can see the thought behind their tactics. You can do alot more about someone broadcasting out an IP 24/7 , than you can do about some guy on a corner who may or may not show up Friday

But that as well is a double sided blade, its fine when you bust the average college student. If however, you were to bust a little girl, everyone looks at you like you kicked the family dog. This leads to backlash PR and only goes against you cause/point.

Then there technological aspect of it, not many will want to buy a CD in ten years from now. It could be said that if they would truely embrace the new medium, they would come out on the plus side.

In short, the RIAA acts like an elephant in a glass factory with these tactics, totally unnecessary and uneffiecent. Those decline numbers I imagine only portain to the fastrack network. How many have moved to DC,emule,BT?

There must be a better way to reduce piracy than these useless witch hunts.

And as for ByteMe, don't mind him, his entire existance in any thread is to take the most offensive POV about a subject a throughly voice it

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Agreed regarding those who don't find anything wrong with music piracy. But that's one end of the extreme...

Which is of course, the extreme that brought me into this thread.

... the other is those who find everything wrong with it.

Why can't you folks get one simple concept.

It's wrong, and I object to someone who doesn't think it's wrong.

Did yo not read the part where I said I could at least understand someone who would do it under the "it's wrong, but it's a means to an end" argument?

With all the posts you've made about distributing MP3s being wrong, that's the impression I got (of course, I exaggerated a bit in my analogy). Why else would you be making so many posts about it unless you felt strongly that it was a relatively significant crime?

Um, I do think it's a significant crime...but putting it on the same level of significance of murder was YOUR fantasy, not mine.

To many people, distributing MP3s is about as bad as murdering ants. I'd guess that the majority of those who download and distribute MP3s do it knowing it's wrong, and just like when they smash ants, they feel it's a relatively insignificant crime when compared to stealing something tangible.

1) Music is tangible.
2) For the 503rd time...I can understand people who do it even though they know it's wrong. I can NOT understand people (read: Natoma) who just flat out sees nothing "wrong" about it.

I really don't understand this.

I have not seen ONE person here actually agree with Natoma's "there's nothing wrong with it" stance....and yet I'm the one getting the questions? :?

My next question would then be, why all the fuss? Maybe to meet your mighty nemesis Natoma at battle, once again?

Read my second post in this thread. That question was answered right at the beginning. A refresher:

Because people stealing stuff...and then those same people condemning the entities who are taking action to protect themselves from theft and dissuade others from theft, rub me in a very bad way.

Regarding my text in your quote, nobody did. It highlighted my view that I don't see distribution of MP3s as serious as the attention it's getting makes it out to be.

Then why does anyone care what RIAA does? If it's not "serious", then what's the problem?

I don't see RIAA going after people who steal from them deserving the serious attention that it gets either. Isn't that to be expected? I didn't start this thread...

 

[pax]

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/10/08/Consumers/cd_shift031008

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe, don't you think suing "every last one of the offenders" is being overly harsh? Yes, pirating music is wrong, legally and morally, but how serious of a crime is it? I would place it roughly equal to shoplifting. Or even less, since when you shoplift you also steal the physical CD and not just the music.

Sigh.

Number 505 (I think, I'm losing count.): It's wrong, and I object to someone who doesn't think it's wrong.

So you agree with me. It's wrong.

I would also put it on a similar level as shoplifting. And I have no sympathy for shoplifters either. I hope they all get caught. I end up paying more for shit because of the "overhead" / loss due to shoplifting.

There's shoplifting an item here and there...and then there's habitual shoplifters. And yes, there's a difference in how they should be prosecuted.

 

[Natoma]

Wow. I got mentioned twice in Joe's post and I'm even in his sig. Damn. Definitely got the hots for me.

 

[jvd]

How about if we set up a radio internet station (songs streaming off the web) and then copy the songs off that. Since its alright to copy songs of the radio for personal use wouldn't the same be warrented on the internet ? Or you can do what I do . I only buy releases I want from bands I know and love. I only buy indepent local bands thats are not signed to any label. I mean when was the last good brittany spears song or puff daddy song .


As for sueing let them sue everyone. Once they do that they wont have any customers left and will go under.

 

[Humus]

Sigh.

Number 505 (I think, I'm losing count.): It's wrong, and I object to someone who doesn't think it's wrong.

So you agree with me. It's wrong.

I would also put it on a similar level as shoplifting. And I have no sympathy for shoplifters either. I hope they all get caught. I end up paying more for shit because of the "overhead" / loss due to shoplifting.

There's shoplifting an item here and there...and then there's habitual shoplifters. And yes, there's a difference in how they should be prosecuted.

I'm focusing on the word "sue" here. Yes, it's wrong, I agree with that, but suing people for a crime of this level is going way too far. You don't bring shoplifters to court. Even if you'd like to you couldn't, because the courts would overflow with cases to handle, and costs would rise to the skies. Typically an offender just get a fairly small fine to pay.

 

[Simon F]

Once a thief, always a thief. Somebody obviously hasn't seen Les Miz.

Only if you are like Inspector Javert rather than the Bishop.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

I understand that my position contradicts IP laws. (If you consider music intellectual.)

People obviously do, since they take the time to steal it. (And BTW Humus, copyright infringement is a form of theft.)

the popularity file sharing shows just how unjust (IMO) the cost of purchasing music really is.

So you really don't agree with the principles of a free market and capitalist economy then?

Never mind the suggestion is absolutely false a person with some good software and computer can make as good a quality recording at home in their own recording studio.

OK, this is the statement that I really wanted to respond to. You're just waayyy off base here Sebastian.

What software are you going to use? Most "good" software costs around $1000. And what soundcard? If you're doing simultaneous multitracking, you're talking $500 or so, minimum. Don't forget that the computer will be a $2000+ machine with SCSI array if you want to capture several tracks at once.

Oh... and then you need at least one quality mic preamp. There's $500... make that several thousand minimum for multitracking. Oops... you need a microphone. "Studio" quality? There's a few hundred more, but that only gives you one vocal sound (and mind you, not the best either). Add several thousand more for a couple of decent vocal mics. Oh, but that's only for vocals... add many thousands more for the correct mics for acoustic guitar, piano, ambience, drums (multiple mics there), etc. Damn... those pesky drums. Yep, drum machines (even good software with recorded samples like Drumagog) don't have the same quality as a live drummer on a good set. Add $10,000. But you know, good drums sound terrible in a crappy room, so you're going to need to extensively modify your room, or better yet just build a new one with the proper geometry and acoustic treatments. Toss in another couple dozen grand. So now you have the room, and the gear... oh, wait, not quite. Even the best software doesn't have reverb, compression, and other effects matching what quality studio's use, so if you really want to recreate that sound (your assertion), then you need a minimum of a few thousand more on the basic outboard effects processing.

OK, now you have the gear and environment necessary to have a shot at recreating the quality of sound possible in a professional recording studio. There's still that nagging problem of mixing and mastering though, so I guess you'll need several thousand more on good quality near- and far-field monitors to have any hope of mixing your quality tracks into a quality mix. I suppose you'll also need to spend a wad of cash on training courses (which of course only take you part of the way there), of more likely just invest years of your time into learning the difficult art of mixing. Mastering... that's another story entirely.

Last but not least, you need musicians to actually play all those instruments, and actually sing. And a songwriter.

Kinda ridiculous, isn't it? Sure, a kid and a computer can create recordings of the same quality as a professional studio... if they are also given $100,000 and a decade to learn. Is that what you meant?

I don't think today's popular music is Mozart or Bach either, but it's a hell of a lot more difficult to produce than most people realize, and a hell of a lot better quality than most people would like to admit.

Look, I have some quality mics, mic preamp, outboard A/D conversion, studio soundcard, decent mixing monitors, and a nice software package at home so that I can record my grand piano. All told, this cost me several thousand dollars. The end result is that I can make recordings of sufficient quality to document my achievements of learning a new piece, and good enough to give to friends and family. It's taken me nearly a year of tinkering to get a sound good enough to share with others, and this is for just one track of one instrument.

You think $15 for ten songs recorded, mixed, and mastered respectably well is a rip-off? I think it's a bargain.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Humus,

I'm focusing on the word "sue" here. Yes, it's wrong, I agree with that, but suing people for a crime of this level is going way too far. You don't bring shoplifters to court. Even if you'd like to you couldn't, because the courts would overflow with cases to handle, and costs would rise to the skies. Typically an offender just get a fairly small fine to pay.

The company I used to work for, a large retail company, was very diligent in prosecuting shoplifters. They took them to court often. Personally, stealing is a "bad" non-violent crime. Some of the people we caught were lying nonstop. One girl was found to be wearing 2 stolen shirts when she was strip searched at jail. Another had a carload of stolen goods.

Small fines and slaps on the wrist are not making these people stop.
I have zero sympathy for those that shoplift. They should be held accountable.

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Humus]

Never mind the suggestion is absolutely false a person with some good software and computer can make as good a quality recording at home in their own recording studio.

OK, this is the statement that I really wanted to respond to. You're just waayyy off base here Sebastian.

<snip>lost post</snip>

It totally depends on what kind of music you want to produce. To produce an average techno pumping song it takes a low-end computer and a piece of fairly cheap software. Possible a medium expensive mic. Quality need not be perfect down to the LSB of the samples.

Don't forget that the computer will be a $2000+ machine with SCSI array if you want to capture several tracks at once.

Not sure how many tracks you want to capture at once, and what sample rate and bitdepth you use, but that sounds very exaggerated. Stereo CD quality is 44100 * 2 *2 = 176400bytes / s. Even if you capture 6 channels at 96KHz and 32bits you still only need 2.2 MB/s, which is a piece of cake for even an el cheapo 3 years old IDE HD.

 

[Humus]

Humus,

I'm focusing on the word "sue" here. Yes, it's wrong, I agree with that, but suing people for a crime of this level is going way too far. You don't bring shoplifters to court. Even if you'd like to you couldn't, because the courts would overflow with cases to handle, and costs would rise to the skies. Typically an offender just get a fairly small fine to pay.

The company I used to work for, a large retail company, was very diligent in prosecuting shoplifters. They took them to court often. Personally, stealing is a "bad" non-violent crime. Some of the people we caught were lying nonstop. One girl was found to be wearing 2 stolen shirts when she was strip searched at jail. Another had a carload of stolen goods.

Small fines and slaps on the wrist are not making these people stop.
I have zero sympathy for those that shoplift. They should be held accountable.

Dr. Ffreeze

I have a lot of sympathy for those that shoplift. Why? Because the crime as such usually isn't the problem, there's typically an underlying problem and shoplifting is just a symptom. Shoplifting it often the first entry for young people into criminality. Most of them don't want to become criminals or anything. Shoplifters are usually people that need help, rather than prosecution. The fine is more of a symbolic value than actual punishment. Helping these people to solve their problems is more important.

I'm not sure how things are handled in the US, but I'm fairly certain that you can't even sue shoplifter over here. Instead when the crime is reported to the police the case is typically just handed over to a welfare officer, the school (if we're talking about a school kid) or other instances to help them with their individual problems.

It's another story though for repeat offenders, or those without any bad life situation to point fingers at.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I have a lot of sympathy for those that shoplift. Why? Because the crime as such usually isn't the problem, there's typically an underlying problem and shoplifting is just a symptom.

No offense...but "spare me the excuses."

But in any case, I suppose then than pirating music isn't really the problem, it's a symptom of something else? What's wrong with all these pirates then?

Shoplifters are usually people that need help, rather than prosecution.

Prosecution is exactly what's required. Possibly in addition to getting help.

The fine is more of a symbolic value than actual punishment. Helping these people to solve their problems is more important.

Well, I'm all for all the levying of "symbolic value" against shoplifters and pirates then.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

It totally depends on what kind of music you want to produce. To produce an average techno pumping song...

Heh, if Sebastian is listening to "average techno pumping songs" I can see his complaint about what the music industry produces being garbage. Then again, how would your own efforts be any different...?

j/k

Not sure how many tracks you want to capture at once, and what sample rate and bitdepth you use, but that sounds very exaggerated.

Actually, I think studio's traditionally used SCSI arrays for redundancy and storage capacity, not speed, so I concede that a couple of large (100GB+) IDE drives would do the trick (a typical 5 minute song might require 5 to 10 GB for tracking).

 

[EasyRaider]

I'm not going to pretend I have read the entire thread, but here is my take on the issue of unauthorized digital copying:

I frequently download mp3s with P2P apps. Is that wrong? Legally, yes, in many countries it is. Morally, no. My actions do not cause economical loss or any other harm of any form to anyone. By any sane moral standard, my mp3 downloading is not wrong.

A number of years ago, I was hardly buying any CDs at all. I felt that most songs on most albums were crap, and finding those few CDs that were worthy of my money seemed hopeless. Today I am buying more CDs than the average person. By listening to mp3s, I discover a lot of music I otherwise wouldn't have. It also allows me to preview albums before buying. Since I never buy any CDs without having a good idea of their perceived value, this dramatically increases the amount of music I buy. All in all, it's a win for the artists, the record companies as well as myself.

I must confess that I don't buy all the music I keep and listen to. This is either music I can't find for purchase, or single songs I wouldn't buy anyway because they are not part of an album with any other good songs I know about. I can understand that many consider this stealing. After all, I am keeping and enjoying something which someone spent a lot of time and money producing. But if I wouldn't have purchased the product either way, it doesn't matter to them, does it? This is different than going to the music store and stealing physical CDs. As far as they are concerned, I might as well not have existed.

However, I know there are a lot of people who copy music they otherwise would have bought legally. This is definitely stealing. Also, there is the matter of ripping songs and making them available to other people; this is another crime. But it also allows people to enjoy art they otherwise wouldn't have, so I don't consider this to be all that bad.

 

[Humus]

I have a lot of sympathy for those that shoplift. Why? Because the crime as such usually isn't the problem, there's typically an underlying problem and shoplifting is just a symptom.

No offense...but "spare me the excuses."

But in any case, I suppose then than pirating music isn't really the problem, it's a symptom of something else? What's wrong with all these pirates then?

Shoplifters are usually people that need help, rather than prosecution.

Prosecution is exactly what's required. Possibly in addition to getting help.

The fine is more of a symbolic value than actual punishment. Helping these people to solve their problems is more important.

Well, I'm all for all the levying of "symbolic value" against shoplifters and pirates then.

I see criminals fundamentally as just humans, rather than fundamentally as bastards. Most offenders, even for more serious crimes like burglary, are normal people like you and me. "The opportunity makes the thief" as the old saying goes. People who just happend to have a hard time, maybe economic trouble, just broke up with thier loved one, lost someone dear etc. Christmas theft is quite common. Very loving and caring fathers who want to give their child something special for xmas, but can't afford anything, see's what fancy stuff his neighbor buys for their kids, and don't want to dissappoint his children, turns frustrated and in the spur of the moment makes a failed robbery attempt. Or in less serious cases just turns to shoplifting.

These people need help, not prosection. Noone wins anything on the prosecution part. Not you and I, not the store owner, not the society or the offender. The desire is that the offender can be brought back on the feet again and back into a productive member of society. And contrary to popular belief prosecution is a very ineffective tool at keeping people from committing crimes. Prosecution often is the thing that makes the first time offender getting stuck on the wrong side of the law. Increasing the punishment levels actually often increases criminality rather than the other way around.

When we're talking about people downloading music from the net however we are seldom dealing with people with particular problems. Mostly just people with fuzzy moral that can't see the similarity between downloading music and stealing a CD. Most people that download music would never steal a CD. When RIAA dreams up fantasy sums of $150,000 for every song share on kazaa, than that causes nothing but destroying lives and turning the public against them. If they would prosecute them on a more reasonable level like $300 for the total offense, then it might actually have the desired effect.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

Humus,

I would love you to start a new thread with the last post you made. I would enjoy discussing that topic.

Dr. Ffreeze