Toaster: I have all my CDs that I have legally purchased recorded in mp3 format on my computer because it’s much easier to listen to them with WinAmp than shuffle through about 200 CDs. I also have plenty of live mp3s of bands who wholeheartedly endorse the free trading of such.
How is the RIAA to distinguish my legal copies of mp3s of songs that I own from an illegal copy? They can’t, so their solution is, fair use be damned (and what I am doing is absolutely fair use), get rid of all mp3s.
And stop using that tired argument about paying for material things. If you steal a tool from Sears, they are out a tool. If you copy a CD from your friend, your friend still has the CD. At least quote copyright or intellectual property law if you want to make your point that file sharing is illegal.
So I assume, Toaster52, that you wouldn’t have a problem with the authorities coming into your home whenever it is they feel like and perusing your stuff?
And, once their in and ask to see the purchase slip on that stereo (You know, the one that you tossed out a year ago) that their well within their right to take it because you can’t prove to them you bought it?
A whole lot of interesting precendents being made both both you (Small concern, really) and the congressman (Big concern, really).
Plus, I guess Toaster52 wouldn’t mind if Sears-cops could actually attack and disable his car or truck, without having to show proof of past stealing, to prevent him from possibly stealing stereos in the future.
Nothing would amuse me more than seeing every hacker in the United States play with the RIAA’s servers.
Those that don’t want to register for the link in the OP can get it straight from the horses ass in Berman’s full speech to the CCIA.
This is interesting:
If this hare-brained scheme gets an inch off the ground, I foresee a day when some enterprising person makes a number of mp3’s available on all the P2P’s… Mp3’s with titles like Metallica - Nothing Else Matters. Each mp3 would match the song’s running time precisely. It’s actual content would be a spoken word “review” of the song, explaining why it’s mediocre, banal pap, and no one with an ounce of good taste should spend money on it. It’s wonderful, you could educate misguided masses, and then, if you happened to be victimized by an attack, you could turn around and sue the greedy bastard for quashing your dissenting voice.
fallom, the RIAA has already been hit by a DoS.
Of course, more will come further down the line.
Folks, as an Aussie on the outside looking in, and as a music producer of some merit, I find this thread immensely rewarding. Some fine and illuminating viewpoints are being put forth and I thank you.
Obviously, and inevitably, whatever happens in the United States tends to filter thru to Australian circumstances pretty quickly. Nonetheless, my observations and questions are thus…
(1) What is there stopping the major hubs of P2P networks merely moving offshore and no longer being under U.S. law? You could still reach them via the web as an end user client, surely?
(2) Right here, right now, I could give you 12 URL links to 12 new mp3’s off an unreleased album by one of my clients. They’re really world class tunes and they’re fully copyrighted. But the band is unsigned and quite frankly, they don’t wish to be signed because they are utterly aware of the sinful pact with the devil that signing with ‘a major’ represents. They’re quite happy to persue the internet as their sales medium. Let’s say you download the tunes. (They want you to) What right does the RIAA have to protest about such a thing? What happens if some of the tunes meet the same filename and timelength as an official RIAA mp3? Where’s the justice there if the RIAA chooses to delete files off your hard disk which they’re not entitled to delete?
(3) As it stands, the only remaining areas of monopoly the RIAA retains are these two - namely, distribution and exposure. The former is now being attacked by a plethora of on-line ‘we deliver overnight’ CD printing houses. (The above mentioned band will be persuing that model). The exposure (in regards to US Commercial Radio at least) is obtained thru third party payola to the major radio networks such as Clear Channel Communications. How does the RIAA expect to maintain it’s stranglehold on the latter if it can’t maintain it’s stranglehold on the former? As “Revtim” pointed out earlier, it’s a doomed business model because of all the other avenues of distribution popping up in competition.
(4) How does the RIAA expect to fight foreign labels who wish to distribute their product within the US but who do NOT wish to adhere to the RIAA’s draconian measures? And trust me, this WILL happen.
(5) And lastly, the nature of mp3 file ripping and sharing is an historical accident insofar as the Redbook Audio CD standard was defined in 1978 in an era when they believed the CD would never be able to copied. The RIAA never predicted the PC and all of its toys. How can the RIAA expect to fight a superior technology 15 years down the track which (a) it did not introduce and (b) which deals in as much content which is not under their copyright jurisdiction as it does with copyrighted content? Surely the RIAA cannot claim jurisdiction over music which it doesn’t have copyright to?
Thanks guys, hope to hear from you.
I think the main threat of P2P distribution of music is that it effectively eliminates the need for the entrenched (and self-serving) record promotion industry.
Most of the music that I listen to is copyright-free, and the artists are long dead. My main use of P2P networks is looking for exactly this type of thing, (not to mention radio programs from the '30s and '40s,) but I when I find a user that seems to have similar tastes as mine, I’ll browse them, and sometimes find contemporary (and copyrighted) recordings, which, upon listening to, I’ve really liked. The last CD I bought was Jack Johnson’s Brushfire Fairytales. If I didn’t find out about him via .mp3-trading, I’d never have heard of him.
This type of architecture means that bands are likely to become popular based on their actual merit, rather than by having them crammed down the public’s throat through brute-force marketing. Since the '50s, the record industry has actively promoted artists that sound as close as possible to what is already selling. Where has that gotten us? Ick.
As it happens, I keep all my ripped-cd’s (ie, bought & payed-for but on my hard-drive for convenience,) in a seperate folder, so they’re not available to folks on the P2P networks, just to all the networked computers in my house, so they can be listened to in any room.
With the sheer number of public-domain songs that I do available to other P2P users, I don’t think it’s too farfetched to imagine a scenario in which a contemporary musician has recorded a version of, let’s say, a jazz standard, which ends up on the RIAA’s list of protected titles, making me a “viable target.” Interference from RIAA sponsored goons brings my website down, as well as my housemate’s (commercial) website, and prevents me from using the frickin’ internet. Fuck that.