# Shouldn't RIAA Focus All Energies on Napster? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 12, 2003, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-riaa-focus-all-energies-on-napster/201203 "2003-09-12T14:29:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![cletus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f08c70/32.png) [@cletus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cletus)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-riaa-focus-all-energies-on-napster/201203/21 "2003-09-16T06:47:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by micco \* > **But levying a tax on CDRs to compensate for potential piracy is more like putting a tax on first-aid kits to compensate victims of malpractice. CDRs have absolutely nothing to do with piracy. The act of music piracy does not require the use of CDRs, and the act of burning a CD is not an indication of piracy. I myself have burned hundreds if not thousands of CDs in the course of backing up systems, but I have never, not once, pirated music, must less burned an unauthorized copy to CD. Levying a tax on CDs to buy off RIAA lawsuits is appeasement which puts the burden on the innocent. It’s fundamentally wrong on several levels.** You have a very good point there **micco**. Backing up a computer onto CDRs can take hundreds of cds. The idea of backups you mentioned didn’t occur to me until now. I had a different point of view on levies then you. The way I saw it, the people who are getting more music and burning more cds would pay more then the people who burned relatively few cds. The concept appealed to me because it would shift the burden of cost onto the more prolific music downloaders. Now that we have mp3 players I suppose it’s no longer as strong a point. Still, you can’t ignore the fact that sales of blank cds have jumped tremendously at the same time sales of cds have dropped. Not all of it can be accounted for by backups alone. I’ve been looking at various ideas being discussed concerning filesharing and I thought I would toss this out to see what people thought of it. This board has the most interesting discussions. Sorry to hijack your thread though, **Jinx**.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2003, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-riaa-focus-all-energies-on-napster/201203/22 "2003-09-16T12:29:06Z")
**Umbriel** , thanks. It’s nice to hear that sometimes when you post it seems to makes sense to someone. I think that your new example about about a file sharing service which can only play but not make copies misses a subtle point of the law. When you buy a copy of a recording, you are only buying that mechanical copy, and the right to play that copy privately, not to “distribute” it. Such distribution could be broadcasting it, selling or giving out copies, or playing it in a public venue. Playing a recording in a public venue includes both a theater or performance space, _and_ a bar, restaurant or store. If you look at many bars and restaurants, you will see a small green triangular decal by the door that says “ascap”, which means that the venue has paid a licensing fee to the artist’s rights organization ASCAP to permit ASCAP licensed music to be played there. Copying a recording onto your own computer for your personal use is in a grey area and probably covered by fair use If you permit other members of the public to play the music (regardless of whether they record it), it would probably be considered broadcasting and a copyright violation without specfifc licensing from the copyright holder or its agent (like ASCAP or BMI). ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-riaa-focus-all-energies-on-napster/201203/23 "2003-09-24T15:29:57Z")
I came across this old article that describes why it’s legally difficult to stop Kazaa, and thought of this thread. [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/kazaa.html](http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/kazaa.html) > [@](#): > > With Kazaa, users trade files through thousands of anonymous “supernodes.” There is no plug to pull. > > Nor, as attorneys would soon discover, was there even a single outfit to shut down. That’s because on a January morning three months after the suit was filed, Amsterdam-based [Kazaa.com](http://Kazaa.com) went dark and Zennström vanished. Days later, the company was reborn with a structure as decentralized as Kazaa’s peer-to-peer service itself. Zennström, a Swedish citizen, transferred control of the software’s code to Blastoise, a strangely crafted company with operations off the coast of Britain - on a remote island renowned as a tax haven - and in Estonia, a notorious safe harbor for intellectual property pirates. And that was just the start. > > Ownership of the Kazaa interface went to Sharman Networks, a business formed days earlier in the South Pacific island nation of Vanuatu, another tax haven. Sharman, which runs its servers in Denmark, obtained a license for Zennström’s technology, FastTrack. The [Kazaa.com](http://Kazaa.com) domain, on the other hand, was registered to an Australian firm called LEF Interactive - for the French revolutionary slogan, liberté, égalité, fraternité. > > Confused? So were the copyright cops. “It’s hard to know which one to sue,” complains Michael Speck, an investigator with the Australian Record Industry Association. ---
**Author:** ![Umbriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/9de053/32.png) [@Umbriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Umbriel)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-riaa-focus-all-energies-on-napster/201203/24 "2003-09-24T18:28:37Z")
One of the D.C. Court of Appeals judges [used a variation of my library analogy during oral argument](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=7&u=/ap/20030916/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_music) last week, though it’s hard to say which way the court is leaning. ---
**Author:** ![umop\_ap\_sdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/dbc845/32.png) [@umop\_ap\_sdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umop_ap_sdn)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-riaa-focus-all-energies-on-napster/201203/25 "2003-09-24T21:42:15Z")
I heard somewhere that the original Kazaa program doesn’t even allow large MP3 transfers. Something about a bandwidth limit. To get the illegal files, one must use Kazaa Lite which, I’m told, explicitly says in the license agreement that it is illegal. Reason: it’s a modification of the original, and therefore a derivative work of (presumably) copyrighted material, and is a violation of the license agreement of the original Kazaa. That’s why the big guys are powerless to sue them. Those who legitimately created Kazaa obviously didn’t intend it to be used for illegal music sharing. 😉 _wink_ And if they were to somehow shut down Kazaa supernodes, ordinary average users all over the place would start volunteering to fill those shoes. ---
**Author:** ![NotBob13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e19b73/32.png) [@NotBob13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotBob13)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2003, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-riaa-focus-all-energies-on-napster/201203/26 "2003-09-24T22:06:34Z")
And as a side note to muddy the waters: If you buy Blank CD-R’s that are labeled “music CD-R’s” You are paying royalties to Someone. I assume the RIAA. I would love to see someone go to court and point out that they had payed royalties on music CD-R’s and therefore were intitled to download music to burn onto the CD-R’s. ---
**Author:** ![Lizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@Lizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lizard)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2003, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-riaa-focus-all-energies-on-napster/201203/27 "2003-09-25T00:57:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tanaqui \* > \*\*As for the OP, I’d guess it also has something to do with the fact that going after Napster was, in the long run, not a resounding success. I mean, they effectively destroyed Napster, yes, but the file-sharers just popped up again. They cut off the head of the Hydra, but two more grew. So to speak. Going after individual users is meant to put the fear of God into the teenage users–to cauterize the wound, to carry on my corny metaphor. I’m not sure how well this tactic will succeed, but it will be interesting to find out. \*\* Well, we know how well that tactic has worked to keep kids away from booze and pot, don’t we? If ever there was a demographic iidifferent to a general legal threat, it’s the American teenager. A big “:rolleyes:” to the RIAA. I read recently many of the record companies’ biggest executives can’t keep their own kids from file-swapping. I wonder just how many suits they’ll file before they realize it’s hopeless? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-riaa-focus-all-energies-on-napster/201203.md?page=1)