Comments on: Rights and wrongs in the antipiracy struggle

RIAA President Cary Sherman says the music industry's response to the theft of creative works helped rescue a business under siege.

[Bud5000]

Logical Fallacy Plus Errors

This should be used in college English courses, along with Nixon's 'Checkers Speech', as a prime example of several logical fallacies, in addition to its LAUGHABLE spin on the facts. I mean, where to start. The best thing is that RIAA will out of business soon. Gotta hand it to Sick Cary --I guess he's trying to make a living, but no one could honestly take him or the RIAA seriously, right? It's like watching the fall of the USSR. Never thought it would happen, and not it's happening. RIAA is a joke, folks.

[Professor Cornbread]

Give it up RIAA: You're waging a losing war

The RIAA may have had recent victories, but they will eventually lose the war against piracy. Their out-dated tactics and poor business plan will eventually drive consumers to alternate means of getting music, and more importantly, will drive artists away from big label companies.

The RIAA is sill operating in the pre-internet age it seems. Today, ANYONE can get their music out there by social networks and other means, and serve their content FREE to consumers. Who cares if they don't get their songs played on the radio...does anyone actually listen to it anymore?

If they RIAA and big label record companies want to survive for the long term they should sit down and seriously rework their current strategy. If they 'embrace' the piracy and serve their music online for a more acceptable price, guess what will happen? Sales will increase, profits will increase, and everyone will get a better deal.

This debate is little more than simple economics. Why would consumers pay $20 for an album that they can get for FREE? The savings are too great to pass up. But if it was a difference between say $5 and free, people will likely pay the $5 out of laziness and convenience. It also seems a more fair price for a 3 cent plastic disc.

I have not bought a single CD or song since the RIAA started going after Napster and its users, and I doubt that will change anytime soon.

[InnAb109]

music piracy

I'm a musician and am only too well aware of the failings of the
music industry in the form it's taken until now, but what makes
my blood boil is people who rail against this system and use
their grievance with it as some sort of justifictaion not to pay
anything for music.

There are suggestions on this site that songs should be bought
for as little as 0.20 cents (or 20p in the UK). Why should it? Why
should you be able to buy a piece of art, download it and be able
to enjoy it for the rest of your life, and all for the paltry sum of
20p. I think this attitude displays more arrogance than the music
business shows in trying to protect their legal copyright! For
some reason, in the minds of the public, music has less value
than a book, or a pair of trainers, or a de-caff mocha latte
frappoccino! Starbucks make huge profits compared to the
coffee growers but nobody, or very few people, makes a fuss
about that. And people who would happily pay $2 for a coffee in
Starbucks make all this noise about paying less than $1 dollar
for a song. It's nothing less than ridiculous!

Sure there's complete crap out there, but you don't have to buy
it, and just because you think that something's no goog doesn't
mean you be able to just take it for nothing! There's great music
being made today, but if people aren''t prepared to pay for it,
then all that will disappear. I think the public need to be re-
educated as to the value of music.

[Phillep_H]

Musician's cut

How much do you get now?

How much would you make if your per track was cut in half, but you made three times as many sales?

Of course, if your performances only sell when bundled with a better artist, you would not want the tracks made availible seperately.

[ktmotox]

New Business Model

InnAb109 - You are fighting a losing battle. The era of selling recordings of a musical performance are over (or will be soon). You will be able to make money performing live, but recordings will be distributed freely on the internet. Music websites will be able to make money via subscriptions and/or advertisement. They'll have to provide a lot more to their customers than just a database full of recorded music.

Look back at the history. Thomas Edison invented the phonograph. Musical performers could now record there performances. The recordings could be sold. An industry was needed to record, manufacture, distribute, and publicize the recordings. This model lasted from cylinders through CDs. This industry was useful, and people paid for it. Today it is no longer needed. Recordings can be manufactured and distributed for almost zero cost. Musical performers must return to their previous methods of generating income - live performance. Distribution of recordings will be used for publicity and brand building. Publicity is needed to draw an audience to your performances. That's the future.

[ColdMast]

RIAA settles with 12-year-old girl

http://www.news.com/2100-1027-5073717.html?tag=yt

first it's $2000
then $22,000
then $222,000
next $2,222,000

http://w2.eff.org/share/petition/

DEATH to the RIAA!

[cmcmanis]

The evidence of suicide

What the RIAA fails to consider but is 'well known' by the buying public, is that people don't buy music that they don't know if they like it or not. And frankly some don't buy it at all. But the more it gets around, the more likely it is to be bought.

This was very nicely shown in a recent Reuter's story in their Odd News area with the title Great News! They're Stealing Our Books
which demonstrated yet again the correlation between consumers *knowing* about something and it being sold.

Prosecuting people who share their favorite tunes with their friends is suicde in the music biz.

[ktmotox]

CNET Hello

A lot of these Talk Back comments are well thought out and well written. CNET should put some of them on their front page as a regular news story. CNET gave RIAA their moment in the sun, why not some of these opposing views?

[George Riddick]

RIAA Antipiracy Struggle

Thank you, RIAA.

I know my viewpoint on this subject swims upstream for many CNET readers. I do think it is healthy for people to consider both sides of this argument, however. I hope the majority of CNET readers do, too.

We in the copyright industries, and we as users of legitimate copyrighted works, as well, owe a debt of gratitude to the RIAA for its efforts to combat piracy over the past decade. As a small graphic arts content development company that employs artists, designers, photographers, cartoonists, digitizers, writers, and programmers, we know what a society without adequate copyright protection looks like.

If people really want to know, just encourage them to travel to Russia, China, or Brazil and take a close look. It will likely make them sick.

I hear the "copyleft" scream when the RIAA goes after a single mother in Duluth who thumbs her nose at recording artists and their protected works. Waht choice did she give you ... really? Many say "go after the organizations and the bigger companies".

So here, the RIAA listens to them and goes after a rogue organization like Usenet.com that profits from stolen property on a routine basis, and what do they do?

Complain again.

Have they ever considered what living in a country without copyright protection would be like?

Have they ever had someone steal their valuable property, like those treasured family photo albums stored neatly in their closets?

Do they realize that copyrighted works are one of the few rights granted to each U.S. citizen in our constitution that still carries a significant economic value ... and garners respect from those countries who still envy the basic freedoms we have in this country.

Thanks, RIAA. We realize that in order to combat this piracy epidemic you cannot be selective in who you target. Copyright infringers ("pirates") need to be punished regardless of their economic or social status. That is the ONLY way any enforcement activity will have the deterrent component that is so badly needed to win the war against willful pirates.

Thanks for listening and standing tall. I sincerely hope some of these readers will think before they complain. What exactly would they do in a similar situation?

Let's hope this determination by the RIAA teaches other copyight industries how to protect its property. It sure would be nice if other industries started to get this word out, as well. Stealing is NOT legal in this country!

At Imageline, we have our hands full going after the willful "middlemen" infringers, like Google and the thousands of piracy web sites Google subsidizes on a regular basis. We have not had the need to pursue "end users".

But if all else fails, I can tell you for sure we would do anything we had to to protect the property rights of our talented artists, illustrators, cartoonists, designers, animators, digitizers, and programmers.

Thanks again, Cary. There are people out here who understand the tough position a select group of people, typically with ahidden agenda, want to put you in.

George P.Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.

[e-mail]

[SneezingPanda]

You're missed the point.

Dear Sir.
I would suggest you to read the comments to understand the reasoning of the other side.
Just to give you a clue. This is about applying common sense to the law. RIAA members are middlemen that trade IP. They have nothing to do with creativity. Neither they have any sense of fairness when it comes to the artists or their customers. They effectively backing a secondary market of the IP that has very peculiar rules. When they want to play that game with different business groups, it's up to the business groups to accept it but please, don't throw tat crap on the public, otherwise it may happen that George P.Riddick, XIII will end up purchasing one time licenses for copyrighted way of urinating in his toilet at home.

[Tomcat Adam]

Thank you, RIAA

For suing old grannies and preteens like never before.
If they didn't want to be sued, they should have been rich!

(just so you know, the RIAA/MPAA sues a large amount of people without internet connections/computers. These people, of course, are poor; hence no computers. But seeing as they cannot possibly afford a lawyer, they settle out of court.)

[itango]

George, you and I seem to lock horns ate every turn in these forums,

although as a corporate lawyer, I think it is a mistake for you to assume that someone like me does not understand your position, or that only a small number of people can appreciate your position on this issue.

As I said in my earlier post, I would have more respect for the RIAA if they would target infringers indiscriminately. The problem is, they do not appear to be doing that. If indeed they are, the mesage is not getting out to the general public. Most of the commercial infringers caught overseas (which is where rampant piracy occurs) appear to be associated with software. What we typically read about or hear in the news about seldom relates to the RIAA going after the multimillion dollar infringers overseas. Rather, they appear to be targeting single individuals in the US and UK, in an effort to scare others into not engaging in infringing activities. Guess what! This strategy does not appear to be working - data on downloading activity show that more people are infringing than ever, so why continue with a losing strategy?

One nasty side effect of this overzealous targeting of individuals in the EU and US is that they are losing the respect and support of genuine customers who purchase content, and that law-abiding people in general are now finding it difficult to make a back up copy of their legally purchased content, or are finding it difficult to use the media they purchased legally in the way they want to use it.

Why do we want to make a backup copy of content? Do you have small children or grandchildren, that destroy CDs and DVDs? Have you ever left a box with CDs in a car on a hot day, and come back to melted plastic? Have you ever tried to find a foreign movie, or a CD that you purchased 15+ years ago, that is not available anywhere, not even on the internet? It has happened to me. So, once my original becomes unusable, then I have to wait until the AAs decide to re-release the content, which may be several years down the road, or never. I still have one favorite comedy from the late 80's made in the US that has never been released on DVD, and which I backed from a VHS tape. Would I buy it again in DVD form if it were available? YES!, because the re-mastered product is bound to be much better than the original. Is it currently available? I am still waiting, 20 years after.

Additionally, I want to be able to make my own music mixes to listed to in my Ipod, or download my own favorite movies from a DVD to my Ipod, to my computer, etc., and to listen to my music compilations in my car. All such copying is done from legally purchased media. Can I legally do that at this time? Maybe yes, maybe no, thanks to the DMCA. And the AAs are trying to eliminate any software that permits the copying of content - be it music, DVDs, etc., so that even if a customer still has a fair use right to make a backup copy, they will not be able to do so, because they will not be able to find software to do so.

You are probably not aware, but for every DVD/CD sold, the AAs persuaded the lawmakers to add a "tax" to compensate them for "illegal copying". I do not mind paying such "tax", because I make backup copies of all my content.

However, there is a lot of information that I burn to DVDs and CDs that is personal, and has nothing to with the AAs, such as photos I have taken, many legal documents I have drafted, books that I have written, etc. I estimate that my personally-created data and photos on CD and DVD outnumber my media copies by a factor of 30 to 1. And yet I still pay the "infringement tax" on such media.

Finally, it was reported in the media that in the UK, the music lords are going after mechanics in a garage because they were playing music loudly as they worked, and customers who came to the garage could listen to such music while they waited to pick up their cars, and the music lords judged that these mechanics were conducting a "performance" of the music without paying royalties.

What is next? people can't hum a song as they are walking down the street? Will we be communicating in grunts, because all the "cool words" will be trademarked? I also know that the AAs have been very active in the US, going after people who create new music that contains even 3 or 4 seconds of a presently existing song, even if the rest of the song is completely different. They are demanding royalties for such "infringement". And people settle or abandon because to fight in court is too expensive, although if they fought in court they would probably win.

I do not support people who copy content they have not paid for and then share it with others, or people who copy movies and then return the original to the store for a refund, or people who rent movies and copy them. These people should be prosecuted. However, I still believe that it is a bad business model for the AAs to make their paying customers the enemy. I have a huge collection (in the thousands of titles) of movies and music, all legally purchased. I used to spend thousands of dollars every year on content. Now, I only spend at most $500 a year. If even a small percentage of customers reacted the same way I have, it is no wonder the industry is losing money. The focus should be on enticing people to buy their products, including finding new ways to make the listening of music and watching of movies a satisfying experience, and giving customers the freedom to maxe mixes of their favorite songs to pay on various media they own, or to have all the movies they legally own digitally on a hard drive so they can, when they want to watch a movie, simply find the title and select the movie they want. Presently, I have to flip through sleeves and albums containing over 3500 movies to find the one I want to watch - not a good use of my time, and a frustrating experience.

You are the CEO of a company, and therefore must be a savvy, highly skilled individual. Tell me, do you honestly believe that alienating, restricting and punishing customers is a good business model?

[UNKLKVN308]

The Sheer Nerve...why I oughta'....

You promote artists who sing and rap about thug life,drug sales,killing people and f^ck the rules,I'm a gangsta,rida,playa and a pimp. You've pushed artists to a level of social perversion and deviant amoral behavior in order to get recognition and then blamed the artists for it while you sit in the background counting your pennies in the failing light of intelligence. You'll let the music of misogyny blare over the air but you won't provide a platform for music of change. You support the devolution of a people but not their revolution. You could have a greater influence in the media but you chose to play it safe and continue to count your pennies in the dark.You won't give certain artists deals but you encourage the trash. One of you people actually had the audacity to come to my club and try to shake me down for more fees because I had a DJ and a juke box!! Whaddya need another limo? 2 more episodes of MTV cribs? Get outta here...The day I pay extra to hear some goon singin' about their life of crime and excess and cryin' about me BREAKIN' THE COPYRIGHT LAWS...Ya gotta be freakin' kiddin me. Respectfully Yours, bigkev308

[Benaldo-22]

Paying for ever royalties to the RIAA

So you bought for example that ELO LP in 1978. you paid the royalties to the RIAA, you thought hey it's nice on a cassette in the car, you wanted good quality tape so you went out and bought the cassette of the same album and yes again you paid the royalties to the RIAA, so CD's came along and you thought well heck...I want the album on CD as well, you bought it and indeed, you paid the royalties yet again to the RIAA, in a nostalgic mood you went and bought the DVD of their concerts and guess what???...sure thing, you paid royalties again to the RIAA.
Never get'n sick of ELO you didn't mind that the restaurant where you went for a bite to eat had ELO on as background music, oh did I tell you that the restaurateur had to pay royalties to the RIAA as well as he played ELO in a public place??...good golly lucky you...on the way home you turned on the car radio and ELO was on again...bloody lucky ELO you think as the Radio Station pays royalties to RIAA as well...you finally made it home to your building and went to go in the elevator to the 32nd floor and you would not believe it, the elevator music happens to be ELO...well holy moly...Jeff Lynne and the gang must be making fortunes bigger then the oil sheiks with all those royalties coming in.... are they???
Well heck no...it's the g***damn record companies who are raking it in from you over the years.

Did Jeff Lynne get all that money or at least the biggest slice??.. as after all ....him and his band did all the musical work...just ask him and I think you can guess the answer.
So look at your LP,Cassettes,8-Tracks,DVD's,CD's you got from the same artist over the years and ask yourself how many bloody times you paid the same royalties for the same music in a different package and then you know why the RIAA is filthy rich and the artists wonder why they get so little money from it all.
The RIAA seems to only want to enrich themselves as where is actually a public record of how much money they rake in and how much of that actually went to the performers?

And so the RIAA and their moneygrabbing likes around the world are now taking Mums,Dads and kids to court cause they share some music via the internet,....

You fools at the RIAA.... a lot of people hear a nice song via sharing on the Net....they like it and go out and buy the whole album from the artist they never heard of before...but you would never admit to such a thing now would you????

[bbotzong]

Whatever happened to...

Isn't there some fee put on every blank CD that we were told would go to the Artist to compensate them for any file sharing? How much, exactly, has been collected and how much has made it to the artist?

And while we're asking questions that make you go 'hmmmm', doesn't Sony, a music label, also make blank CDs, CD recorders, computers to copy CDs on and software to copy CDs? Aren't they making out like bandits playing both ends? Hmmm...

Why can record labels hole monopolies on artists? Where is the anti-trust department of Justice to say that these monopolies are illegal? Shouldn't an artist license his/her music to a dozen music distributors, including DD manufacturers/distributors, online music delivery services, etc., so that the CONSUMER gets the benefit of competition? Right now, there is NO competition in the music business!! If they would implement this model, you'd see artists more in control of their own music, you'd see distributors putting together packages with VALUE to try to earn the consumer's dollar, you'd see lower prices for consumers. What do we have now? The buggy-whip industry fighting the advent of the automobile.

This whole system is broken. As long as the RIAA and its member companies can use the law to stop innovation and competition, they'll spend the recording artists money on making a better buggy whip. Sorry boys, you need to wake up and innovate and compete!!

[jessiccha]

Stopping P2P won't solve the problem

As a student learning about the music business and the logistics behind the industry, I do sympathize for today?s artists and record companies. However, the music industry lies in the hands of the listeners because they are the source of income and their judgment gives the ultimatum of the progress of music. But besides the fact that all listeners are not exposed to the minimal profit of an average artist to sympathize with the rest of the industry, the digital-downloading movement has grown too large to stop the use of file-sharing.

?What have our antipiracy efforts yielded? A legal marketplace that is far better because of what we've done?

Although the RIAA says the tactics they use are necessary to save the music industry, each lawsuit against file-sharers actually does more damage than good to the industry. They only anger the listeners and deter them from purchasing music even more, if not completely.

?That said, we will not--and cannot--hesitate to defend our rights. What's the alternative? Are we supposed to say "never mind" and concede the rights of artists, songwriters, producers, publishers and labels every time a defendant who may be sympathetic to some refuses to accept responsibility? What kind of deterrence message would that send??

Alluding to the last question of the statement above, the message given out is that music are for the elite and those who can afford it. The same message would not have the same interpretation before the digital revolution. But because the revolution has started, the industry needs to adapt to the changes now in order to survive because there are more changes to come. Although unfortunate, it is an inevitable case. And closing down file-sharing services will not solve the situation.

[krosavcheg]

Let's think how to accelerate the death of the Organized Music Cartel

because WE don't need THEM, THEY need US.

There is a good opportunity to get rid of the Organized Music altogether. What they already succeeded is to raise a generation that hates them and does not want to buy anything that is related to the Organized Music.

[EviL-PeeP]

"Are we supposed to say "never mind" and concede the rights of artists..."

"Are we supposed to say "never mind" and concede the rights of artists, songwriters?"

now remind me how much the BAND makes on their songs and albums, now correct me if Im wrong, but from what I've heard the bands make less than 10% of the money of each album sold. is that fair? and is suing a single mother fair? what do you think.

[EuroMarkus]

NEWS: "CANDLE MAKERS SUE EDISON!!"

No business is promised a profit!

Are Candlestick Makers entitled to sue lightbulb owners, because they don't buy candles anymore?

Candlestick Makers and the RIAA aren't promised a profit.

Record buyers for years have been wanting legal downloads, and the record companies fought tooth and nail. Then we have iTunes -- and guess what? -- it's was a success!

Record stores are over!

Getting ripped off on $20 CDs is over!

Musicians making cents per album is over!

Master and Servant record contracts are over!

Record companies are over!

ProTools, MySpace, and websites have made the RIAA and Record Companies as useless as Candlestick Makers.

And the RIAA, you are in the last throes. Keep the lawsuits coming, and futher make your customers and fans hate you.

[My-Self]

Artists paid between 40 & 80 cents per CD, minus expenses

Who's stealing the artists ?

Who uses their control over CD sales & FM radio stations to force artists to sign heavily unbalanced contracts of keep them at bay ?

Artists should hire them and decide who will distribute their products (may that be CD or downloads) and not the other way around.

RIAA members need the artists they exploit, artists would do far better without this corrupt system !

[imacpwr]

Re: Artists paid..

Actually they only get 15 cents per CD (minus expenses).

[Xenu7-214951314497503184010868]

Last Gasp of the Dinosaurs

I wonder if the Dinosaurs could have lasted just a little bit longer if they had lawyers too?

[m.meister]

Mr. Sherman's complete lack of understanding

Mr. Sherman seems very locked into his old paradigm.

His argument is that the suits of file sharers are what helped the
industry. Of course, it could have absolutely NOTHING to do with
making songs available online via iTunes Music Store, or the
reduction is pricing of albums (again, thanks to iTMS).

No .. for Mr. Sherman, it was the lawyers suing college students
that made all the difference.

Second, he argues that their methods don't target defendants
with perceived sympathy. Yet, somehow they've managed to
snag grandmas and folks that never use computers. Perhaps
their approach is a little TOO indiscriminate since actually having
a computer is not even a requirement to feel the wrath of RIAA
lawyers.

The only thing the lawyers do is make us hate RIAA more. I buy
LESS now than I did before. I don't want anything to do with
supporting an organization that treats its customers like
criminals and its artists like indentured servants. The only ones
making money from these lawsuits are lawyers and executives.
The same executives that are happy to steal every last dime
from an artist.

This commentary is irrelevant. The moaning of a dinosaur
industry that is trying to remain relevant, while providing little or
no value to the artists they claim to serve.

Mr. Sherman -- you and your fellow executives should start
looking for new jobs. It may take a couple more years -- but
artists no longer need the labels like they once did. All they
need is access to YouTube, iTunes, Amazon.com -- and they
don't need to pay you a 99% cut of sales for that.