Posted by Ted 'practicing for the coast guard' Kennedy on 11/15/40 11:26

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:02:28 -0400, "Loco Jones"
<locojonesnet@netscape.net> was understood to have stated the
following:

>"Ted 'the only good Kennedy is a dead' Kennedy" <ausstu@isamoron.com>
>wrote in message news:erd7i11em29fc1a6126184tc56uj7khnnn@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:46:43 -0400, "Loco Jones"
>> was understood to have stated the following:
>>
>> >My point being, this "argument" has been going on for *years*, and it
>> >still hasn't been satisfactorily resolved - and certainly not by the
>Courts
>> >to date. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, theft is a criminal
>matter,
>> >and it's the RIAA/MPAA cartels confusing the two while trying to bully
>> >the judicial system into accepting their point of view.
>>
>> No arguments there.
>>
>> >Anyone can claim that listening to music without paying to do so is
>guilty
>> >of "stealing", they can even claim some moral high ground in defending
>> >their views, but that doesn't neccessarily mean they are right and
>anyone
>> >in disagreement is wrong.
>>
>> The argument isn't about listening to music without paying for it; the
>> argument is about possessing music without paying for it, as well as
>> distributing music for which you do not have the rights to distribute.
>
>If the argument is about "possessing music" without paying for it, then
>anyone who ever taped a song from the radio, or duplicated a library copy,
>or made a mix tape/cd for a friend would be guilty of "theft" - that theft
>being the *presumed* lost sale of the original product. Prior to the rise
>of file-sharing on the internet, the entertainment industry generally
>regarded such copying as a benign activity, perhaps even beneficial in
>creating a fan base that could be exploited economically.

The argument isn't about "possessing music" without paying for it; the
argument is about distribution of music (and/or other IP) for which
you do not have the right. P2P is capable of a much greater
distribution of a title than merely swapping/duping tapes or CDs among
friends.

>Actually, I believe the term "unauthorized distribution" was originally
>intended to apply to those who would profit from that distribution, not
>those who merely shared their love of music with like-minded individuals.

However the term was originally intended is, IMO, applicable to P2P,
even though there may be no financial reward or motivation for the
individual sharing up a particular copyrighted title. The result is
still the same; it is making it possible for individuals to obtain
commercial material without providing due compensation for the
producers.

>> >I can claim that it's morally wrong for the RIAA to create one-sided
>> >contracts which "steal" from the creators of artistic property, or force
>> >them to sign away their rights in near-perpetuity, but I doubt they
>would
>> >see it that way. To them, it's simply a matter of how they have always
>> >conducted business and how dare anyone question the status quo.
>
>> Strange, I didn't realize artists were *required* to sign contracts
>> with the RIAA. Is the industry holding guns to the artist(s) heads to
>> force them into coercion?
>
>Literally, no, but a very good case can be made for that being
>metaphorically true. The RIAA member companies have a very complex
>infrastructure in place to produce, promote, market, distribute and control
>content. An independent artist, even one who deplores the RIAA, understands
>a major label deal will result in advertising, media coverage, rack space
>at retail, concert promotion, cross-licensing arrangements and radio
>airplay - in which case, such a deal becomes infinitely more attractive, at
>least on paper.

And it makes sense; the RIAA companies paid to put and maintain that
infrastructure in place. Artists benefit from this by seeing greater
exposure, which results in more sales, which encourages more
production. Shippers and retailers benefit from moving product.
Engineers get compensated; equipment gets purchased. People get paid
to do their jobs. Sharing copyrighted content has the potential to
bring all of this to a grinding halt (depending on how wide spread it
becomes). Personally, though I don't like the RIAA, I would prefer to
pay people for doing their jobs, as I expect to be paid for doing
mine.

>Of course, reading the fine print on that contract will reveal a new,
>unproven artist to be little more than an indentured servant beholden to
>the label for a plethora of "costs" which, through creative accounting, may
>be never re-paid. More than a few "million-selling artists" have found
>themselves in bankruptcy, and not all of them through fault of their own.
>For an enlightening insight on how the RIAA makes this possible, have a
>read here:
>http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Will follow up later.

>> Interestingly enough, a few weeks ago I was listening to a radio show
>> that featured "up and coming" or "new" artists in the genre I follow.
>> The spokesman for one band was featured, ironically enough within a
>> few weeks of my purchasing one of their CDs. He made the statement
>> that before his band signed a contract with a record label, a friend
>> of his with a server set up a site for the band to share up some of
>> their music with. An industry exec found the site, liked the content,
>> and offered the group a contract. The group obviously signed a
>> contract. This group used the 'net as an avenue for discovery, and
>> after their discovery, decided to sign with a label. If the 'net is so
>> much better for the artist(s), why didn't they stay with a
>> distribution medium that was in their favor?
>
>While the 'net distribution model may be better for the artist in terms of
>financial compensation, it quite simply doesn't have the penetration into
>the public consciousness which a deal with the label can (or promises to)
>deliver. Your independent artist has a much more difficult task getting
>"known" by the public at large without major label intervention.

Obviously, which is why it would be beneficial to the artists to be
represented by a major label.

>Will Clear Channel-style radio stations put them in heavy rotation,
>mainstream music publications review their product, brick-and-mortar
>operations devote massive display space and POP promotional materials
>without that corporate muscle? Not likely. Therefore, it may be less of a
>"gun to the head" than a "carrot-and-stick" scenario at work here.

It's definitely not a gun to the head methodology; the artists sign
with the labels because it's in their best interest. The artists
wouldn't have the resources for such wide spread penetration without
the labels.

>> >The problem is... people *are* questioning an industry that has been
>> >found guilty (by the Courts) of price-fixing and payola for radio
>airplay
>> >(yet again in 2005!), and while copyright infringement for profit
>certainly
>> >needs to be addressed, downloading music merely to listen to is hardly
>> >the felony the **AA member corporations would have the news media
>> >and the public believe.
>>
>> I never said I was a fan of the ??AA; in fact, I dislike them very
>> much. However, when it comes to rewarding the artist(s) for their
>> work, the ??AA is doing a *MUCH* better job than the sharers are.
>> The ??AA is one evil; sharers another. It's just that the latter (IMO)
>> is the greater of the two evils.
>
>The fans are the ones who attend the concerts, buy the tee-shirts, posters,
>books, DVD's and related merchandise - including the deluxe "box set"
>packaging of the CD's, so I would suggest that fans reward the artists on a
>level that far exceeds the pittance of a royalty resulting from the sale of
>an overpriced compact disc.

*Some* fans do this; since burners became available, I've noticed an
increasing number of CD-Rs in the various collections of people who
consider themselves to be fans of particular artists.

>It's a matter of perception of value, and a digital download ("legal" or
>otherwise) has no cachet amongst collectors, even though it may help
>establish and nuture that market. Sadly, the RIAA chooses to ignore or
>refute that reality.

This really is such a double edged sword. I personally have
experienced how a digital download would impact my purchasing. As I
have written in this group before, I downloaded Metallica's "Enter
Sandman," (no local station played the material when it came out) and
after listening to it a few times, purchased the black album the next
day, and was about to start buying other content from the band.
Ironically enough, Lars Ulrich (the drummer?) made a public statement
basically calling downloaders thieves, at which point I developed an
intense hatred for the band and it's music.

By the same token, there have been times where I've met people who
realize I'm a geek, and they would discuss the latest P2P shut-downs,
if you will. Each person in those conversations was disappointed
because they thought it was the end of "free music."

>Greed and short-sightedness can scuttle even the most profitable of
>businesses, and could well be what we're witnessing with this Sue The
>Customer campaign currently underway.

I don't believe the "Sue the Customer" campaign is an accurate
description of the situation. It's more like "Sue the Sharer", and
"sharer" and "customer" aren't necessarily synonyms.

Loco, thanks again for another insightful and well composed discussion
on the subject.

[Back to original message]