--- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:44:13 -0800 From: Brad Templeton <brad@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Cc: politech@private Subject: Re: [Politech] A mild defense of the RIAA and "anti-piracy" caucus [ip] In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20031022162826.0270fde8@private> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: http://www.templetons.com/brad On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 09:25:16AM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: > [This is not merrely flamebait. Czarina may be wrong, but I know her well > enough to say she honestly believes this. :) --Declan] Nor should it be. Let me say as chairman of the organization that has been most prominent against the RIAA that largely we agree with her! We're not particularly fond of the word "stealing" to be applied to the civil tort of copyright infringement, but that doesn't mean that ripping off musical artists is right. It's not the same as literally walking into a store and lifting physical goods, but creators nonetheless deserve to be compensated when people use and take their work. Naturally the RIAA and MPAA portray this as about stealing, and even pretend it's about stealing from the artists. (Though frankly, through their abuse of oligopoly power, they are better at it than Napster users ever were.) And indeed, some people out there are simply out to get all their music without paying, and Czarina is right to condemn them. We're involved not because music should be free, but because technology should be free, and the RIAA has taken upon itself an attack on technology. We're involved because the only future the RIAA and MPAA see is to put digital and legal walls around all media, and controls on all players of media including all your general purpose computers. We're involved because they pass laws like the DMCA which encourage companies to threaten lawsuits against students who publish that holding the shift key down when you insert a CD into a Windows PC will disable the copy protection. The RIAA's answer of DRM is wrong, so we're looking for better answers. Since it's clear the public will fileshare -- right or wrong -- regardless of what is done, it seems the only answer is to find a way to get creators compensated when this happens. To truly rewrite copyright law to match the realities of the digital age and give those rewards to the creators as is intended. We welcome other answers as well. But the "answer" of DRM and the DMCA and proposed rules like the CDTPA, Broadcast flag etc. is no answer in a free society with free technology. --- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:24:42 -0800 To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> From: Cindy Cohn <cindy@private> Subject: Fwd: Re: [Politech] A mild defense of the RIAA and "anti-piracy" caucus [ip] Cc: dave@private Hi Declan, I saw the note on your list chastising those of us who believe that the RIAA's litigation crusade is wrong. The writer seems to assume that the only reason anyone might oppose the RIAA is because they don't want to pay for CDs. While it's certainly true that part of the reason that there is so little public sympathy for the recording companies is due to the sense that they have been ripping off music lovers and artists for many years, that's really a relatively minor issue in the debate. But it reminds me of several other comments I've seen since the lawsuits started in September. The comments that go a bit like this: *If it weren't for the privacy and due process violations in the subpoena process; *If it weren't for the RIAA's blatant forum shopping in trying to issue all subpoenas from the one jurisdiction that has authorized them; *If it weren't for the fact that the record studios started off by blindly suing hundreds of people without contacting people first or doing even rudimentary investigation to see if they have their facts correct (an RIAA spokeswoman previously stated that "when you go fishing with a driftnet you're going to catch a few dolphins;" it seems they've changed their fishing habits somewhat belatedly in response to pressure from Senator Coleman); *If it weren't for the fact that the RIAA and/or the ISPs who are being forced to respond to the subpoenas are plainly making mistakes (EFF is handling another mistaken identity case, Fonovisa v. Ross Plank, in Los Angeles); *If it weren't for the fact that the recording companies are urging poor individuals like Brianna LaHara12-year-old and Lorraine Sullivan to run up their credit cards to pay thousands of dollars to multinational corporations that routinely drop hundreds of thousands on a single media splash for a pop starlet; *If it weren't for the fact that the law allows the recording companies to threaten people with millions of dollars in damages for, at most, sharing hundreds of dollars worth of music; *If it weren't for the fact that the recording companies are suing parents and others for the acts of their children and other members of the household; *If it weren't for the fact that artists aren't receiving an additional penny of the money collected; *If it weren't for the fact that the money collected will not even remotely pay for the lawyers hired to engage in this crusade, much less make up for the record companies' claimed lost revenues; *If it weren't for the fact that even the RIAA agrees that these lawsuits won't solve their problem with P2P or even make a dent in it; Setting aside all of those pesky issues, don't the record companies have the right to sue their customers and fans? While this question is probably very interesting to those who sit above the fray, it seems a bit beside the point to those of us who are answering calls and e-mails from frantic people who suddenly see their entire life savings, college funds and businesses at risk as "collateral damage" in the record industry's p.r. campaign. Whether or not the industry's move is legal or even moral in some abstract way, it is not OK in practice. And it's even more wrong when they have the answer to their financial woes in their own hands and simply refuse to implement it: offering blanket licenses to individuals similar to the ones they offer to radio stations. While I strongly agree that artists should be paid for their work, I strongly disagree with the presumption that the only reason one might disagree with the recording industry's current tactics is because one wants music for free. There is much more here, both legally and morally, and it encompasses core questions about the direction we're heading as the digital revolution continues. Even if we were to believe the recording industry's claims that infringement on peer to peer network is the source of its woes, are we going to let their concerns take away our privacy, prevent anonymity, truncate our due process rights, determine future technological innovation and force people into the awful choice between paying for school lunch and getting rid of a lawsuit with outrageous damages assessed for relatively small injuries? The questions are important and deserve more than just "it's just like shoplifting" as a response. Cindy --- Subject: RE: [Politech] A mild defense of the RIAA and "anti-piracy" caucus [ip] Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:49:50 -0500 Thread-Index: AcOdbhStQENqN2rPS+SAOlIHe5JMIwACzxSw From: "Powers, Jamie" <JPowers@private> To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan@private> Cc: <czarina@private> X-VBS-Filter-Version: 1.14 (well.com modified) (smtp) Declan, Why the denigrating cute smiley (equivalent to an online 'wink') when indicating Czarina "honestly believes this?" Its as if some child were mentioning the boogeyman. Her point seems simple, direct and rather irrefutable - downloaders don't appear to consider or care to consider the consequences of their actions. And the re line you inserted "mild defense of the RIAA" is almost misleading - she was pointing out that taking property without justification is problematic. Maybe its my advancing age. I'm defending one of the RIAA actions right now, have worked in IP for over a decade and remain amazed at the utter absence of any sound rationale being offered for why one has a right to download a popular song without paying for it. Now fighting for P2P technology, for the right to avoid information control, and for the ability to move data without needing a central authority to approve it, are all compelling reasons we should have robust non-regulated file sharing tools available. But it seems as if file and data sharing (the concept) is being wrapped around music file sharing (the practice) and to maul a metaphor, that mutt of a dog just don't hunt. It is intriguing to discuss this issue with those supporting music file sharing who don't seem to make a connection between what they take when they copy. Most seem to see it as the song has been created, the 'costs' recouped and the file somehow now ripe to be shared freely. I've always found your views interesting, the service great but just thought the denigration of her post not merited. Jamie Powers Data Rights & Privacy Advisors, LLC --- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:55:59 -0800 From: Seth David Schoen <schoen@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Cc: Czarina <czarina@private> Subject: Re: [Politech] A mild defense of the RIAA and "anti-piracy" caucus [ip] Message-ID: <20031028195559.GG10941@private> Declan McCullagh writes: > Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:23:33 > From: Czarina <czarina@private> > To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> > Reply-to: Czarina <czarina@private> > Subject: Re: [Politech] Yet Another Congressional Anti-Piracy Caucus forms > [ip] > > Declan, > > We will need as many anti-piracy caucuses, group, etc, until people stop > stealing from artists. Sure, music and software should be free, but so > should food, water, and electricity. However, if I walked out of Safeway > with foodstuffs and didn't pay for them, I would go to jail, and no one > would hesitate to call it stealing. > > Piracy hurts everyone in the industry. It isn't right to steal music just > because YOU feel that Madonna, Eminem, and Michael Jackson, et al "have made > enough money". Do they make a ridiculous amount of money for what they do? > Of course, but that doesn't make it right to steal. How would these pirates > feel if someone with less money/success than they did, decided to steal > their work and property because "they made enough money". > > Yes, I am sure that music company CEO's and the artists won't feel it, but > remember the piracy hurts the little guy, people in the same socio-economic > groups as the ones stealing it. If you can afford a computer, you can > afford a CD. Quit being so damned selfish and cheap !! I bought two CDs last night and three earlier this month for a total expenditure of around $70 (as much as possible of which I firmly hope went straight to Godspeed You Black Emperor! and Noe Venable). I have never shared the contents of any of my hundreds of CDs in a file-sharing network. How many more CDs do I have to buy before I get to complain about insane copyright policy and technology regulation? -- Seth David Schoen <schoen@private> | Very frankly, I am opposed to people http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | being programmed by others. http://vitanuova.loyalty.org/ | -- Fred Rogers (1928-2003), | 464 U.S. 417, 445 (1984) --- From: Don Singh <don.singh@private> To: "'declan@private'" <declan@private> Subject: FW:[Politech] A mild defense of the RIAA and "anti-piracy" caucus [ip] Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:30:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Declan, this is our response to Czarina....I guess you could call it a eutopian-philsophy...... ---------- What if Peer to Peer 'Wins'? October 24, 2003 Lets take an honest look at things for a moment here. What is the worst thing that could happen if peer to peer were to eventually overtake the recording industry and bankrupt them all, as the RIAA claims will eventually happen if the current path is not deterred. So what would happen? Well, music would probably get better as a result. In fact, music would probably improve so much it would eventually be looked back at as a tremendously favorable improvement. If the big business record companies were all eliminated there would be no more music motivated by greed and fortune seeking. The only motivation left to create music would be, well, a love of music. Most of the music made available by the large recording interests is not art and the creators and performers are not "art"ists. They are part of an industry fueled by a desire for money. From the author and performer of the music all the way down to the guy that empties the garbage pails in the studio and back up to the president of the record company, every single one of those people is doing a job in search of a good paycheck. None of them, performers included, are doing it because of an inner passion that drives them to create. It is not art; it is music that is mass-produced for profit. The loss of current music continually fed at rapid pace would become overshadowed by the sheer quality of the musical works. Do you really need a new song every week if the 'old' song is not played out in 3 days? Quality music has a lasting quality that keeps it from getting old quickly. The problem with creating music with longevity is it equals lower sales. Lower sales of course equal lower profits. Recording labels are not in business to bring you art, they are in it for the money and nothing else. Plain and simple, this is capitalism at its finest. Capitalism and art mix as well as oil and water. I would like to think that years from now music itself will evolve and grow far greater than it is today as a result of the growing free trade of music among a global community. The music industry might eventually fall, but it surely will not stop the music. If anything, the advent of online file sharing guarantees that we will forever have a supply of fresh music. At no time in history has it ever been as easy as it is now to get music out to masses. No longer does an ARTist have to cow tow to the demanding 'recording industry mafia'. The free trade of music through peer-to-peer services is a godsend to any true artist, but it is a detriment to the purveyors of 'made for profit' recordings that have nothing to do with art. These are the guys getting 'cheated' and not any creator of art. Don't let the propaganda fool you So what do you think would happen if peer-to-peer file sharing 'wins'? <http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=282>http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=282 _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Oct 29 2003 - 22:44:13 PST