More and more as I watch, listen and read about the debate of digital music the more amused, and irate I become at the changing of the meaning of words and metaphors used in the debate.

Pirate/Piracy- For example, the word Pirate has always been used to describe some one who made copies of entire CDs, usually including the covers, art work, and printed material. But in the infinite wisdom of the RIAA the term "Pirate" has been reworked to apply to people who rip MP3 files from a CD. In the recording industry's eyes, you are a pirate if you make an MP3 of a song . Doesn't matter what you do with it, even if its just to transfer it to your MP3 player to take to work, or jogging, you're a pirate. (And by connotation a thief), and God have mercy on your soul if you happened to burn a cd of it. The penalties approach those of capital murder.

Perfect Digital Copy-The one phrase that really gets me hot under the collar and is most likely to get me going is when these so called music industry experts spout forth phrases like "Download a perfect digital copy" of a song (or a movie for that matter). Just one time I would love for one of the Senators to ask "What format MS Rosen?" If she's talking about MP3 or even Ogg, this is not a PERFECT DIGITAL COPY"; it is a representation of the song, but not a perfect digital copy. We're not talking minutes to download perfect digital copies, we're talking hours folks. When was the last time you downloaded a 650MB file? That's a perfect digital copy, not a 4MB file.

This morning I sat down and did a little test. I took The Lester Chambers/KK Martin CD, "Blues for Sale", recorded 1 song (Is You Is, or Is You Ain't My Baby?) as a 16 bit, 44.1Kz Stereo wav file. (this is the same rate at which CDs are recorded). I then took the same song and captured it to a MP3 file at 128kbps. (the most commonly used encoding rate) The wav file was 45,773,000 Bytes or 45.773 MB. The Mp3 file of the same song was 4.153 MB. Obviously not an exact copy. The wav file is uncompressed, the MP3 file is compressed. On playing them both back it is quite easy for even an untrained ear to tell the difference. The 16bit 44.1 Khz file sounds better, because it has all of the bits. In the MP3 file, many of those bits are discarded, leaving the song sounding flat when compared to the CD or the original recording. So when you hear music industry wonks say that people are downloading "exact digital copies" of a song, they are distorting the truth (or lying through their teeth). DO NOT buy the line that MP3 files are the same quality as a CD. They aren't. Are they acceptable? Possibly, if you think FM radio is acceptable, then they probably are. But, did you ever notice that when you buy a CD after hearing a song on the radio, the CD always sounds much better than it did on the radio? Same thing here. They compare apples to oranges and tell you both are apples, then accuse you of stealing the orange.

Filesharing is Illegal- No it isn't, filesharing describes a process, not a behavior. Filesharing can be used to share files between co-workers. Basically that's what a filesharing program is, a network interface, that lets various people share the files they wish. They can be legal, illegal, wedding pictures, or even porn. The computer doesn't care what it is, nor can it know. Did you ever send an email to someone with an attachment? Then you shared a file with someone, and by the connotations the "content" industry uses, you are a pirate.

As Jessica Litman writes in her book Digital Copyright, in the chapter "Choosing Metaphors," Today the term piracy seems to apply describe any unlicensed activity -- especially if you are a teenager. The content industry calls some behavior piracy despite the fact that it is unquestionably legal. When a consumer makes a noncommerical recording of music, by, for example, taping a CD she has purchased or borrowed from a friend, her copying comes squarely within the privilege established in the Audio Home Recording Act. The record companies persist in calling that copying piracy even though the statute deems it lawful."

From the next page: "Worse, any behavior that could potentially cause the same effects as piracy, even if it doesn't, must also be piracy because an unauthorized digital copy of something could be uploaded to the Internet, where it could be downloaded by two million people, even making the digital copy is piracy. Because an unauthorized digital copy of something could be used in a way that could cause all that damage, making a tool that makes it possible to make an unauthorized digital copy, even if nobody ever makes one, is itself piracy, regardless of the reasons one might have for making the tool. And what could possibly be wrong with a law designed to prevent piracy?"

If you haven't read the book, you should. Its available at Amazon.com. The book is a must read for anyone trying to understand just what the heck happened in copyright in the past few years, and how the DMCA came to pass.

First post!!!

I win!

you dork!

Wow, the RIAA lies again. surprise. What makes me angry the most is that congress thinks that putting a chip in every electronic item taht piracy will just disappear. Wake up and smell reality!

Editor: You are very correct on all said. I am also sick of the false terminology the RIAA is using. It is misleading to the average consumer. By calling people who encode/download mp3s, 'pirates' makes them sound like criminals. This is probably why the RIAA does it, to make people with morals stop. And 128kbps mp3 is near-cd quality, not cd quality. I never noticed the difference, but I just played a song by Sublime, 'garden grove', which I ripped and encoded into 128kbps mp3 and played it back. It is close, but not cd quality. CD sounds much better. I am glad you are trying to make consumers aware of what the RIAA is doing. I plan to write an editorial one of these days, hopefully you will post it. Keep up the good work on the site! Oh yea, quick suggestion. All of your anti-riaa merchandise you have for sale, could you possibly have the crossed out riaa sign you use on the mousepad, put onto a bumper sticker? I would love to have one. Thanks..

"They compare apples to oranges and tell you both are apples, then accuse you of stealing the orange." This is a great line. Wish I'd said it.

This is a great article. Finally, someone else acknowledges that the terms we willingly accept today as definitive are merely that which has been pushed on us by the industry. The real definitions have very little to do w/theirs. Sadly, tho, the damage has been done.

Isn't it sick though how terminology becomes so important?

There are people that argue that there is no bias in the [network] media. It may not be overt, but it exists within the connotations that have been placed upon certain words--the bias is in which words they use, not what they say. And this goes on with all the issues, not just music. Sick. >

It's basically like what the government did back in the 80's with Tipper Gore and substituting "Censor" with other things. Kinda funny how the government loves to twist and turn things to mold their own truth.

I'm sure glad someone else stepped up and defined this stuff. There are way too many words used today which, while in the beginning had a great, specific meaning, have become "buzzwords" and "generic" like the word hero (another post, another time) or .. yes.. piracy. Hope more people read this and appreciate the time that was taken to clear that all up.
And I agree with you 10000% . "Near cd quality "and "cd quality (readerfect digitial copy)" are NOT the same thing.. close yes.. but you can tell the difference.

Has it occured to you people that the RIAA has probably used their great amount of money to pay people skilled in the art of propaganda. I mean they probably have board meetings about what words or labals to use to make consumers sound the most sleezy or unsavoury. In order to get their way.