Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:22:02 -0400
To: boycott-riaa contacts
Subject: Comments
Name: Morgon O'Kelley

Email: gonzee@gci.net

location: Anchorage Alaksa

Message: I recently sent this email to Marci Hamilton, the Findlaw columnist and lawyer, in response to a couple of her articles. I would like to say that Ms. Hamilton is very fair and thoughtful, aside from being a champion of civil rights. Here are links to the articles; http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030828.html

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030805.html

Here is the text of my letter, perhaps some use can be found in some part of it.

Marci,

Let me start by saying that I love your column in FindLaw. If there is one thing that our country is in dire need of it is a more constitutional understanding and analysis of our current and future laws. People such as you contribute hugely to that cause.

I have just read your column from Aug. 28, 2003 regarding Entitlement, and would like to offer you a slightly different perspective regarding file sharing, music trading to be more specific. In your article you sighted the most common arguments in favor of music trading, and then quickly dismissed these arguments as selfish. I will not dispute that they are selfish reasons, but I will argue that to dismiss them is dangerous. I will also that it is the RIAA whose claim is based on Entitlement. However, since I am not a lawyer, but a software developer, my arguments will not legal ones.

In your column you gave passing voice to the music traders complaints of inefficient market, overpriced CD’s, underpaid artist’s and the woeful inefficiency of our current copyright laws, and then went on to dismiss these claims as either merely justification, or (as was strongly implied) outright deceit. You propose that the music trader trades to steal and complains to justify that theft. You also applaud the RIAA for calling a spade a spade as it were and suing traders for theft. Music traders are condemned in your column for their apathy in trying to justly affect the law, and for their impatience in not waiting for a legal change to alleviate their complaints. I would like to expose different views on these points in hopes of evoking some sympathy or at least some understanding on your part. I am not trying to assert that you are in error, merely that there are two sides to this particular conflict and if nothing else, one must recognize that when 60 million
Americans are engaged in an ‘illegal’ activity then something needs to be re-evaluated.

I would like to start with your second to the last paragraph where you say “With more and more institutions inclined to call lawbreaking just what it is - from the RIAA\'s willingness to call stealing…” and deal with the issue of the RIAA and theft. The music industry, and indeed the print industry, has been manipulating the copyright laws of our nation since the inception of the industry, manipulation being a code word for “Bullying artists and authors to give up their right of ownership or else not be published”. These works then become the property of a corporation, which has a very different lifespan than a natural person, and essentially never pass into the public domain. To sum, I believe that the RIAA and it’s counterparts in other industries, have been using their unbalanced power to first steal from the artist, and then steal from the public. Does this justify a willful departure from the law by otherwise law abiding citizens? Alone, it does not.

The RIAA goes on to steal from us even further, and not just in gouging CD prices. Throughout this conflict the RIAA’s message to the honest user has been about rights and license, if you don’t have license for content, then you can’t download it. But it is never seen fit to endorse the honest user who has honest claim. For instance, if only licensing is at stake then why is there no legal way for me to obtain current media for licensed content that I own in obsolete media? By that rationale I have the right to obtain media for all LP’s, 8-Tracks, Cassettes, Betamax, and VHS content that I currently own. However, the only ‘legal’ way for me to do this currently is to purchase the new media at full price, effectively purchasing a new license at the same time. This seems to me a rather one way street. Does this justify a willful departure from the law by otherwise law abiding citizens? Alone, it does not.

I do not need to address the actual price of CD’s; no one thinks they are reasonably priced. I will address the availability of CD’s, or more importantly the availability of variety. In addition to having a flawed consumer relations model, the recording industry also has a flawed business model that selects artists to endorse based on whether or not they will be appreciated by their target audience. The flaw is that the target audience is between 10 and 15 years old (approx). The only reason that I address this is because I hadn’t bought more than three CD’s in the five or so years before the advent of P2P sharing for these reasons. They were simply too expensive and there were very few bands that I deemed worthy of that cost. Interestingly enough, the number of bands that I do feel are worth the money has at least doubled since I have begun trading (read ‘stealing’). Am I entitled to good music choices at a reasonable price? Apparently not.

I also believer it is not in question whether content quality is reflected in the price. $18.99 for the latest Brittany Spears album compared to $17.97 for T3 on DVD before it is even released.

None of these reasons justify the use of file sharing to force change from the music industry, but I believe my next point does.

I would argue that there is no effective legal way for John Q. Public to affect a change from the music industry. They effectively have a monopoly on music; traditional boycotts are only effective because of the inherent choices in our marketplace. If I don’t like Fred Meyer’s use of non-union employees I can go to Safeway for groceries and Wal-Mart for other sundry items. These alternatives make boycotting a practical and effective tactic in forcing change from a retailer or supplier. But the music industry has eliminated these choices through both pressures and incentives to retailers. Incentives (and pressure) are given if retailers only handle major labels, only advertise specific artists from those labels and rigidly fix prices and promotions. If I think that the RIAA’s business model is flawed and want to boycott, then I must boycott all major labels, artists, and retail outlets. I am then restricted to little or no music alternatives. No label fears boycott for
these reasons.

Your statement about lobbying congress for change is frankly laughable. I am sure you are familiar with our lobby systems in and outs. The bottom line is that in lobbying congress, it’s about the bottom line. No single group or even combinations of groups, that is arguing for fair use can even begin to compete with the financial power of the entertainment industry lobby. If there were, then we would see a much different version of the DMCA, if it existed at all, that allowed for fair use as well as protecting the interests of the artists and industry. (I am aware that more than the Entertainment Industry lobbies are responsible for the DMCA, software for example.)

As a consumer of music my interests are respected and represented by no one, I have been powerless to affect any change. That is not so anymore, now I have a very small bullet that I may fire at the recording industry that both stings, and conveys my displeasure and wants. Small though my bullet may be, when added to the other 60 million lawless Americans firing the same very small bullet, the results are gratifying.

The last thing I will bring to bear in this argument is the least moral, but most impacting, in my mind. The recording industry is obsolete; artists no longer need their huge machines to 1.) record albums 2.) market albums 3.) distribute albums 4.) advertise albums. The current struggle is less about the downloaded music and more about the availability of music. Independent labels (who almost all allow free sharing of their artists music) are gaining ground by adapting to the digital era, creating more consumer choice and allowing artists to profit more from their music while still providing it for free to their fan base. The current battle is less about getting copyrighted music off the P2P networks, and more about shutting down the P2P networks to curtail the independent label’s ability to compete by exposing their music to a large fan base. So, as far as I am concerned the RIAA is struggling vainly to stay alive when there is no reason for them to exist. They are
middlemen who are upset that the manufacturer is able to go straight to the end user. Do I care if they follow the dinosaur into extinction? No. Should they be resuscitated? No. Are they ENTITLED to their position as middlemen? They seem to think so, I do not.

It is dangerous to dismiss the claim of music traders as selfish and deceitful because by limiting them to accepted methods of change through legal means and then leaving those means unreachable, our claims are invalidated. By broadly legislating against piracy, fair use is removed and we are told to blame piracy instead of overreaching laws. By receiving NO concessions from either congress or the RIAA on fair use, including prior licensing, we (we the people including the artists) are at the mercy of their decisions regarding the production, sale, distribution and ownership of music. I believe that, in a broad sense at least, that encroaches on the First Amendment.

I prefer to call it Civil Disobedience until my voice is heard. If you think that Civil Disobedience must be victimless and peaceful to be moral and effective, then consider the Boston Tea Party.





Thank you,

Morgon O'Kelley – unrepentant music pirate. Argg.

Excellent letter.

WoW lets everyone from Alaska elect Morgon to the U.S Senate

Amen, and Amen

Joe Milner- another unrepentant music pirate.

Bravo! Elect this man president!

Give him, a Hell Yeah!
Howard Dunlap ~
yet another unrepenting, unrelenting music and video pirate.

ARRGGH MATEY!

Who only dl's video because he already owns it on VHS

You've done yourself mighty proud Morgon. You articulated many very valid points as well as any of us here could have! Great job.

Very well written.

In noting that the RIAA are indeed middlemen, it can also be said that despite their claims of representing the artists, the RIAA does not act in their best interest. In fact, much of what the RIAA does goes directly against the artist's views. Take the Deftones, for instance. For months they were offering free bootlegs of every one of their concerts, archives ranging from as recent as last spring, to concerts dated as far back as 1996. As soon as their label discovered the Deftones were doing this, the Deftones were forced to remove each and every one of them, only to leave a somber "taken down" in their place (and, in an obvious 1984 reference, the words "BIG BROTHER", on a maverick records link)
Furthermore, many of the artists the RIAA represents are against the RIAA's current course of action - but unfortuneatly, these artists are in a ctach-22 situation. Because the RIAA has monpolized the american music industry, they have a great deal of financial and (disturbingly) apparent political clout, making it difficult for the artists to speak out against the proverbial hand that feeds them. It goes without saying that the RIAA does not allow its artists to speak against the organization, and if the artists were to do so they would doubtless lose their contract(s) from their respective label immediately.
Ergo, artists against the RIAA's gestapo tactics have but two choices : 1) Stay under contract, and not speak against the RIAA or 2) Speak against the RIAA, only to lose their contract and status as a "Major label recording artist", and thus have to go independent.
Unfortuneately, the majority of the RIAA sponsored artists pick the former (with certain noteable exceptions - such as Pearl Jam), usually because they no longer see music as an art, but as a profession.
Over the past several decades, the RIAA's stronghold of the music industry has almost made independent labels seem insignificant, and almost illegitimite at times...
In my opinion, this needs to change. As anyone who has listened to indie music will tell you, it is just as good, if not better than its RIAA counterparts.
There again, is evidence of the RIAA's monopoly at work - naturally, the independents do not have the resources (financial or otherwise) that the RIAA has, thus cannot promote their music to the level that the RIAA promotes theirs. Why? The RIAA has been allowed to grow to disasterous proportions - stomping out any and competition in their wake. How can a non-RIAA artist compete against the quagmire of the RIAA's multi-billion dollar stronghold?
As indie music is by nature much more grass roots than that of a major label, word of mouth becomes very important. However, word of mouth will not give the independents the amount of sales the RIAA generates... In my opinion, the indies need to have a few aces in the hole. Mainly, I feel more of the so-called "major artists" need to come to the realization that the RIAA is not beneficial (financially or otherwise) to them, and more importantly, that they don't need the RIAA.
Dispite what the RIAA claims, artists do NOT have to be members of the association to be successful.
Don't believe me? That's understandable - you are just believing what you have been told... But if that was the case, and all independent artists were doomed to fail if they were not represented by an RIAA member label, how does that explain how bands such as Sevendust and Default have gone multi-platinum, all WITHOUT the help of the RIAA?
Major, independent, it doesn't matter. Truthfully, there is only two things that matter: 1) quality of the music (or in the RIAA's case, lack thereof ) and 2) Distribution. The second, ironcially being more important than the first - while the music is important in and of it self, it is absolutely crucial to get it heard. If no one hears it, it could be the best song in the world and not gain the attention it deserves (as is the case with many independent albums, unfortunately)...

Thanks for all the kind comments.
We have inertia in our favor, and intelligence.
Things will eventually be more fair.

I must say that i'm a very hard person to impress when it comes to reading opinionated articles but I have to say that this letter is excellent. This letter is an articulate view of most all of the issues I have with the RIAA and how file sharing is basically civil disobedience just like ghandi and the Boston Tea Party. If you compare this issue with both of the prior examples of civil disobedience you will see that file sharing in a sense is no different. I highy doubt that any true American would be against the Boston Tea Party if they were asked, and I believe the RIAA represents a repressive business model imposed upon the mass majority of people without their will. So tell me, how is the RIAA any different from England a few hundred years ago? It's not and this to me justifies my file sharing and my boycotting of the RIAA...

"The last thing I will bring to bear in this argument is the least moral, but most impacting, in my mind. The recording industry is obsolete; artists no longer need their huge machines to 1.) record albums 2.) market albums 3.) distribute albums 4.) advertise albums."

I'm not buying this part. If artists don't need the promotion and distribution of major labels, then why do they sign major label contracts?Answer: If you are a new artist and you really want to get your name out there then you need the machine to do it for you.

WoW! That's a beautiful letter. Can someone answer a ? for me? Why would a company sue the very people who put money in their wallets? I don't understand why the RIAA is doing this to their own customers. One theory is that they need to make up for lost profit and don't care how they do it, but why ruin future sales for something so, reckless and harmful, harmful to your own company?

Can someone pelase answer that for me?

bratti420 at hotmail dot com

pootie

oops, *please*

Thank you

The law of Inertia is one answer.

It will take a significant push for them to change.

It works for them, until they see something better the average artist/ person isn't going to stick their neck out.

mroop. I know I'll get shouted down for disagreeing with you because you always have to have the last word so this'll be my only comment on this. The new artists have to get the machine to promote them because the industry has a monopoly. remember? that's what we're fighting against. as long as it's the only game in town it's either play along or not get anywhere. that's gradually changing and we won't need the machines as they now stand once industry wide reform emerges. It may be months or it may be years but it will happen.

You didn't disagree with me. You agreed with what I said.

XxshadowxX: What did you expect? The Deftones record for Madonna's label.

ILUVELPEES: sad but true. Sure, the Deftones are mad that they were forced to take the bootlegs down, but did they do anything about it? Did they try to fight their label and get the bootlegs back up? No - when the chips fell, they did as they were told, like a dog obeying it's master... To my knowledge, they are still bound by a multi-album contract with maverick, and probably think that losing their record deal with maverick would ruin them (which, in reality, would just give them notoriety and probably help them )
It seems as though they are one of the many bands I decribed that (while opposing the RIAA privately) can not do so publicly, for fear of losing their contract. Unfortunately, the Deftones believe the RIAA's (if you're not with us, you're nothing - breach your contract and we'll ruin you) brainwashing.
It takes alot of guts to take on the RIAA. They have become so powerful, even the artists themselves are little more than puppets...

The writer is correct in saying that if 60 million americans are engaged in "illegal" activity, then something needs to be re-evaluated.

Anyone who says "just because everyone does it, doesn't make it right" is only right if he's telling his kid not to go out and do drugs a party.

If you're talking about the actions of 60 million citizens of all races and ages, then it's not wrong.

If the popularity of P2P increases, then one could even say that it's right. Right & wrong is determined within each society.

If 60 million americans are criminals
Then the laws are wrong
Fact.

Great Letter.

Great letter.

I would also like to add that the recording industry ADMITS that MP3's are abbreviated, crappy renditions of the actual work, that serve more as samples... than perfect re-creations. This concept is generally alien to all except the people who actually have them.

I would also like to see any reply to this letter.. posted, if possible.

mroop, let me rephrase what I think compmore was really trying to get at: the artists really DON'T need the major labels for promotion & distribution, BUT it is much easier to get promoted/distributed if you go with the majors than it is to try to go independent and have your voice squeezed out by unfair deals by the majors to gain X% of the floorspace in this store and Y% of the advertising space in that store in trade for special deals to the stores/advertisers, deals which I believe rarely get passed along to the average consumer. Like I've heard mentioned here before, if there are 4 major labels and each label forces retailers to use 25% of their shelf space on them in trade for price/advertising breaks, do the math, 25% times 4 = 100% where do the indies get stocked? Is a store really going to pay a higher price (which in turn forces them to charge a higher price) than their competitor down the block or on the other end of the mall who took the deal and can now easily afford to undercut them? Hell no they aren't! I guess you could say the RIAA tactic in this case would be if you can't get them to join you then shut them up any way you can. In a nutshell, the artists don't need the majors for promotion/distribution but they also can't afford the majors blatant and obscenely unfair interference in their attempts to self promote/distribute.

"I'm not buying this part. If artists don't need the promotion and distribution of major labels, then why do they sign major label contracts? Answer: If you are a new artist and you really want to get your name out there then you need the machine to do it for you."

You haven't considered the basic element of ignorance on the part of the artists. It's like asking why a toddler would unwittingly stick their arm in the washing machine or on the heated stove. The answer: If the child is trying it for the first time, then the young’n is plainly unaware of the concepts of "consequences of," or "alternatives to" the actions they've chosen.

This is really a matter of ignorance. The fact that an unsigned artist has never conceived the connection between:

1) marketing one's own of mp3s
2) having complete control over the resulting profits, and
3) the major label's rabid apprehension over the combination of "1)" and "2)" by unsigned artists

just doesn't eliminate the fact that there exists a 'new' Non-Major label direction to getting music heard by the masses.

Most ambitious artists are as ill-informed about the music biz as most fans who buy CDs. Case in point, the Deftones being forced by their record company to remove bootleg recordings of their OWN shows from their OWN website. The lead singer only offers this explanation about how he understands the situation:

"I think Maverick got mad because they own all that music…It was our idea to put it up there, but I think we were maybe supposed to ask permission of something."

That's frightening. Because artists 1) describe with great uncertainly whether they were even aware they signed away their band's creative entitlements and freedom, and 2) they lost touch with the fact that the music *the band* created, performed, and recorded is regarded as something contractually belonging to some foreign entity that had no real part in the actual creative process. That's ignorance (and/or fear) again.

It's very simple, as I see it. Not needing huge machines to 1) record 2) market 3) distribute and 4) advertise albums isn't what's being disputed. It's simply a fact that artists CAN do this, now more than ever. The issue is that it's up to more artists to become aware that there's a mechanism that takes marketing monopolization out of their hands of bloated labels and into the hands of the artists, in the first place.

That e-mail makes me wish I owned a major media outlet so I could print or air it for those that don't yet know about this site and others like it

The RIAA has engaged upon a campaign of disinformation over the past 2 years. For example, for 2002 they made the following claims:

1) 2.5 BILLION files are illegally downloaded EACH MONTH!

2) Record sales are down — approaching a dramatic 30% decline
(projected by the end of the year) over the past three years.

3) It is no coincidence that blank CD sales, for the first time last
year, outpaced recorded CDs.

While it is true that revenues of RIAA members have been sliding I have a feeling that the cause might not be people who downloaded music from the internet. Many businesses have had sliding revenues during this same time period who are not music related so they can't blame their business woes on this phenonema. Look at the 12-year-old girl they sued, for example --- The logic used by RIAA is that because she had 1,000 songs the opportunity cost (alleged lost revenues) for RIAA is 1000 x the price she would have paid for for song had she legally purchased the music. Problem is, she is 12 years old. Therefore, unless she is Bill Gates' daughter, the loss is, in reality, net-sum-zero.

To me the RIAA's so-called dollar loss due to piracy is grossly over-inflated, misleading and erronious using this logic. True, there are losses -- but I believe this is all a smoke screen to try to cover up the real causes of the downslide of the music industry. How convenient -- blame a 12 year old and others like her (like starving college students)for music's downslide.

What I suggest may be the problem is actually pricing, marketing practices, the economy (the economy, the economy, the economy) etc.

Sure, there is a loss from music downloading -- but look at Sony, for example. Sony is what? The biggest member of RIAA? Yet Sony, right at the same time RIAA was going after Napster was manufacturing hand-held MP3 players and recently you have seen home DVD/MP3 players enter department store shelves. Sure Blank CD's are selling at a brisk pace -- Sony wants the best of both worlds and if they didn't manufacture the hardware then perhaps they wouldn't have illegal downloads to play it on... Plus, think about it --- So what if blank CD sales outpace music CD sales... There probably is a corresponding curve on computer hardware sales for computer hardware that uses blank CD's. I store vast amounts of music wave files (my own) on CD's because they are efficient and convenient -- and, I can assure you that I have purchased and consumed more blank CDs over the past three years then ever before.

Part of my point is, though, that this would be an excellent opportunity to direct the public to this site and others that Independent Artists are involved with. There is legal music to download on this site with the Artist's permission. Think about it. I know on my page (with Fossil) I only have a few songs from my catalog that are downloadable (most are streamable). I make them available to share with the public and this is also marketing for me in hopes that the public might purchase a full CD. Most of the time my music is only streamable, but occasionally I will make some of it downloadable. I would love to know that somebody is playing Silverfox music on their Sony

I believe also that there are compelling reasons why there are Independent Artists to begin with --- the pay is too low under RIAA control -- Its a big industry (and the RIAA has all the characteristics as a monopoly and should be prosecuted for price-fixing) but the songwriters and the artists are only making pennies on a $15 sale. Thats why many major Indie acts are not even considering offers from the majors -- because they feel they get screwed in the process, so they manufacture their own CD's or network with small labels. This means that the majors have seen a massive decline in new and fresh acts being signed. Alot of this activity has also been going on over the past three years as well....

Recently we all observed the second anniversary of 9/11. The meltdown of the economy has place a lot of people in the unemployment line and shut a lot of businesses down. So to me a lot of the "loss" the music industry faces (remember the figures they cite were post 9/11/01)is directly tied to economic conditions as well as just plain bad marketing practices.

I hate it when I try to buy a new RIAA CD today because there might only be one or two songs on the CD that are worthwhile and the rest are "filler" -- making the value of the CD diminished, at best, to me as a consumer. That is largely because some executive at some member company of the RIAA has decided that they can "spread" the good music over 4 or 5 or more future CDs... rather than insisting on one good CD at a time.

I gave two presentations at Boise State University recently on these very issues. It is amazing the feedback you get from students as they discuss their disgust at the quality of RIAA CDs they (don't) buy. The argument I just made from the preceding paragraph is the number one reason cited to me by students as to why they burn their own music on their own equipement. They make "complilation CD's" to put all their "favorite" tunes together as one. Most of this burning is of their own legally purchased music CDs, but they do admit that they sometimes will borrow a friend's CD to rip a couple of the better songs off. New? No, we heard this argument before when eight track and cassette tapes first entered market place in the 60's and 70's.

I do not condone the downloading of copyrighted music illegally, but what I am illustrating here is a cultural rebellion against the music industry. In my opinion this publicity generated by the RIAA strategy will backfire and I just think it would be cool if Dmusic and you and I and our fellow Independent Artists can be in position to benefit from all of this. I haven't sued a 12-year-old girl for downloading one of my songs, lately -- have you? (If she were about 6 years older I might just kiss her).

Oh and one last note -- keep your eyes on Microsoft. About two years ago when they were in the middle of their antitrust lawsuit they were mumbling about developing locks in their windows and internet browser software to curb illegal downloading and burning of music (their contribution to protecting copyrights). The problem is that this may include blocking of independently recorded works such as our -- We hold our own copyrights and the first time they try to block a user from downloading and burning Silverfox music that fwe have legally offered as free then we will file suit ourselves... not a threat but a promise.

just like publishing on demand is now a reality so is cd reproduction. all that is needed is a site for point of sales and links to it from the major online retailers. the trick is to get them to link to you.

Very well written & expressed letter.

I would really like to hear Marci Hamilton's response to this letter. Does anyone know if her column is carried by the Daily Record?

I would just like to add that most musicians/artists who sign have $$$ in their eyes and delusions of being hugely famous. It's a cultural delusion generated through the media industries.

This is a shame really as MOST artists never make it. It is only the small percemtage that are earning and an even smaller percentage that are earning big.

This causes most artists through ignorance and stars in their eyes to sign into bad contracts because they want to make it BIG (Doesn't everyone?) and they think the only way to do this is by signing up with a major label.

If only the artists would get over this whole celeb thing and think smaller to begin with we would not see this happening so much. The artists need to 'wake up and smell the coffee' so to speak. There ARE opportunities to get yourself noticed and earn some cash out there. Artists are still however seeing internet as a promotional tool to use in order to get signed with a major label. Which defeats the object of the exercise entirely.

Overall, a very good letter.

Good points on how copyright laws have been manipulated and the fact that the RIAA affiliates are probably at least as concerned about independents using P2P as they are about losing sales due to P2P use.

What article was it where it said something like, the reason the RIAA doens't go after the companies who sell recordable CDs is because then Sony for example would have to sue Sony for selling CD-Rs & RWs?

??????????????????????????????

Great letter. Between this letter and CodeWarrior's response to her letter, maybe she learned something.
Codes response at these mirrors...
http://www.hostultra.com/~codewarrior/lettertomarci.htm

http://healthcare.drspages.com/lettertomarci.htm

http://codewarrior.freewebpage.org/lettertomarci.htm

NOTE..YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE
< BR > Tag off the end if you click on it instead of copy/paste
(Ctrl-C + Ctrl =V)

let me just see if i understand:

paragraph 3: it's popular, therefore it's ok to steal

paragraph 4: labels treat artists unfairly, therefore it's ok to steal

paragraph 5: older media isn't as good as newer media, therefore it's ok to steal

paragraph 6: in many people's opinion cd's are expensive, therefore it's ok to steal

paragraph 9: artists have exclusive relationships with labels, therefore it's ok to steal

paragraph 10: congress is corrupt (first one i agree with)

paragraph 11: stealing is harmful but fun, therefore it's ok to steal

paragraph 12: lables use an old, expensive formula to market new music, therefore it's ok to steal

welp, if this is the defense offered by proponents of copying and distributing copyrighted material, then all i have to say is good luck and it would be wise to keep a reserve of funds for legal settlements.

i do believe there is an argument against the RIAA and the DMCA but this certainly isn't it. to my mind the issue is the affront to due process of the law and the presumption of innocence. no amount of whining is going to make it ok to copy and distribute copyrighted material.

the term "swapping" is a misnomer. if i have a barry bonds baseball card and i trade it for a ken griffy junior that constitutes a swap. if i make an exact copy of a barry bonds baseball card and offer it freely as an original i am not a swapper but a thief.

scdecade,

I agree that many of these arguments in the letter would be pretty weak in a formal debate (especially in a court of law) to justify copyright infringement.

I think it would be beneficial, though, to focus on Paragraph 4. In this paragraph it is pointed out that major content holders have manipulated copyright law and effectively prevented music from ever entering the public domain. So I think an arguement could be made that, thanks to intense lobbying in Congress, the RIAA, MPAA, and Disney have, in effect, 'stolen' music which should have entered the public domain long ago, but was prevented from doing so by virture of getting copyrights extended to ridicuously long terms.

Note, however, that I do not advocate trashing copyright law completely. It is necessary to provide an incentive to create, and if the terms are reasonable then copyright holders should have every right to enforce them (as with patents).

XxShadowxX hit the nail right on the head


almost all mainstream, lo-quality-crap artists are pro-RIAA - those artists being the richest ones, too. go figure.

scdecade- since you seem to like the word "steal" , pelase name and site ONE instance of that word, or the word "theft" appearing in the DMCA, which is what the RIAA is using to sue people,
Does the word "steal" or the word "theft" appear ? NOPE...not ONE instance of either word. If it is stealing, they should be filing complaints with the local PD and the PD should be filing criminal charges.

In case you don't have a photographic memory, and have recently read the DMCA, here is the link to its final form...
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf

"no amount of whining is going to make it ok to copy and distribute copyrighted material."

Conversely, if there is an argument in favour of the RIAA's claims, this certainly isn't one of real validity. I'm pretty sure that it is indeed okay to distribute copyrighted material, from what I gather from the activities of most public library branches and music radio stations.

"the term "swapping" is a misnomer. if i have a barry bonds baseball card and i trade it for a ken griffy junior that constitutes a swap. if i make an exact copy of a barry bonds baseball card and offer it freely as an original i am not a swapper but a thief."

The term "theft" in regards to file-sharing, is a gross misnomer in and of itself. There are no copyright laws that identify potential infringement issues as "theft," in any shape or form, at all.

Even the No Electronic Theft act, which seeks to punish criminal copyright infringement, only has the word THEFT
in its title. The act of "theft " is not discussed nor defined in the body of the Act.
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/hr2265.html

Bulkeraser - thanks for further ellaborating the "sharing = theft" myth. Also, great links. They're very helpful.

~EazyR.

Bufo,

i agree with your point that the extension of copyrights beyond the timeframe originally proposed is troublesome. clearly, the congress has pretty much abdicated judgement in these matters to well funded interest groups. however, as a legal basis for contesting the RIAA's assertion that file "sharing" is illegal... well, it's not really a leg to stand on. doesn't this argument boil down to: copyright law is unjust, therefore it's ok to steal?

two other points:

first, does anyone seriously believe that only older material is being copied and distributed across p2p networks? copyrights without extension would cover all music released within 50 years AFTER the death of the original artist. my guess is that 99+% of all copyrighted material distributed across p2p networks would fall within this window.

secondly, NOT extending copyrights raises all kinds of seriously prickly issues. hence, perhaps, congress's abdication in these matters. for example, how eager do you think Disney is to see pornographic movies starrying Goofy and Snow White? If the name and likeness of these characters were to pass into the public domain, honestly, you wouldn't have to wait very long until the market was flooded with such filth. who should the congress entrust to make such distinctions as to what is fair and appropriate to the legacy and family of the artist? Jesse Helms? should mgm studios have a person in a mickey mouse costume standing at the gate of their theme park in orlando greeting the guests?

RELEVANT POINTS
1) There is NO law, statute, provision currently in effect in the United States that says "filesharing is illegal".
2) Stealing is a term kids use in schoolyards and trolls use here, Stealing is not a legal term. The law does not use the term "stealing" because it is unclear and ambiguous. Theft is a legal term, and is lawyers for the RIAA, as "officers of the court" are affirmatively aware of over one thousandc cases of "theft", they have a legal duty, as "officers of the court" to contact the proper and competent courts of jurisdiction, and make that many complaints to the law enforcement officers that these alleged "thefts" have occured. But, interestingly enough, they have not done this. The complaints filed in various jurisdictions (around 261 lawsuits have been filed) are not using the word "theft".
Hmmm...wonder why? MAYBE BECAUSE IT IS NOT THEFT, BUT ARE ONLY CASES OF ALLEGED COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Copyright infringement and theft are not one and the same. Get used to it.

Also, since the record labels are suing, and are taking over the copyright rights of songwriters, if you apply the legal term "person" (which can be a corporation), as opposed to "natural person" (which has to be a human being, a real person, not made legally)
how do you set the death plus x years of a corporation or record label? Would the legal death of the person / corporation be when the corporation is dissolved?

Hopefully, the RIAA and its wicked labels will be dissolved within five years!
BOYCOTT THEM TO THE POOR HOUSE!

scdecade,

Great to see some lively discussion on the issue of file sharing and copyright laws! I wish the issue of copyright laws were more prevelant in the 'mainstream media'. I appreciate the challenging points you make.

On your two other points:

The first of your other points is the strongest, in my opinion. Yes, you are probably correct that ~ 99% of songs swapped on P2P would fall within the "50 years after the death" of the creator. This was the length of copyrights just before the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998 (for individual copyrights, anyway).

But for most of US history, the terms of copyright were 28 years total (14 years initially, with an option to renew for an extra 14 years). By the 1970s, the terms of copyright was up to around 50 years or so (not sure of exact number, but I think it was very close to 50 yrs). Since the 1970s, copyright extensions got way out of hand, in my judgement.

I think that if we use the original 28 years as the standard, then there would be a much higher percentage of 'swapped' files that are in the public domain. Your point is still valid, though, in that even with 28 years, most of the material shared on P2P falls within even that window.

Problem is, there is no on-line catalogue I am aware of that currently lists those songs which are no longer covered by copyright. But I suspect that, given current copyright laws, such a list would be very short.

If there was a fair amount of music in the public domain, prices for new commercial music would be lower than they are now because it would have to compete with free 'older' music in the public domain (much like medicines now).

As for your point #2:

Well, sure, some nimrod probably would make a porno flick of Mickey and Pluto if they fell into the public domain. But that kind of crap already happens to some extent, even if it is illegal (to be sure, I have actually seen a cartoon showing Mickey doing something 'very very naughty' to Pluto - not a cartoon for the kids).

But I honestly don't see how letting creations go into the public domain will significantly increase problems with porn smut and other inappropriate parodies. That kind of abuse will happen anyway, regardless of how quickly something enters the public domain. The benefits of public domain far outweight the detriments, as long as patents and copyrights are long enough to give the creators/content holders an incentive to create and profit from such creations.

Again, appreciate the dialogue. Keep 'em coming.

Wonder why pre-copyright artists like Leonardo DaVinci and Michaelangelo,
didn't have people ripping them off by doing knock-offs of Vitruvian man (lots of knockoffs of this classic picture now, but not back when DaVinci was alive) and the Sistine Chapel? True artists which leave something of real value, do not depend on the "encouragement" of copyright protection before creating great art. Michelangelo didn't need a "c in a circle" to protect the Sistene Chapel.

Now, there have been art forgers, who have , through great ability, been able to counterfeit works of art, but that is called "forgery" and counterfeitting, not copyright infringement.

Prior to the Title 17 implementation of the WIPO copyright guidelines, now called the DMCA, you didn't hear that much about people being sued for copyright infringement, apart from the occasionaly screenwriter or book publisher who claimed that a movie that was made was based on his or her original work. It was mainly artists suing other artists. Sure, you had the occasional flea market busts of people selling fake Gucci bags, but again, they went after vendors, NOT customers.

This whole mess can be laid at the doorstep of the DMCA, and the globalists who want to put us back under European control.

Bufo & bulkeraser,

i did some poking around and i found the following on the university of california community wesite:

>>>For works created after 1978, copyright generally lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. For works made for hire, the copyright term the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation. For joint works the term is the lifetime of the last living author plus 70 years. In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, copyright lasts 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever comes first.>Copyrights can be bought, sold, willed to others, or given away. A transfer of the copyright or an exclusive grant or license to use the work is a transaction that must be conveyed in writing. Publishers commonly require an author to transfer his/her copyright to the publisher as a condition of publication.

scdecade,

Interesting. Especially the first part of the website you quote: "For works created after 1978 ..". Hmmm. Begs the question about works created BEFORE 1978. I have always assumed that works created before 1978 would have the same terms (life + 70 yrs, or 95 yrs, etc). After all, one main reason why copyrights have been extended was for older Disney works to stay out of the public domain, and I know that Mickey & friends were created long before 1978.

Anyway, it appears that another interesting posting on copyright laws was made later on today - a rather long article, but quite informative (I'm not talking about the article where somebody decided to copyright his brain, but an earlier one which quotes people like law professor David Post of Temple University).

scdecade-thanks for the follow-up on the life of the copyright issue.
-bulkeraser

Works Originally Created and Published or Registered Before January 1, 1978

Would you believe 2018

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/duration.html

Here's what I think:

Any filesharing will be seen as stealing by a great many people, most importantly, lawyers.

Filesharing will never go away, there will always be more than 60 million people doing it.

All copy protection can and will be broken.

These things will never change.

I haven't met anyone face to face that doesn't call file-sharing "stealing". I don't have the energy to try and convince them otherwise. Because it's a moot point. It doesn't matter. When I say that there should be a system to make p2p profitable and affordable to the end user (flat fee instead of per song) they say, "that would be fine, I could go along with that".

So, legal, illegal? Irrelevant. Find ways to make it legal, pay artists and be cheap for the user (otherwise they'll find some other way to get it for free and the fight will go on forever).

Solutions are necessary, fighting over legality accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Man I wish I had time to read this whole thread!

You all rock, all of you!!!

Paul

nuff said.
ttmmm

EazyRidress82,

you state that "if there is an argument in favour of the RIAA's claims, this certainly isn't one of real validity" in response to my observation that "no amount of whining is going to make it ok to copy and distribute copyrighted material." the snippet you elected to parse out of my earlier post wasn't really an argument but a statement of fact and one that i stand by. copyright means the right to copy and those rights are restricted to the copyrights holder. public libraries do offer copyrighted material but on a one-at-a-time, non-copied basis. at the new york public library they don't photocopy the books and give the copies away while keeping the original for themselves. radio stations (legal ones) pay royalties to the copyright holders of the music they play. there isn't much subtlety to this issue in my opinon.

bulkeraser,

you're correct to point out that copying and distributing copyrighted material across p2p networks may not technically be considered stealing. in my earlier post it would've been more valid to replace the word "steal" with "infringe on copyright law" and "thief" with "copyright infringer." either way though we're talking about unlawful behavior.

Bufo,

on further reflection i have to agree that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if people make porn movies of lovable disney characters originally created decades ago. this is their (disney's) argument and i guess i bought it without much thought.

interesting to note that contracters get copyright protection for at least 95 years but the artist gets it for a maximum of 75 years. shows the congress isn't really looking out for the little guy. what a joke. the bill was probably written by RIAA lawyers.

a porno with disney character is legal because it would fall under "fair use" as a parody.