Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Rosen Believes RIAA is Wrong about P2P Lawsuits 287

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the setting-the-record-straight dept.
Newer Guy writes "Former RIAA head Hilary Rosen now believes that the RIAA is wrong by pursuing their lawsuits of individuals for using P2P programs. In a blog post, she writes that she believes the lawsuits have 'outlived their usefulness' and states that the content providers really need to come up with their own download systems. She also is down on DRM, calling Apple's DRM 'a pain.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rosen Believes RIAA is Wrong about P2P Lawsuits

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @11:44AM (#15509219) Journal
    Former RIAA head Hilary Rosen now believes that the RIAA is wrong by pursuing their lawsuits of individuals for using P2P programs.
    Have you ever noticed that it's easier to assume the higher moral ground when your job is no longer riding on your views & political statements? Now for your entertainment, you can not only hear it from United States Generals [nytimes.com] but also former RIAA employees!
  • Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Achra (846023) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @11:45AM (#15509226) Journal
    That's all well and good, but I want to hear about how the Current head of the RIAA believes these things.
  • by Sun (104778) <shachar@shemesh.biz> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @11:46AM (#15509235) Homepage
    Since this seems to stand in direct contradiction with everything we (or, at least, I) thought about her in the past, does that mean that Rosen, like any other CEO, will do whatever they think their current employer needs, regardless of personal opinion about it?

    Even if the RIAA did start to go down the "sue individuals" after she left, it seems unlikely that this is not a direction she helped point the organization in.

    Shachar
  • by davecb (6526) * <davec-b@rogers.com> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @11:47AM (#15509239) Homepage Journal
    I'm in the middle of trying to post the following to the Huffington Post, but it seems not to be able to see this particular Hilary Rosen posting... we may have a link to a very new article.

    I suspect that the RIAA members are just re-living the tempest in a teapot we had in the software businesses: we used to ship programs with all sorts of expensive copy protection devices.

    One of my employers then shipped their product without protection and saw no difference whatsoever in the rate of copying. So they dropped the "dongle", and saved precious dollars by doing so.

    Now my publisher and others are doing the same thing with electronic copies of their books, with similar good results.

    I expect we'll see the same with both music and movies. Commercial copiers will be dealt with by the courts, and individuals will be so minor a problems as to be ignored.

    --dave

  • by rfc1394 (155777) <Paul@paul-robinson.us> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @11:56AM (#15509286) Homepage Journal
    Now that the RIAA has filed all these lawsuits and ruined a lot of people's lives, including actions which, in some cases, were filed against innocent people, the former head of the RIAA decides that it was a bad idea. Thanks a lot. Why do I suspect that if she were still head of the RIAA she would not be making this comment and would still be insisting on having the RIAA going after anyone they could find?

    I believe her comments are hypocritical, and I don't believe she's sincere. Or, to put it colloquially, "I'll forgive her when Vietnam Veterans forgive Hanoi Jane [wikipedia.org], or when the Jews forgive Hitler."

  • Re:Dear Hilary (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworldNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @11:57AM (#15509289) Homepage
    If she thinks suing is wrong, then why the fuck did she allow anyone to be sued?

    She didn't. She says she had left before they started suing individuals.

    What a hypocrite.

    Where's the hypocrisy? As far as I know she never did it, or advocated it, why is saying it's wrong hypocrisy?

    I'll believe this when I hear that she is ordering all the money taken from dead people and 13-year-old girls and Mac users and all the other wrongfully-sued people be returned

    How would she order that? She's no longer with the RIAA, how would she have the authority to do that?

    I'll believe that when the lawsuits stop.

    She's no longer with the RIAA, how would she have the authority to do that?
  • by MikeRT (947531) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @12:02PM (#15509309) Homepage
    Ok, fess up, how many of you have downloaded gigs of MP3s before with no intention of going out to see the band live or buy the merchandise? DRM exists primarily because many college students today enjoy a quasi-middle class lifestyle on campus and still rape and pillage the file sharing networks. I'd be a lot less cynical if I didn't see a lot of the guys I knew flat out not give two shits about supporting small bands because they'd rather buy a case of beer than actually pay for the music they listened to at the party or in their apartment/dorm. And I'm not talking about bands like Metallica, but Lacuna Coil, Nightwish, theStart and others like them.

    What we need is less DRM and more basic law enforcement action. It'd be a lot more effective for them to monitor bandwidth usage on campus and then start "wiretapping" students who are heavy users to see just what the hell they're doing. Chances are, it ain't home movies, porn or Linux ISOs they're sending.Then send them a bill for $5-$10/file traded illegally. Treat it like a minor property crime like stealing a candy bar and maybe juries will actually go for it.
  • by NutscrapeSucks (446616) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @12:12PM (#15509338)
    > It's one of the least-annoying there is.
    This is astroturfing and unsubstantiated FUD.

    > Apple probably didn't want to add it at all but only did it grudgingly,
    More astroturfing or possibly groteseque stupidity -- Proprietary DRM is the cornerstone of Apple's online music business

    > I don't get why she's complaining about Apple's DRM specifically.
    Because it has 90% of the market. Initally, the RIAA probably thought non-interoperable DRM was a great idea because Apple, Real, and Microsoft would split the market, and people would end up re-purchasing music depending on device compatibility.

    However at this point, Apple is so dominate, the market for online music can never really grow larger than Apple wants it to be. There's whole categories of digital music devices that are not feasible right now because of the lack of iTMS compatibility. So while Apple grew the market from nothing, now that it's established. they are really the limiting factor to the total size of the market and how the songs are priced and marketed.

    Or at least that's how the RIAA would see it -- and they're not always exactly objective. But still, if there were to do it over again, they would be industry-wide standards for DRM.
  • by shaitand (626655) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @12:14PM (#15509342) Journal
    Here we go, we should have known the apple apologizers would come out. Look, Apple is one of the most vile anti-consumer monster corporations out there. Learn to the live with that. Apple gives not one flying fluck about its 'loyal fans' but it knows a buck when it sees one. If Apple fought more restrictive DRM it was because they thought it would hurt their bottom line not for the sake of their customers.

    As for which DRM to attack, it makes the most sense to complain about the least obtrusive DRM you can find. That way things start off on the basis that, that minimal DRM is too much. Otherwise that minimal DRM would become the best compromise we could hope for.
  • Her Role (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HardCase (14757) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @12:15PM (#15509347)
    Rosen's blog points out that it was in her "role as Chairman and CEO of the Recording Indsutry [sic] Assciation [sic] of America" that she participated in planning the lawsuits. I suppose that means that in her "role" as a private citizen she had some objection to them.

    It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that there can be a difference between a person's public and private opinions. In Rosen's case, maybe the difference is extreme. If she really didn't support the lawsuits, maybe that's the reason that she resigned - who knows. But somehow it seems kind of slimey to chair an organization like the RIAA while the decisions are being made, then take the position that she bears no responsibility for the lawsuits because she'd already made the decision to leave:

    I don't honestly know what I would have done about the individual lawsuits had I stayed. I certainly participated in multiple planning and debate sessions about them. There were good arguments on both sides and the staff at the RIAA are thoughtful, good people who work hard to protect their constituency. Thankfully my plan to leave was firmly in place and I didn't have to make that tough call or take the heat for the one that was made.

    The CEO isn't a dictator - decisions are commonly made in companies that the CEO doesn't necessarily agree with, but that carry the support of other executives. But it's pretty craven to let a plan go forward, then quit and say that you really had nothing to do with it because you were going to quit anyway.

    But what really caught my eye was the extraordinary amount of misspellings and basic grammar errors in her blog entry. I'm no grammar nazi, but I have to say that I was stunned.

    Oh yeah, to the submitter of the story: Rosen says that Apple's proprietary DRM "bugs" her. Hilary Rosen can say stupid things on her own - you don't need to make quotes up.

    -h-
  • by algerath (955721) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @12:30PM (#15509402)
    I am not saying I agree with the RIAA business practices, they are pretty shitty. Are shitty business tactics in the same ballpark as "hanoi Jane" or Hitler? I might even classify the RIAA as evil, but as far as I know they have not committed acts bordering on treason nor have they committed genocide. Let's keep some perspective here Hitler, WOW

    Algerath

  • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @12:34PM (#15509415)

    I'm sure the recording industry would love that. But why should those of us who don't rip content illegally pay up lots of money to subsidise those of you who do?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 10, 2006 @12:36PM (#15509422)
    Defense attorneys are legally obligated to provide a zealous defense for their client. Just the same they cannot suborn perjury. The whole purpose is to create an environment wherein the State must prove compellingly that a suspsect has in fact committed a crime.

    As the head of the RIAA you have no real justification besides a profit-motive for engaging in dishonest behavior. You might be expected to provide a zealous position for your industry, but you have no compelling moral reason to engage in unethical behavior to do so. You can expect little sympathy when even the special case you cited already obtains little sympathy when it engages in hysterics, and then people's actual lives are on the line.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 10, 2006 @12:37PM (#15509425)
    Re: "Ok, fess up, how many of you have downloaded gigs of MP3s before with no intention of going out to see the band live or buy the merchandise?"

    Never.

    Treating content as the loss leader that it is since it became digital and easily Internet-distributable is a no-brainer. Of course I treat content as the easily copyable, fungible item that it is.

    But the concert experience is not duplicable or digitable, and never will be. And of course, like millions, I attend concerts and when I'm there I spend money on lots of things, including oftentimes band merchandise.

    So ... what was your point? Are you trying to claim that no one who likes music goes to concerts and spends money? Maybe things are different on Planet Zorton where you seem to be from, but here on Planet Earth, concerts still take place.
  • by Baby Duck (176251) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @12:48PM (#15509474) Homepage
    1) Most of the $ from the album purchase is not going to the artist. It's going to the distributor. Technology has advanced to the point where the means of distribution has become dirt cheap. Yet these distributors still demand outrageous cuts of the money. And the artists are stupid enough to still indulge them. Downloading MP3z is an act of civil disobedience and wake up call to the distributors that evolution discarded them a long time ago. They're on life support. Time to pull the plug. Market forces already beheaded them. But like a roach with its head cut off, the RIAA is putting up a frantic display of death throes. The lawsuits are just a perverted way to unnaturally extend their lifespans. Beware the smell of formaldehyde.

    2) Copying is not stealing. If I touched your sofa, produced an exact copy, and walked off with the copy, guess what? You still have the original. I did not steal from you. I did not take your property. I am not denying you further enjoyment of your own sofa. Calling music "intellectual property" is an attempt at brain-washing the masses. They want people to create this false mental link between "copying" and "stealing". So they'll erroneously believe copying=stealing, and all the negativity and sense of wrongness they attribute to stealing, they'll also attribute to copying. Fight back. Stop swallowing their BS. Copying != Stealing. Screaming otherwise, no matter how many times, won't make that change.
  • by Man Eating Duck (534479) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @12:52PM (#15509486)
    OK, I'll fess up... I have lots of MP3s. Music is very important to me.

    Most of the MP3s I have, I have encoded myself from CDs borrowed from friends.
    I have occasionally downloaded as well, without any qualms whatsoever, because:
    I have bought a lot more CDs after discovering the wonder that is mp3, and electronic distribution in general. I've bought the whole back catalogue of several small bands to support the band, also because its a lot nicer to have the CD and inlay in my rack than to have an entry in a folder listing. For other bands I have bought just the albums I like the most.

    Anathema, Katatonia, and Porcupine Tree are bands that I save up to complete in my collection because they're brilliant, I would never have been able to listen to them enough to become a fan if I had to pay for everything in advance. I've also listened to bands that I didn't like enough to buy, but no loss, I wouldn't have heard of them at all were it not for 'try before you buy' in the way of electronic distribution.

    BTW, where I live it is NOT illegal to borrow an album and copy it for personal use, so most of my MP3s are technically legal anyway.

    I'm not saying that everyone behaves like me, , but I'm fairly sure that the line of thought that 'every downloaded album is a lost sale' have absolutely nothing to do with reality. On the contrary, that the RIAA resorts to that kind of desperate logic at all means that they have already lost. Times are changing, people educate themselves, and see that their business model is unfair, unreasonable and archaic. When there is such an easy way to circumvent it, that's the route people will go.

    My two øre...
  • by MikeRT (947531) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @01:16PM (#15509618) Homepage
    If you do not buy any merchandise AND download their albums, you just leave the bands in debt. Your "civil disobedience" doesn't help these bands at all because you're not building an alternative marketplace. You're just copying music, and leaving the bands with no money to live on or pay off their debt. Basically, from their point of view, you're not a fan, you're just an asshole who's miserly with his money.

    People like you cannot accept the fact that intellectual property doesn't come out of thin air. If you do not pump in real money into A system, not necessarily THE EXISTING system, you won't allow IP creators to actually live of their works and keep making new works. If bands cannot stand to make good money when they get good and command respect among audiences, how can they justify touring and recording new works? If you're not willing to go see them live and/or buy merchandise, how can they compensate for money they didn't make on recordings?

    Artists will still make art, but you won't get it nearly as easily as you do today if you go into your socialistic model that blatantly hates the idea of having to compensate them financially for their work. You may think that by "sticking it to the man," you're sticking it to the eeeeeevil corporations, but you're not. They just nimbly duck out of the way and let your sharp stick stab the artist behind them. Your way of "freeing the artists" makes as much since as saying that stealing from and firebombing the property of plantation owners is a more effective way of freeing slaves than getting them their freedom and creating an economy that can supply them with productive jobs.
  • by Have Blue (616) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @01:17PM (#15509630) Homepage
    This is astroturfing and unsubstantiated FUD.
    What stores have less annoying DRM? There are stores with zero DRM, but see point 2 for why that's not feasible for Apple.

    Proprietary DRM is the cornerstone of Apple's online music business
    No, RIAA music is the cornerstone of Apple's online music business. DRM was how Apple secured their cooperation. Do you think the music store would have been a fraction as successful as it was if it was stocked with unknown independents?
  • by Mateo_LeFou (859634) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @01:24PM (#15509664) Homepage
    Would you like me to put you in the Loosest Set of Handcuffs ever invented? $18.95 today only.
  • by HiThere (15173) * <.ten.knilhtrae. .ta. .nsxihselrahc.> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @01:25PM (#15509671)
    This is obviously preparing her to run for office as a "protector of the people".

    You don't think she's any more trustworthy now than before do you? When someone has proven repeatedly that they cannot be trusted, why would you trust their "conversion"?

    I'll wait for some proof a bit stronger than a public statement before I start taking anything she says are worthy of belief. "Actions speak louder than words" may not be true, but I find them much more convincing.

  • by telbij (465356) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @01:27PM (#15509679)
    Look, Apple is one of the most vile anti-consumer monster corporations out there. Learn to the live with that. Apple gives not one flying fluck about its 'loyal fans' but it knows a buck when it sees one. If Apple fought more restrictive DRM it was because they thought it would hurt their bottom line not for the sake of their customers.

    Welcome to America buddy. Why should anyone think that Apple would be different than any other company? By this standard all corporations are vile anti-consumer monsters. Why the double standard? The only distinguishing aspect of Apple for me is that they make products I like (not in the 90s, but I really dig Mac OS X).

    If there's something that I think makes a company 'viley-anti-consumer' it would have to be lobbying for laws to protect monopolies or other business practices that harm the public. The most vile corporations in my mind are the ones that exploit natural resources and create huge amounts of pollution, thus making profits at the expense of things that should belong to all of us. I find it hard to demonize a company for simply creating and marketing a product that I don't like for some reason.
  • by Blimey85 (609949) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @01:30PM (#15509689)
    DRM no matter who it's from is still DRM. Just because you haven't hit a limit with Apple's DRM doesn't mean that other users haven't. IMHO there is absolutely no way to effectively stop pirating. Maybe if we started beheading people for pirating we might be able to slow things down but I'm not certain that even something that drastic would have much effect.

    We all have this "I'll never get caught" attitude and so no matter what happens to the next guy, we feel immune. Lots of people got sued by the RIAA but I never had a problem finding any song I was looking for. Soulseek still worked as well as ever. Their threats and subsequent action in the form of lawsuits did nothing to deter me nor millions of other people from pirating songs, movies, whatever.

    So what good does DRM, threats, lawsuits, or any of the other tactics that have been used, what good does any of it do? It doesn't stop piracy. It doesn't even seem to slow it down. Torrent sites get taken down and new ones pop up. Software such as Napster gets shut down and other software comes along to fill the void. The train keeps on rolling. The people who get hurt are the ones who our buying the material legally or who have bought hardware that has restrictions. My Sony network music player (can't really call it an mp3 player since it's primary use is to play atrac files) allows me to transfer whatever I want to the player, but I can't move the songs back off the player to my computer. I had a Creativer player previously that allowed me to move everything both ways and it was a lot less hassle. Sure Sony's format takes up a lot less space and I like the fact that it's offered but I'd also like to be able to convert back to mp3 if I want to move the songs off the device. Especially songs that I've kept in the mp3 format. These limits haven't stopped me from pirating music, they've just frustrated me and made me consider devices from other companies that don't have the same limitations.

    The media companies need to realize that there is a way to make more profit but it's not by forcing limitations on us. Make things easier and more available through legit channels and more and more people will abandon piracy. Give us downloads that we can use however we want for a very small fee and people will flock to that. Give us tv shows without commericals for $.99 each that are avail the same day as the episode airs on tv and let us subscribe to the shows we want to see. I'd pay good money for that service. As it is I download my shows the day after they air and I never see any commercials plus I get the widescreen versions even though I don't have an hdtv. The downloaded episodes look better on my tv than what I can get from using my dvr. I'm not going to watch the commericals either way but I am willing to pay for a high quality, fast downloading, widescreen version of my favorite shows as long as it's better than what I'm doing now. Give it to me sooner, faster, and for only maybe $.99 and you'll rake in the dough.

  • by jambarama (784670) <jambarama AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @01:35PM (#15509707) Homepage Journal
    This is a no brainer. Obvious to anyone but the current president of the RIAA. She did blog on Lawrence Lessigs site a while back [lessig.org] and I think some posters made some intelligent responses to her points.

    The same thing happened with Jack Valenti after he stepped down. All of a sudden he grew a brain and realized that some of the practices/technologies the MPAA developed/pushed while he was president weren't good for customers. Surprise surprise!

    I think what has happened is that now they are just normal consumers and the realize what a pain in the rear the stuff they pushed is to real people.
  • by NutscrapeSucks (446616) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @01:44PM (#15509751)
    What stores have less annoying DRM?
    It's not my job to substantiate FUD he pulled out of his ass. The truth is probably that they are all about equally annoying because they are all under the same RIAA licensing program.

    DRM was how Apple secured their cooperation.
    Oh, I guess that explains why Apple doesn't licence their DRM to third parties. No wait, it doesn't because you're just here to appleturf, and you actually have zero understanding and insight into Apple's business model.
  • by EonBlueTooL (974478) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @02:00PM (#15509808)
    Not to support the RIAA which I don't, but I really do have a hard time believing that. If its a niched program you have a specific audience. Photoshop being a great example, not everyone wants it. There is a specific crowd who are looking for it and will pirate it for personal use (probably pretty computer literate people). Assuming they take a hobby professional they will most likly have to get a legal copy for a business.

    Downloading music on the other hand is a different story. EVERYONE wants music, and EVERYONE can download it easily. I've got some pretty computer illiterate friends and if they can download kazaa, and stuff their drives with $XX gigs of music then there obviously isn't that entry barrier. Not to mention once its downloaded it just works. The ease of use, not having to leave your home, not having to spend any money, getting entire compilations of artists works plus extras in one package, decent sound quality, relativly fast, the lack of money kids have and the lack of money their parents do to afford $xxxxx thousand dollars of music, coupled with everyone enjoying music and the simplicity of it, I would hate to be the RIAA up against that.

    On the other hand they arn't going to defeat it, and they're a group of idiots for not trying to come up with a new way to make money as the world has change.
  • Simply (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kyoko21 (198413) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @02:24PM (#15509901)
    Simply put, she is now feeling the pain when the shoe is on the other foot.
  • by Kihaji (612640) <lemkesr@uwec. e d u> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @03:01PM (#15510033)
    Do you understand what it means to be an elected official at all? Clintons personal opinions are not what should have shaped his policies. An elected official is there to represent the people of the nation, not just himself. The fact that he seemed to be able to separate the two, shows me he at least had a basic idea of what it meant to be a good President.
  • by iminplaya (723125) <iminplaya.gmail@com> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @03:16PM (#15510078) Journal
    But you have to give her credit for seeing that the RIAA was/is on a bad course.
    No I don't. You have to be blind not to see that the RIAA is on a bad course, and she knew it all along. Now she's having an epiphany? I don't think so. It doesn't take any guts to say what she says, now that she got her money. If what she says now is to have any meaning, then she should repay all the money lost by the people that she trashed. What she is saying is the same as a politician taking "responsibilty" for their mistakes after they get caught in some despicable act or their negligence. Empty words knowing full well that they will suffer no consequences. Color me unimpressed.
  • by DrackenFireBreather (691905) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @03:26PM (#15510105)
    The problem is that they're putting a lock on the item you purchased and then telling you can only use it the way they want you to use it. Think of it as those ATM commercials where you had to pay to get into your fridge for a piece of cheese (which you also owned) or some other common item at home. It's restrictive policies like this that makes the crowd here irate and up in arms. But also like the DVD's, they have the key, the lock and the media all wrapped up in something that you possess and with lots of time on your hands to pick the lock or make your own key. ;)
  • by DrEldarion (114072) * on Saturday June 10, 2006 @03:57PM (#15510223)
    The point is that the music will be distributed, whether you DRM your songs or not. DRM won't affect the rate of copying at all, since there will always be people around to defeat it and then distribute the non-DRMed copies. Therefore, DRM is just wasted money.

  • by kimvette (919543) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @04:48PM (#15510357) Homepage Journal
    You're not the typical user, nor is any slashdotter here. It's Just. Not. That. Easy. for the average user who can barely comprehend the difference between a data disc containing audio files and a redbook audio CD.
  • by BlueStrat (756137) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @04:50PM (#15510363)
    If you do not buy any merchandise AND download their albums, you just leave the bands in debt. Your "civil disobedience" doesn't help these bands at all because you're not building an alternative marketplace. You're just copying music, and leaving the bands with no money to live on or pay off their debt. Basically, from their point of view, you're not a fan, you're just an asshole who's miserly with his money.

    People like you cannot accept the fact that intellectual property doesn't come out of thin air. If you do not pump in real money into A system, not necessarily THE EXISTING system, you won't allow IP creators to actually live of their works and keep making new works. If bands cannot stand to make good money when they get good and command respect among audiences, how can they justify touring and recording new works? If you're not willing to go see them live and/or buy merchandise, how can they compensate for money they didn't make on recordings?

    Artists will still make art, but you won't get it nearly as easily as you do today if you go into your socialistic model that blatantly hates the idea of having to compensate them financially for their work. You may think that by "sticking it to the man," you're sticking it to the eeeeeevil corporations, but you're not. They just nimbly duck out of the way and let your sharp stick stab the artist behind them. Your way of "freeing the artists" makes as much since as saying that stealing from and firebombing the property of plantation owners is a more effective way of freeing slaves than getting them their freedom and creating an economy that can supply them with productive jobs.


    Let me reply by way of reposting one of my replies to someone else who thought that artists should rely on selling recordings as a buisiness model.

    ""Ummm, no. That's your take on the issue. As an artist myself I think you are full of it. I don't create works solely for profit, but when I do enter a contract to create commercial works I expect that my contract would be honored and I get paid for it. Also, if I produce work to sell on my own to pay my bills I don't think anyone has a right to that work wihtout my permission.

    As another artist speaking, that's just your take on the issue also. I think *you* are the one "full of it". You are not forced to enter into a contract to create "commercial works". That is your buisiness decision. Noone gauruntees that every buisiness must make a profit. If you base a buisiness on an unreasonable buisiness model, it will fail. If I canned air and tried to sell it with the expectation that the government would make free air illegal, I would expect to fail.

    My band has a CD that we sell. It did not take the resources of a major label or studio to accomplish this. We know it is silly to expect people to not share an experience they enjoy with others. Therefore, we take advantage of this basic human trait, and encourage people to share it, copy it, put it on P2P, whatever. The increased exposure and word-of-mouth advertising is something that we couldn't pay any label or marketer for at any price. We consider recordings to be a promotional tool, not the goal or the main way of gaining income.

    We are smart enough to realize that the majority of people who enjoy quality music are happy to reasonably compensate an artist they favor, along with knowing that treating them as criminals is counterproductive.

    Likewise, we are also astute enough to not depend on such ephemeral and risky by nature buisiness models to pay our bills. We cover that with a quite conventional income model: we work for a living. We play clubs, theatres, fests, etc. and our income is paid in the form of tickets, cover-charges, and signed CDs and mechandise by the people that come to the show to be entertained.

    The era where production and promotional costs, and the necessity to produce a physical medium and transport, warehouse, and sell it in a physical store, along with the expense and difficulty for individuals of making
  • by JesusPancakes (941204) <jesus&cinci,rr,com> on Saturday June 10, 2006 @06:46PM (#15510710) Homepage
    What the fuck? Start 'wiretapping'? Fuck you, my data is my god damn business.

    Universities are ISPs for their students. Why the hell should a University have a right to start packet-sniffing my data? If I use too much bandwidth and reduce service for other students, throttle my bandwidth or cut me off and that'll solve the problem - but looking at the data that I'm sending? There's no fucking WAY a university should do that. Ever. What if I was sending homemade porn movies of myself and my girlfriend's dog to my uncle Lester, or hot-and-dirty chat messages to Ukrainian men, or just a personal, nice email back to home - why should a university get to sniff what I transfer over their network?

    Yeah, yeah, I know. PGP and all that shit. I actually have used WASTE up at school with my friends for encrypted file transfers, and that 1) makes your idea completely pointless and 2) protects all that shit. But there's a deeper issue - just because I'm attending a university doesn't mean I don't have some fucking rights. If my tuition (or my tax dollars) are paying for that internet connection, why should the university have a right to look at the data I'm transmitting? Should Time Warner or Comcast be able to arbitrarily look at the porn you download because you spike bandwidth by downloading six videos of a black dude raw dogging a Jew at once? Why, then, would a university?
  • by babbling (952366) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @08:15PM (#15510924)
    There's a huge limit that everyone will eventually hit with Apple's DRM.

    When iPods are no longer popular/available, and people want a different music device, they can say goodbye to their collection!

    Consumer rights groups should be, at the very least, issuing warnings to consumers about DRM.
  • by Anti_Climax (447121) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @08:15PM (#15510925)
    EVERYONE wants music
    My deaf friend may beg to differ with you on that point :-D
  • by Secrity (742221) on Saturday June 10, 2006 @10:21PM (#15511265)
    I would call playing music using a standard MP3 player to be normal use. OK bright boy, tell me how to play Apple DRM'ed music on my MP3 player, without having to burn a CD.
  • by iamnotanumber6 (755703) on Sunday June 11, 2006 @10:31AM (#15512741)
    ok, fess up, how many of you have enjoyed songs on the radio with no intention of going out to see the band play live? how many of you have changed channels or gone to the kitchen during a commercial? that's not just stealing, it's Raping and Pillaging! the only way we can stop you is for the police to wiretap *everyone* just to see what the hell they're doing. chances are they would catch a lot more people doing bad things that way. in fact, why don't we install webcams in everyone's room so the police can keep an eye on you? if you've got nothing to hide, you shouldn't have a problem with that.

    and hey, let's change the law so that non-commercial personal music copying changes from something that the music industry can sue you for monetary damages for, into a property crime! i bet the threat of jail time and a criminal record would really help cut down on this raping and pillaging! in california, people have received life sentences for stealing a pizza slice, since it was their third conviction for property crimes. three MP3's and you're out!

    i say, let's use any means necessary to stop this heinous activity of "failure to support small bands" that is destroying the fabric of our society.

    because you know, even though 90% of the songs people listen to on the radio or download are crap that they listen to just once or twice and would never in a million years listen to if it wasn't free, they should be forced to pay the full retail price for each and every song they ever hear. even if it's at a party or a bar, or if someone else has already paid for it, and sometimes they should pay again even if they've already paid for it themselves. because otherwise the music industry, which rakes in 99% of the cash and gives only 1% or so to the small bands, might go out of business. and *then* who would support the small bands?

    i mean, obviously no small band can afford the kind of high-quality 24-track recording equipment it takes to produce the music these days, nor can they afford the high costs of advertising, manufacturing, and distribution. they *need* the music industry. it's been this way for decades, and nothing has changed. multi-GHz PCs with software studios, cheap broadcast-quality video equipment, websites for promotion and distribution - that's all just a flash in the pan. when are people going to realize that musicians are just too stupid to do things on their own? the music industry as it is, is here to stay, and people need to realize that there's no alternative. anyone who doesn't like that is stealing music.

    and also, people just don't really care very much about the musicians that make the music they love. i mean, if you have some music that you listen to over and over, and you just love it to death, what are the chances you're going to go to the band's website and participate in some stupid scheme whereby you pay a dollar or so, that goes 100% to the band, and maybe you get an autograph or a bonus track, or a password to a VIP area of the site, or even just a good feeling? nah. it'll never happen. without the music industry to sue the fans, plus virus-like DRM schemes that take over your computer, and now police involvement and wiretapping, home taping will kill music. home taping has been killing music for decades, and it always will.

If you fail to plan, plan to fail.

Working...