DefectiveByDesign Supporters to Call on RIAA Execs 444
johnsu01 writes "DefectiveByDesign.org is organizing a call-in campaign for today. People around the country will be calling high-ranking RIAA officials to deliver the message that DRM is an unacceptable restriction on the freedom of consumers and citizens. DefectiveByDesign will provide the numbers to call when you sign up. This action should attract the people who thought that Apple was not a good target because it is the RIAA that requires DRM and those who think that wearing HazMat suits is obnoxious. Everyone can vote with their dollars, but that doesn't tell the RIAA why they aren't getting the dollars. With a few thousand people signed up already, they will undoubtedly know after today."
Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should I have to sign up? Just post the damn numbers and then request I sign up, and explain why it's important. I mean, I know that requiring registration is by no means the equal of DRM, but on some philosophical levels it does present it's ironies
Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM is the new Vietnam? (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me cynical, but does anyone else find it sad that this is promoted as such a "cause" to fight for? Has consumerism come so far that we are now protesting the things we buy? This [defectivebydesign.org] isn't really the context that I think of when I think of a 'freedom fighter' (their label, not mine).
Though, I suppose, it's not like there are any wars or civil liberty issues to protest nowadays.....
All that being said, DRM sucks.
Mr. Asshole isn't in right now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't agree more. Nobody is being forced to buy their stuff. Even if the big labels were the only outlet of music (and they're most certainly not) you _still_ wouldn't have to buy anything from them. You don't see me protesting McDonalds because the Big Mac is a piece of crap - I take my business elsewhere.
Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Will this be effective? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they can be convinced not to make too much fuss about everything on this earth, maybe things will be OK.
my 2 cents
Re:DRM is the new Vietnam? (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite this the elite long for those days long ago when serfs were forced to work without pay and without the right to property for the enrichment of their masters receiving only "security" in return. (that was the case.. after all the "lords" were there to protect them from raiding hordes after the fall of the roman empire)
As such, they have now found a new way of stripping away our right to own and govern property using technology and the great constitutional end-run known as contract law.
Make no mistake, this is a fight for freedom. It may not be as glorious, as roudy, or as conventional as you remember, but then again the american revolution was unlike any war since as well.. no grand columns of soldiers, but guerrilla attacks which the british considered "cowardly" and "childish". (see the original lyrics to yankee doodle for references)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
be blamed on piracy, and used as lobbying ammo for keeping and
extending draconian DRM/copyright laws.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Bob
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DRM is the new Vietnam? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll say it again - DRM sucks. But I really dont see how it is stripping away your right to own and govern property. It may be restricting your ability to use the property they are trying to sell you - but guess what? You don't have to buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy music from major record labels. Even if they were the only show in town (which they aren't) you still wouldn't have to buy a single CD from them.
That's where your analogy colapses. Whereas the British had soldiers with guns that actually did force you to do something (i.e. pay taxes) the only one you have to blame for buying a Britney Spears (or whatever) CD with DRM is yourself.
How to get people to sign up (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the email would go something like this:
Dear defectivebydesign Team
I called that fantastic number you supplied me with. I was confronted with a recorded message stating "Welcome to RIAA, DRM department, the person you are looking for is not available at the moment. Please leave a message and he'll/she'll get back to you as soon as possible. Your call is important to us. Have nice day"
How to get a lot of people to sing up to your page:
1) Find a lot of people on the internet
2) Find a cause they all hate
3) Give them a little hope by signing up to your page
4) Sell thier details to the highest bidder for spam production
5) Profit profit profit
Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DRM is the new Vietnam? (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the term "property" involves the owner's right to fully govern it, not some corporation or elitist slobs.
It may be restricting your ability to use the property they are trying to sell you - but guess what? You don't have to buy it. Nobody is forcing you to buy music from major record label
And nobody is forcing you to breathe air.
I think its about time this straw man was debunked. Culture is as essential to humanity as air, food, shelter and water, and like it or not the RIAA and their related organizations have a near monopoly control over the most popular and dominant expressions of our culture. If we do not own our culture and have a right to participate in it I say our "sentience" is highly overrated, and we need to go back to the trees where we belong.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:1, Insightful)
Unless you literally meant, don't buy it, which is exactly what is happening. The RIAA gangsters aren't the only distribution anymore. The internet is replacing them. The loosers are the Metallicas and Sheryl Crows who won't be making millions of dollars off of a rigged system. I'm a capitalist and an entrepeneur, so I know a scam when I see one. For every Sheryl Crow making a million dollars, there are a dozen more good artists who couldn't make a living because they couldn't get signed. It's not that the system makes a lot of money for Sheryl Crow (a good thing), the issue is that the system kills off opportunities for a lot of others to startup their own business as a musician and make money (a bad thing).
Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
Those goals are reasonable - but can be attained without forcing a signup to get the numbers.
You can ASK people "if you participate, please let us know".
And you can ask them to choose a number by rolling a die.
I'm not saying that the registration is evil, it's just counter intuitive in this context, not to mention annoying.
Re:DRM is the new Vietnam? (Score:5, Insightful)
We live in a society that worships at the alter of the free market. The invisible hand can do no wrong and anyone who claims otherwise is a dirty commie. The abundant nature of data on an open network is heresy to this new religion though - the market requires scarcity to function. A scarcity must be introduced so that the glorious march of capitalism can continue.
On the other hand, any IP law is a law that can be used to restrict what information is held on and communicated between computers is a restriction on free speech. Call me crazy, but governments shouldn't be adding more of those.
I'm not sure if harassing certain people will have any effect on this struggle, but it might be worth a shot.
Re:Alternatives! (Score:3, Insightful)
Nearly any song you might want is available on the Internet, for free. You might think that everyone would just go and download music for free when they want it (the RIAA seems to hold that opinion) like the amoral consumers they are. Well, obviously not. Many people buy music both from online stores and on CD, even though they don't have to. When I ask people why they do that, the answer I usually get is that they want to support the artists. So, if people buy music anyway, what exactly is the problem with selling it in a non-defective form? There's only one problem: when a person (not a *consumer*) can use the music they buy on all their devices, and don't have to re-buy with every format change (both of which I think we all agree should be legal), the music publishers lose the oppurtunity to milk fans for every cent they can. What a shame.
"Plays for sure" = "Plays for now" (Score:5, Insightful)
Any system that restricts copying the music you paid for will eventually lock out the paying customer. I refuse to spend real money on a disappearing product.
Re:DRM is the new Vietnam? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? Because people _are_ free to participate in culture. If what exists sucks (or at least does in your opinion) you can go out and create your own works or, if your talents don't lay in that area, can support someone who does make something to your liking. Modern technology has even made this (arguably) easier to do nowadays then ever before.
look.. participation does not mean simply "consumption".. it means remixing, sharing, communication, etc. DRM prevents that, so no, we _are not_ free to participate in culture.. thanks to DRM we are only free to _consume_ what they dispense.
Further, youre right there is far more to culture than what the music and movie industries offer, just like there is far more to the world than what major industrialized nations have to offer, that doesnt change the fact that what these music and movie industries have to offer makes up the _majority_ of our culture and we deserve the right to participate in it rather than simply _consume_ it.
Finally, we are not human if we do not participate in culture.. we are no better than the animals we claim differ from us..
why not extend that argument from culture to food.. we can go much longer without food than we can air and water.. why not cut out food.
would you tolerate it if the government mandated we eat nothing but kibble for food? dog food is more nutritious than our food but would you tolerate it?
Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should I have to sign up? Just post the damn numbers and then request I sign up,
simple.
Trolls. They are trying to limit the number of trolls. for every one moron spewing profanity and "1 0wn J00!" at them that destroys the credibility of 20 honest and professional calls.
So limiting the idiots and morons that screw things up helps make the ration of intilligent to idiot much higher.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
True. However, usually they'd like to know why you're not buying a product. If you dislike McDonalds because they only serve fatty food, then they might consider some healthier options. But that will only happen if they know about it.
Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers (Score:4, Insightful)
My guess is they want people to register for the same reason that internet petitions aren't worth crap -- anonymity is ultimately a form of obfuscation, and when you're trying to tell someone something they don't want to hear, they'll jump on any excuse to devalue the legitimacy of your position.
But yes, it's a perfectly valid point, there is certainly some irony there.
Re:Freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're confusing a private citizen with their position as a leading figure in the RIAA. Yes, phoning them at home would be objectionable, but I don't see how ringing the office is an affront to freedom. They're not compelled to be in that job, and can always hang up.
Well when the industry itself resorts to dirty tricks (e.g., Sony rootkit), what do you expect?
Sadly, it won't help (Score:4, Insightful)
Lose lose situation (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it does. If you stop buying RIAA music because you are against DRM they will blame it on pirates and make even worse DRM initiatives. Either way - we lose.
IMHO. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to hurt them, we need to convince record labels that they don't need to employ what is basically a "task force posse" to protect their interests. Striking at the heart of the beast would be most productive. What we need to do as good, strong minded, mostly intelligent people is start some new record labels that are specifically designed with low profit margins and realistic salaries, and start campaigning to get major artists moved over to our labels that pass on more profit to them. We need to rob the RIAA supporting labels in the good old fasioned american way, which is build a better alternative.
It's always great to watch the lightbulb come on.. (Score:3, Insightful)
>voting with our dollars, then ordinary people get about 37,000 votes a year if
>they are lucky, while Corporations and the super rich get millions or billions of votes?
Ah, at last you see the light. This is precisely the way the world works.
Steve
Re:Voting with Dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
The government should be a manifestation of the peoples collective will to protect their rights, and ensure compliance with their responsibilities. The government is responsible for protecting peoples rights. When they fail it is the responsibility of the people to protect their rights by changing the government. Your government does not protect the rights of the people.
"And really, I'm not sure I like a world were you have the "right" to content that I produce."
So you believe that people do not have a right to the cultural heritage of humanity? Knowledge and information are not property. I would claim that considering them as such is an odd position to take. Here is the deal. You produce content, society agrees to give you certain, limited temporary rights as an incentive. Don't like it? Don't create. At least that used to be the deal.
Re:DRM is the new Vietnam? (Score:2, Insightful)
this is the problem though.. through the law they are steering the "inevitability" of technology away from consumer empowerment.
DRM is a technology.. people often forget that when they talk about the inevitability of technological advancement... there is no guarantee any longer that that advancement will not lead to stronger shackles with which the general public will be chained.
it is a double edged sword, and the law is far more powerful in sharpening an edge than competitive pressure is at sharpening the other.
Re:Voting with Dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
Caller ID logs? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you call, you must be a pirate!
Re:DRM is the new Vietnam? (Score:3, Insightful)
So you are suggesting that all cultural work should be free to everyone to do with as they wish? I respectfully disagree - I am quite content in a world in which the artist is able to choose what they do with their work (and going with a label that believes in DRM is a choice) - whether that be selling it, giving it away for free or doing nothing.
If I sing a song or write a play or paint a picture and I don't share it with you, am I violating your rights? I find that notion absurd. Creators should have the right to do as they will with their creations.
Again, doing without culture is not literally going to kill you. Regardless, we aren't even talking about doing without culture - we are talking about not consuming specific pieces of culture or, in choosing to consume, not being able to do everything we'd care to do with them (at least legally).
No, but you are again comparing apples to oranges. See previous comment regarding people with guns vs buying a CD.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
If the only supplier of housing was a monopoly who imposed DRM and high prices on all housing, would you suggest they not buy housing too? granted we can survive without shelter too.. exposure to the elements does not necessarily equal death after all.
of course.. you could live like an animal.. do nothing but eat, sleep, work, and crap.. without culture we are not human. I'm sorry but culture and cultural participation are essential to humanity, nearly as essential as food, we've had this argument before but since you've decided to post redundantly so have I, and damn the karma, i wont have this "just dont buy it" fallacy bandied about without rebuttal.
This will only validate the RIAA's position (Score:4, Insightful)
Chicken Meet Egg (Score:3, Insightful)
Futhermore no one forced Apple to adopt support for DRM, and so we should be wary of the notion that Economic Rationalism somehow renders them inadvertent victims of these lobbyists and would-be legislators. Apple are actively supporting the reduction of use-rights and will no doubt continue to develop technologies to these ends.
Re:Voting with Dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
Purchasing power is not always proportional to purchasing, especially with respect to entertainment.
they won't care (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DRM is the new Vietnam? (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree fully.. they should be able to do what they choose with their work, but consumers and electronics firms should have full right to do what they choose with DRM'ed formats.. including circumvention.
Further, consumers should have a right to do what they want with their bought items after artists have sold them, including stripping DRM.
I see nothing wrong with what you said.. I see everything wrong with the DMCA interrupting the free market's ability to correct abuses.
No, but you are again comparing apples to oranges.
no, it's not comparing apples to oranges. there are laws mandating that the free market cannot correct for DRM by building DRM free players capable of playing DRMed product.. granted it's not expressly put that way, but that is the end result.
If the government were to do this indirectly it would amount to the same thing.
Granted not having culture will not "kill" you.. but i've spent time doing nothing but eat, sleep, work, and crap.. i have had very demanding times in my life.. and i will tell you i've felt the difference.. your mind becomes numb and you lose pieces of yourself. it is definitely not healthy.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:3, Insightful)
Fallacious comparison:
If McDo had a DRM, your only choice would be either junk food or starve.
More alike than unalike? (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA thinks exactly the same thing...
Re:Good luck with that (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wrong People To Attack (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, simply not derive pleasure from someone's work without due compensation. Unless you think it's your 'right' to listen to good music. Something tells me those with the money, but not the card, to purchase the music aren't sending checks to the artist after they pirate their music.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody has a monopoly on housing, and nobody has a monopoly on music. Go forth and buy your house from whomever you want, and buy your music from the thousands of labels and artists who do not use DRM.
Why not use snail mail? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be much better to write a letter, put it in a manila envelope and send it directly to the RIAA exec. The key is to pay the extra dollar or so and get the Signature Confirmation [usps.com] service that the USPS offers. I think when an executive gets 1000 letters on his/her desk that ALL need signatures you tend to notice.
They should include the politicians (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:2, Insightful)
Just a quick note. You say that cultural participation is so important. If your idea of participation is buying music, you might be selling yourself short.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, you just roughly described the business model of a record label.
Re:Congress/Senate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh... Our bad. We thought you were looking for RIAA Executive lackies? Not the Exceutives themselves.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:3, Insightful)
I can not-buy-music, too. In fact, I generally do - I buy very little music, largely because of this set of issues. There's also a pragmatic/economic issue lumped in with it. If CD prices were halved, I'd likely buy more than twice as many. If they were cut in thirds, I'd likely buy more than 3 times as many. But as the price declined further, taste and storage would become the limiting factors, so from their perspective, it wouldn't make sense to lower my price to that point. All of this for something that costs $0.10 to duplicate, about as much to package, and has a list price in the $18 range. There's enormous room to play with the supply/demand curve, and they're not doing it. They just pout and cry about piracy.
That's where the real damage is - their pouting and crying is to legislators, expressed along with $$$. They're striving to preserve their current business and pricing models through legislation. Aside from subverting the free market, there's a complete ignorance of and disregard for consequences of this legislation.
Imagine if McDonalds had similar clout at the FDA. Simply voting with your feet wouldn't be sufficient.
Re:Ugh. Why can't they just post the damn numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:3, Insightful)
That is what live shows are for. CDs should not be the big moneymaker. Charge for them what it costs to make them, maybe a little more. Sell them for $5 a piece at a cd release party show. Etc.
I don't see any local bands freaking out because people enjoy their music and share it. They love it, b/c it gets people to their shows, and lets those people enjoy their art.
If you suck, you have no right for huge profit simply because you might have gotten just one good song on your CD of 15-20. That same song already having been played to death on the radio so that you don't want to listen to it anyway.
The CD should be the promotion of your work. You think the RIAA compensates their indentured servants...er...artists properly with CD sales?
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Industrial components are standardised. If I buy an M6 nut from one supplier, I can be sure that it will screw onto an M6 bolt from any other supplier. If I buy a length of 15mm. copper piping, I can similarly be sure it will fit any 15mm. compression or soldered elbow, tee, reducer or valve. If I need a 10K ohm resistor, or a diode which will handle 6 amperes with a maximum reverse voltage of 400V, I can buy ones which perform identically from any of several suppliers.
If, however, I want to listen to the song "Whenever, Wherever", I can only find this song sung by Shakira, and only on Epic Records -- a label owned by Sony Music. Everytime someone spends several pounds on a copy of the CD, Shakira herself -- the one truly indispensable person in the equation -- receives a few pence out of this money. Logically, anyone should be allowed to make their own copy and send Shakira the same sum of money as she would have received had they bought one from Sony. Yet, for some reason, this is not allowed. If this were allowed, then there would not be a monopoly situation, since various entities would be competing to supply the same music as though it were a standard industrial part, and the market would decide matters for itself.
{Note 1: anyone is free to make recordings of classical music which has entered the public domain.}
{Note 2: in some European countries, you used to be able to buy cheap and cheerful LPs and cassettes -- CDs weren't invented then -- containing poor-to-terrible cover versions of popular British and American chart hits. I suspect this is no longer the case. Any Continentals care to comment?}
Re:Chicken Meet Egg (Score:2, Insightful)
Your wrong, the RIAA told Apple that they must support DRM or they couldnt sell their music. Since Apple cannot legally promote and distribute their own bands (through agreements with Apple Music Inc) their choices became support DRM or give up on iTunes. The decision to allow conversion to non-DRM'd formats (the RIAA is still pissed about this) was made for their customers while still pacifying the RIAA so they could implement iTunes in a timely manner. I can play the DRM'd music I download off of iTunes on my iPod (the real reason iTunes exists), and I can rip my own cds to my iPod using Apples DRM format, what exactly is Apples economic gain by allowing users to convert files to non DRM'd formats? Yet it still costs them real money to support this feature.
Re:The problem looks a lot different in their shoe (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the theft argument is tired. People have been using it for decades now, and when it comes to media usage, it really, honestly doesn't apply. If I buy a car from a car dealership, and then turn it around and give it away to a friend, does the car company sue me? But! they didn't get a profit from my giving that car away! Perhaps, they should sue me! I know, your saying to yourself right now "but that's not the same because if you give the car away you don't have it anymore for yourself." Exactly. We've been applying the term "theft" to something that can't be stolen. Sure, it can be traded. It can be given to sombody without charging them. You might eeevvvven be able to stretch it into "unfair trading", but to call it theft is lunacy. It's a word thats applied simply to generate sensationalism. "But! They're stealing my music!" sounds alot more we-need-protection-ish than "But! They're trading my music!"
Right now, in the US, there are alot of states that make it legal to shoot sombody who comes into your house who you beleive might be there to steal something.
Now, imagine for a second, if trading a couple of music files could really be bundled into "theft", then, should it be legal for a performer to open fire on sombody in the crowd he sees with a microphone? How about bursting into your house and shooting you dead?
You are absolutely right my friend, the problem does look alot different in their shoes. It looks alot like this: How, oh how do we convince the legislature and governing bodies that something that is less of a crime than "copyright infringment without monetary gain" can be publicised, and then treated as if its grand larceny?
Re:DRM is the new Vietnam? (Score:3, Insightful)
To use a CD precisely the way you want it, you may need to hold down the shift key when you load it into your computer. The person who spoke freely about that received legal threats.
To use a DVD precisely how you want to, for example putting it on a hard disk for easier access or for legally authorized backups, you need a magic 40-bit number. Someone who merely *linked* to a site with that number got slapped with an injunction requiring them to stop speaking (this happened under your southern neighbor's "DMCA" law).
DRM can't be enforced if there is free speech, because free speech could be used for sharing workarounds.
DRM can be used directly to inhibit spreading information for political debate. If the Pentagon had put DRM on their history of the Vietnam War, Daniel Ellsberg couldn't have leaked it.
Re:Not a matter of not buying... (Score:2, Insightful)
99.9% of consumers have no idea or care less about DRM and what it does. This is the exact opposite of the feelings of those who do care. They do not yet realize the implications or the restrictions. They buy a CD and listen to it on their CD player. Their DVDs work in their DVD player. They buy an MP3 and listen to it on their iPod. End of story.
In a few years they may realize that MP3 isn't going to be playable on their new fancy phone with a zillion features and won't transfer to their new googlePod (gPod) or their new PC or laptop. The new HD/Blu-Ray player won't even play CDs and it's possible some DVDs or HD-DVDs may not work if they've already been used in another piece of equipment. Their Windows Media Center Vista2 won't play it either, due to it's DRM. You won't be able to rent video games anymore at blockbuster, because games will be locked to a single game console.
But by then the RIAA/MPAA or whatnot has their money and they've legislated their DRM to be a part of life and law.... Is this what you want? Go ahead, don't buy their stuff - let everyone else suffer.
If something is not done now, by those who do understand the implications, nothing will ever be done.
Having the attitude that nobody is forcing them to buy their stuff is asinine. You have to stand up and make yourself HEARD!
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
Re:Good Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Add in an anonymous way to pay, to protect them from the **AA's attorneys/spies, and someone will notice...
Imagine if AllofMP3.com started mailing checks directly to the artists, bypassing the labels. I bet the checks would still get cashed, with a big smile on their faces too.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:3, Insightful)
"The above situations would remove a tangible product from circulation thus preventing someone who wanted to pay for it from doing so and removing real property from a place of business. Downloading a file that you could not purchase even if you wanted to does no such thing."
Good point, but the fallacy of "I don't have the money to buy it" becomes really easy to rationalize. I'd wager that 9 times out of 10, the person given the "download the track for a buck or get it on P2P for free" does have the money to buy it (after all, they are likely paying for their broadband connection, and rent or mortgage on house that contains the PC with the broadband connection). If somebody really does not have one dollar to spare, they likely have much more grave issues to worry about than whether or not to get that new Gnarls Barkley single. Humans have a great ability to rationalize and fool themselves (for some reasons, it must have helped us along evolutionarily) and the 10th or 100th or 1000th time you happily think to yourself "it's OK, I don't have the money to buy it" it becomes meaningless.
Similarly, "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is a tautology. Again, 9 times out of 10, pirate "wouldn't have bought it" because it's readily available for free.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:3, Insightful)
"Logically, anyone should be allowed to make their own copy and send Shakira the same sum of money as she would have received had they bought one from Sony. Yet, for some reason, this is not allowed."
The reason is, of course, that it's Sony who funded the production, marketing, and distribution of the CD. In turn for investing a significant amount of money, their contract with Shakira states that they are the exclusive distributors of the recording. If Sony doesn't turn a profit, they're out of business. Maybe I misunderstood you -- when you wrote "for some reason" did you mean that you actually didn't understand the reason?
"If this were allowed, then there would not be a monopoly situation, since various entities would be competing to supply the same music as though it were a standard industrial part, and the market would decide matters for itself."
It is a monopoly in the sense that copyright provides a limited monopoly, but it is not a monopoly in the sense that the word is typically used. The danger of describing the record industry as a "monopoly" in these terms makes it meaningless, as many, many industries -- pretty much any industry that develops branded products or engages in exclusive contracts -- would also fall under this definition.
Calling the record industry a monopoly may be good for the soul, and if it makes people feel better about using P2P so they can be a "monopoly buster," then it's all good. But be careful about using the m-word around an economist or similar expert. It's a bit like creationists who deliberately misuse the word "theory" (as in evolutionary theory) to make their point. It might sound convincing, and it satisfies the people who want to believe, but it's still hogwash.