The Riaa Sues Its Customers

From what I see, the drop in CD sales can simply be attributed to bad press given to the RIAA. There are more than its fair share of "boycott RIAA" sites, and increasingly, people are just finding that its easier to bitch and moan about expensive CDs than it is to actually buy them.

Cue in file sharing.

It isn't how democracy protects human property rights (which, in theory, it does), but rather how more and more artists are getting pissed. They realize they're being screwed by the record labels, and yet, those doing all the fighting consist of Metallica, and the labels themselves.

"Who doesn't want to get paid for their work?" said Wayne Coyne of the indie-rock band Flaming Lips. "But I think it works to musicians' benefit for people to be able to occasionally listen to their music and, if they really like it, go out and buy it."

[RebelWithanAK]

And funny enough, Metallica got its name through bootlegging. Ironic, no?

Nice "artists getting pissed" link, trigxine.

[Geoff332]

G. Adams:

The majority of people who live in modern democracies live support the notion of property rights. Doesn't this, by your own definition, make property rights an essential part of democracy? As you have rightly said in another context -- just because you don't believe something doesn't make it wrong if the will of the majority agrees.

Either way, I think the important thing is to base your debate on the right issue. Allowing laws agains thte will of a democracy is not inherently undemocratic. You have two bases to make your case against the RIAA: either the harm done is insignificant or the rights to the music are not worth protecting. Taking these points on would produce a much stronger case.

[RebelWithanAK]

Geoff - I'm a member of an advanced society that is also a modern republic, and I find property rights to be held in far too high a regard as compared to human rights. Please don't say "the people believe this" until you can get some statistics to back you up, 'cause you ain't speaking for me.

What's worse, your idea of what the arguments are against intellectual property in the form of creative arts is a slight bit mislead.

Getting exposure to small-time artists is a good thing, because they rarely have the opportunity to do so through official measures - ie: the radio, and advertisements paid by the producer. Why? Because the producers want the largest amount of profit for the money spent, which means they look to promote artists that pander to the lowest common denominator. Which means that Johnny Garage Band or Jamie Indie Rock don't get their music played outside the chump change bar scene.

What's worse, $19 is quite a lot to spend on a CD that you can't preview, especially if only 60 cents actually go to the artist. I might as well mail them a dollar. Tower found out that "listening stations" don't cut it. Apple found out that Apple.com does cut it. Especially since you don't have to buy the whole CD. Why did Apple do such a thing? Because Napster and Kazaa and Gnutella and WinMX and all those others proved how many people thought they were getting gypped by the "charge what the market will bear" people from the RIAA.

Not to mention it's not too nice to sue your consumer base.

[Geoff332]

OK. So you'd be willing to give up the computer that these files are saved on? Give up the rights to access those files -- because they are no longer yours? You would no longer have the right to access a computer -- as it is property. This is all conceivable if you elminate property rights.

I'm not sure I can provide statistics to back up the popularity of property rights. You will also find that the majority of western legal systems are based almost exclusively on property rights. This is true of the US, the UK and of the EU. I may not be right about the popular support for them, but the very notion of communist revolution indicates that people will not voluntarily give up their property rights and will therefore require a revolution to eliminate the ownership of property. I'm not sure that this debate is really about the fundemental elimination of property rights.

You raise a bunch of other interesting points that I'm going to sort of summarise, and not really address. I studied a few of these a while back (the joy of business ethics courses). I'm trying in these points to present both sides, as objectively as possible. I won't tell you which side I actually think has more credence -- partly because I don't have time, but primarily because I am still thinking about these issues and haven't taken a firm position.

Firstly, the argument that Intellectual Property is fundementally different from physical property is interesting. This usually rests on the notion here is that physical property only exists once -- whereas you can reproduce intellectual property for a minimal cost. This is the basis that the Linux OpenGL license operates on. This questions whether it is right to charge for something that costs nothing to produce. The counter argument is that property rights are necessary to protect the development cost of the IP. If it costs me $10 million to develop a piece of software, and $1 to make each copy, then selling a million copies at $11 each covers my costs.

Secondly, the idea that most of the cash goes to the record companies rather than to the artists themselves. This is a slight mis-representation, when you take into account the distribution costs, production and promotion costs. I would be interested to know what percentage of a record sale actually goes to the record company. I realise that very little of it goes directly to the artists, which makes arguments about protecting the artists' rights a little weak. This is, however, independant of IP rights. When Microsoft develops a piece of software, the rights for that software belong to MS not to the developers.

Thirdly, the RIAA and the major record companies are not acting for the good of the artists or the consumer. They are doing this to serve themselves. If filesharing continues, the effects on the artists and on the consumers are hard to predict. The effects on the record labels are easier to predict it will hurt them badly. I see the RIAA's actions as being primarily intended to prevent change in the industry. Preventing change at an industry-wide level, especially when it's driven by technology, is generally a poor strategy. If I were running a record company, I would be taking a very different approach.

Fourthly, extending from this, filesharing has started to change the way music is promoted and distributed. The old model relied on radio airplay, coupled with record-store distribution. The record labels ensured this, which was their part of role in the industry. They covered the upfront investment required to record and produce an album -- which was out of the reach of most artists (as well as funding tours: your costs usually come before your revenue, so you need to fund the cashflow from somewhere). Technology has reduced recording costs somewhat. With MP3s, production and distribution are close to zero. Airplay, promotion and touring costs -- but their importance is starting to change. All of this will shake the industry up.

Fifthly, "charging what the market will bear" is an assumption based on the model of perfect competition. Given the lack of price variation I see in CD prices, it doesn't look as if there is actually much competitive pricing going on. The market certainly is not perfectly competitive (the sellers are dmoniated by a few big players making it an oligopoly), so it's not going to exhibit perfectly competitive behaviour. Naturally, as the price comes down, the demand goes up (which is what we see with the huge popularity of file-sharing). I certainly don't buy the idea that the price of a CD is what the market will bear.

To give a quick summary of my position. I think the RIAA and the industry they represent is making a mistake. As you suggest, suing the customer base is a part of the process of alienating the customer base, which is pretty much guaranteed to ensure long-term failure. I was never intending to argue in support of the RIAA: I think they are going down the wrong path. I was simply arguing that democracy requires consideration of more than the will of the majority and the simple popularity of filesharing does not make opposing it undemocratic, immoral or illegal.

It may still be immoral to oppose file-sharing, but that argument will have to rest on different grounds. Since I first posted, you and G. Adams have provided some of those grounds -- which I think are stronger arguments and ones much more worth pursuing.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Labor is a commodity and therefore porperty, and so is food and shelter. Control over food and shelter are the main ingredients needed to ensure a dictatorship, control over labor is the main ingredient of oppression.

[RebelWithanAK]

Geoff - G. Adams and I are not the same person. I don't care about the precedents this has on democracy-as-purveyor-of-property-rights. EVERY government is in defense of property rights, because every government is held by those who have property.

Secondly, the idea that most of the cash goes to the record companies rather than to the artists themselves. This is a slight mis-representation, when you take into account the distribution costs, production and promotion costs.

I already said that.

Greatwyrm, you know damned well that for every $19 CD the artist gets about $3-5 dollars. The rest are in packaging, distribution, and advertising campaigns for the half dozen or so superstars who are making millions for the producers already.

...

Apple found out that Apple.com does cut it.

Fifthly, "charging what the market will bear" is an assumption based on the model of perfect competition.

Actually, it's based on a model of perfect non-competition, or a industry-agreed racket. Only monopolies can really charge what the market will bear. If there was true competition, the prices would be closer to $11 and $12.

[Geoff332]

I apologise for appearing to confuse you with G. Adams -- I was attempting to hit both of your points in one comment and clearly failed. It isn't just the Government, but our entire legal system that is based on property rights. I think you will find they are far more deeply buried in our culture than merely the political institutions (actually, I know you will; property rights tie to the notion of individualism -- until we release the notion of the individual as the primary social unit, property rights are going to be inseparable from our society. Changing this would change our society -- which is the whole point behind the communist revolution. My point was, this is unlikely to happen around the issue of file-sharing).

I think we're getting off the topic a little here -- which is my fault as much as anyones. If you really want to debate property rights in general, then here's a philosophical introduction. I would suggest that you start another thread and we can go for it there. In the context of these suits, the 'rights issue' centres around intellectual property rights (IPR).

it's based on a model of perfect non-competition, or a industry-agreed racket

Which is essentially what an oligopoly is. You get a small number of major players who give every appearance of collusion (usually without actual collusion going on). A friend of mine did an interesting thesis on the comptetition and co-operation. The basic idea is that members of an industry implicity agree on the definition of the industry -- what products are included and excluded, what is fair and what is not and so on. This often includes price structures -- and with what is essentially a commodity product (one CD is virtually identical to another; you only have a small number of price-points that CDs are given), you end up with very little price variation. I do see higher prices for rarities and imports and lower prices for over-stocked or unpopular albums. But this variance is limited and within tightyly defined boundaries.

Oh, I've got another idea. Look out for a new thread.

As for the rest, I wasn't trying to agree or disagree with anyone -- just to clarify the issue. I had missed that you'd already said that, but it was still important (for me, at least) to clarify the point. As I said, I think there is a strong case for opposing the RIAA without delving into revolutionary ideas. If you genuinely want to effect change (rather than just talk about it), then this is a more sensible course to follow.

[G. Adams]

I don't believe that, if supplied with all the facts, the majority of people would support property rights. I'm not talking about things like computers and clothes, although they are impacted upon, by property, only the means of production, assets basically. If everyone knew the basic truth that ownership of property by individuals harms the majority, I don't believe they would support property rights at all.

[Geoff332]

And a computer isn't a means of production? Why don't you break that one to Silicon valley? Or anyone using a computer to prepare a job application. Or anyone who sells on eBay. Or anyone who uses their PC to buy something. The line is far, far too grey to seperate: either individuals have property rights, or they don't.

The idea that the "ownership of property by individuals harms the majority" is not a fact, but an analytical conclusion from a given ideological position. The two are quite different things. From a capitalist position, one can say that the ownership of property by individuals benefits the majority. Either position can supply evidence to support their contradictory claims, depending on the interpretation that one takes on the data.

[RebelWithanAK]

A computer really isn't a means for production, because its results are in information, not physical commodities. In effect, if Y2K did destroy all modern electronic devices, civilization would still survive.

To oversimplify a bit, having a farmer who owns 1000 acres of arable land is an inherent threat to the wellbeing of everyone who is not that farmer - without government regulation, he is a baron: In control of the lives of everyone who needs to eat. This is true of the Real Estate industry, Utilities and Transportation, and even the Auto and Oil industries depending on where in America you live, thanks to our love of explosive suburban growth.

Hell, just check the Ford Industry's history with Los Angeles' trolley system for proof of why property rights are dangerous to the community overall. You forget that those claiming that capitalism benefits all are usually those who own capital. Let's go back to that farmer. He now owns all the arable land in his county. People need to eat. He feels he is presenting them with a service by selling food to them which they otherwise could not have gotten; what's more, he's presenting them with yet another service because he employs some of them to work that very land - thus paying them a stipend.

Meanwhile, they're in a worse off position than before, because they're now subservient to him politically - not to mention that their benefits have lessened by the exact amount that he skims off for himself, be it money or food. Is he justified in rendering services? That's like taking credit for the air.

This is not to say that leaders are an inherently wrong thing. Just unaccountability.

[Geoff332]

A computer is a physical thing. I know, because I am physically pressing the keys on one right now. If it is used in production, it becomes capital. The fact that what it manipulates information rather than physical reality does not make it any less a capital item. If that information is used in the labour process (eg crop planning, transport scheduling), then it is a capital item, according to Marxist definitions.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Rebel
Property exists, no matter what you say, it will still exist. Our time, our bodies, our labor, and our ideas are all property. Take away a mans porperty and he does not exist. Therefore, the debate is about how much of it to take away.

But taking it away does not cause it to not exist, it simply means that someone else owns it. Does it really mater if he owns it, his boss owns it, or the government owns it, it can still be misused because the problem lies in humanity and we cannot give the property to an inanimate object. Anything that can conceptualize property has the same flaw.

Therefore, the only question is, who will abuse the property the most? In that way it is like the God question. Do we take responsibility for it ourselves or do we invent some imaginary being to do it for us. The imaginary "state" of socialism is simply an economic God. It can have no true existence so its clergy will be men just as corrupt as the rest of us, but likely worse, since power does not draw the cream of humanity it draws the worst of us...

[RebelWithanAK]

According to that logic, GreatWyrm, there's no reason whatsoever to enforce any system of ethics for any amount of time, because entropy will sooner or later take over.

Geoff, in terms of establishing a minimum quality of life for the largest body of people possible, computers don't really equate.

[Geoff332]

That's completely non-sensical. Marx would never say anything like that. Anything which increases productivity -- something which no-one with any knowledge of economic history can deny computers do very well -- benefits the society. Marx defined the wealth of nations in the same way as Smith -- as the total level of comodity production. They disagreed on the means to get there, but the whole anti-technology line that you're taking is a very unconvincing argument.

The marxists concern with technology centred around alientation, not around productivity gains.

[G. Adams]

Although computers, and the electronic property that has been created by them have been undeniably beneficial, I can't eat or sleep under the products of a computer. I still need the basic resources to live. So while these resources are owned by others, I must work for others or starve.

GWB, if we are going to define property so broadly then yes, people do have property rights. But, at least I, am not defining property so broadly. I was limiting property to the 'means of production', and for further clarification in light of Geoffs points, 'means of producing neccesities of life'.

[Geoff332]

Property rights are defined that broadly -- it's unavoidable. Property rights stem from the notion that a person has, under some circumstances, the right to control a physical object.

Now, Marx clearly defined capital as a social relationship -- something was not innately capital, but anything could be capital if it was used in the process of production.

The idea that property is the means of production is an interesting one. Given that is the Marxist definition of capital, I assume you are referring to property rights over capital. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but the distinction is actually quite important. Capital is 'property' that is used in production; property itself is a much broader concept in Marxism.

You further limit yourself to the idea that when you say 'property' (capital) you are only referring to the 'means of producing the neccesities of life'. By implication, anything that is not used to produce the necessities of life is subject to personal ownership. I suspect that's not what you meant, but it isn't very clear so I will run with what you said. The obvious interpretation of this is that communism is only concerned with a subsistance economy (the creation of necessities, and not of luxuries where luxuries are things that are not necessary). Does this mean that there are no luxuries or that luxuries are produced via a different labour process? If they are produced by a different labour process, how is the marxist critique of the labour process (exploitation) dealt with?

Since 'property' (capital) is limited to the 'means of producing the necessities of life', then anything used in any other production or creative process is not 'property' (capital). Given that commercially produced music (the files we are downloading) are not really necessary for someone to live, anything used to produce them is not 'property' (capital). Since it's not 'property' (capital), then they can owned by individuals. One would assume, then, that the created output is subject to individual ownership. Alternatively, nothing produced by a labour process (such as, for example, a computer) is subject to individual ownership.

Now, let's look at the labour process a little more closely. Are you referring to only the direct labour process or the organisational effort in the labour process as well? For example, a group of three you have a farm that's ready to harvest. You have to get the harvest done in a week then fertilised, then replant the crops the following week; you have 20 fields to harvest, each field will take one person approximately a day to harvest and another day to plant. You now have to decided who harvests which field (is it better for all of you to work one field at a time or to spilt up and do a field each?) You have to decide what crops to plant and then what fertislisation mix to put on the field to ensure that you get sufficient crop yield. All of this involves decision making and organisational activities that are unavoidable. If a computer helps in any of these processes, is it then considered capital? What if you are using it to organise a large construction project for housing? Does this make it capital?

If there is any circumstances under which a computer can be considered capital, then how do you decide if a given computer is 'property' or not?

I'm looking forward to all of these questions being answered. :)

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by Geoff332@09-15-2003 09:26 PM Property rights are defined that broadly -- it's unavoidable. Property rights stem from the notion that a person has, under some circumstances, the right to control a physical object. Now, Marx clearly defined capital as a social relationship -- something was not innately capital, but anything could be capital if it was used in the process of production. The idea that property is the means of production is an interesting one. Given that is the Marxist definition of capital, I assume you are referring to property rights over capital. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but the distinction is actually quite important. Capital is 'property' that is used in production; property itself is a much broader concept in Marxism. You further limit yourself to the idea that when you say 'property' (capital) you are only referring to the 'means of producing the neccesities of life'. By implication, anything that is not used to produce the necessities of life is subject to personal ownership. I suspect that's not what you meant, but it isn't very clear so I will run with what you said. The obvious interpretation of this is that communism is only concerned with a subsistance economy (the creation of necessities, and not of luxuries where luxuries are things that are not necessary). Does this mean that there are no luxuries or that luxuries are produced via a different labour process? If they are produced by a different labour process, how is the marxist critique of the labour process (exploitation) dealt with? Since 'property' (capital) is limited to the 'means of producing the necessities of life', then anything used in any other production or creative process is not 'property' (capital). Given that commercially produced music (the files we are downloading) are not really necessary for someone to live, anything used to produce them is not 'property' (capital). Since it's not 'property' (capital), then they can owned by individuals. One would assume, then, that the created output is subject to individual ownership. Alternatively, nothing produced by a labour process (such as, for example, a computer) is subject to individual ownership. Now, let's look at the labour process a little more closely. Are you referring to only the direct labour process or the organisational effort in the labour process as well? For example, a group of three you have a farm that's ready to harvest. You have to get the harvest done in a week then fertilised, then replant the crops the following week; you have 20 fields to harvest, each field will take one person approximately a day to harvest and another day to plant. You now have to decided who harvests which field (is it better for all of you to work one field at a time or to spilt up and do a field each?) You have to decide what crops to plant and then what fertislisation mix to put on the field to ensure that you get sufficient crop yield. All of this involves decision making and organisational activities that are unavoidable. If a computer helps in any of these processes, is it then considered capital? What if you are using it to organise a large construction project for housing? Does this make it capital? If there is any circumstances under which a computer can be considered capital, then how do you decide if a given computer is 'property' or not? I'm looking forward to all of these questions being answered. :)

My further limiting to means of producing neccesities of life was just in referring to the harm done by private property. When you brought up computers and the electronic products they create, i had to adjust my position to distinguish between property that if privately owned, would be harmful to the majority, and private property that did no damage to the majority. agriculture being an example of the former, and computers being the latter.

In my originally defining property to capital, it was to reflect current, practical real life, rather than correct theoretical terms. This is because our actual 'property rights', the ones in law, only truelly reflect protection of capital, rather than labour as well. For example, someone would be compensated by the state if the state took their land from them, but they would not compensate someone losing their job to the state.

[Geoff332]

Is commercial music a necessity of life?

[RebelWithanAK]

When it seeks to replace non-commercial music, then yes; yes it is.