The Riaa Sues Its Customers

[RebelWithanAK]

So the RIAA decided to up and subpoena 200 people who share more than 1,000 files on Kazaa, with plans for 150,000 more this year, just because it lost 37% of its CD sales after 2001. To make matters clear that this is a scare tactic, each of the 150,000 that are planned to be sent out come with a clause: Destroy any copies you have of the files and sign an affadavit saying you'll never do that again, and you come off scot free. Since when did the RIAA dictate how much money it should make? Why can't it admit that people found out that paying $18.99 at Virgin for a CD of one pop single and nine tracks of fluff was a ripoff? Does suing your consumer base really endear them to the quality of your products? Gives new meaning to "buy it or else," no?

[indierockboy]

i do alot of mp3 filesharing. not nearly as much as many people i know, but i've accumulated a few gigabytes of MP3s. i use MP3s as a way to preview albums - the kind of music i like generally doesn't get much radio play, and as you said, i don't want to pay 18.99 for a single to find out the rest of the album is fluff. however, i have never downloaded an album, liked it, and then not purchased it. i remember the very first album i ever burned (shamefully) was a finger eleven album. a year and a half later, i bought the album. i had long since lost any respect for the band, but i felt that since i did at one point greatly enjoy the album, i "owed" them.

since being able to download mp3s, my cd library has greatly increased. now i am able to preview music friends recommend without throwing money away. i am a legitimate music buyer, and i've spent well over $1000 on music, not to mention how much i've spent on merchandise and shows, which the band profits from on a much larger scale. however, because i have alot of mp3s, this could very well affect me. which will also affect my ability to preview and ultimately purchase music. this could easily screw over the legitimate music fan.

[RebelWithanAK]

Yes, but CD sales (mostly $15 CD singles, of course) have gone down drastically. Now, this can best be attributed to bad business policies on the side of Sony and the RIAA, but they're still issuing lawsuits. Now what?

[G. Adams]

As its, I believe, that the vast majority of internet users that download mp3's through file sharing, it would be undemocratic for government allow laws to be passed against the majority of people. So, if the government is allowing law to abuse the majority, it has become tyrannical, and working openly in the minorities interests.

A campaign in support of users should be organised. Flying pickets would be best, blocking off access to courthouses. Maybe every hour, on the hour, everyone should visit the RIAA website, disabling the server.

[Geoff332]

the vast majority of internet users that download mp3's through file sharing, it would be undemocratic for government allow laws to be passed against the majority of people

So, if the majority of people wanted to kill all jews (for example), it would be undemocratic for a Government to pass legislation to prevent it? Or perhaps you only object to property rights: so how about if the vast majority of people wanted to take the land off all Jews and distribute it to non-Jews. How about speeding. The vast majority of people speed, does this make it illegal to have speeding tickets (and who cares who dies)?

Or perhaps there are rights that transcend the will of the majority -- these rights usually include some form of human rights and property rights. I seem to recall these from somewhere -- usually in places like the founding documents of every democracy in existance. If you want to argue that property rights are immoral, that's a very different argument from the one you have proposed. I'm not sure how you conceive democracy, but the picture you've painted in that statement is a rather unpleasant one.

[Dislogic]

the problem i see is that alot of the people who take part in file sharing are also not in the US... how are they going to get those people! i approve of file sharing personally so its to me kind of unfair that only people in the US can get sued but at the same time it gives me confidence that file sharing will never die out.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

This is silly. Music is not a product that will kill anyone if they do not have it. It is a luxery item. Therefore the distributers have full rights to charge as much as the market will bear. Nor, if I were a musician, would I like for someone to steal the fruits of my labor.

This is getting to be a weird world, where stealing someones sweat and blood is just fine. But failing to purchase their product because they support causes you do not believe in is considered an outrage.

[RebelWithanAK]

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. Most small-time artists are actually getting quite a bit of exposure what with this free dissemination, which helps concerts, whereas the big-time ones don't need an extra $4 million in CD sales.

[indierockboy]

Originally posted by RebelWithanAK@Sep 11 2003, 02:51 PM 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. Most small-time artists are actually getting quite a bit of exposure what with this free dissemination, which helps concerts, whereas the big-time ones don't need an extra $4 million in CD sales.

the artists do not get anywhere near $3-5 dollars. they get between 3-10% royalties if they're on a good contract. only major, mainstream bands make significantly more than that. of each record sold, the band gets between $0.60 and $2.00. if they're lucky. the only time a band makes a significant profit on their records is if they sell it directly from a show, in which case they might make $5.00. and that's if they didn't pay ludicrous amounts for mixing and production and expensive studio time.

musicians make their money from live shows and merchandise. buying records doesn't do them any real monitary support, because after production costs and managing, they're lucky to see $.10 of that $.60. it supports them in the sense that sales get them radio play and popularity, which makes for shows that sell out and a greater demand for merhcandise.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

So when you download you are only stealing their retirement...and that is just fine. Sounds like a lot of rationalization going on here. You might also want to remember that computer graphic artists and game programmers are in the same boat and they seldomly go on tour...

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by Geoff332@Sep 10 2003, 08:56 PM So, if the majority of people wanted to kill all jews (for example), it would be undemocratic for a Government to pass legislation to prevent it? Or perhaps you only object to property rights: so how about if the vast majority of people wanted to take the land off all Jews and distribute it to non-Jews. How about speeding. The vast majority of people speed, does this make it illegal to have speeding tickets (and who cares who dies)? Or perhaps there are rights that transcend the will of the majority -- these rights usually include some form of human rights and property rights. I seem to recall these from somewhere -- usually in places like the founding documents of every democracy in existance. If you want to argue that property rights are immoral, that's a very different argument from the one you have proposed. I'm not sure how you conceive democracy, but the picture you've painted in that statement is a rather unpleasant one.

Killing Jews crosses human rights. And although most people do speed from time to time, the vast majority agrees they should be there for general safety reasons (if at 70mph limit everyone does 80, if we went to 80 everyone would do 90). File sharing does not cross any human rights, nor do the majority think that with restrictions lifted there would be a spate of deaths.

File sharing doesn't harm anyone. As has been stated before, if publishers would stop trying to jack up the prices to make uber profits, we wouldn't have to download music. I don't know about other people, but music is a big part of my life, andon a student budget I can't afford to buy every album that takes my interest, so I download tracks and buy the albums once i've heard some of the none single stuff.

And as well as that, if it wasn't for file sharing I wouldn't own half the albums I do now, because I've been able to find smaller bands that don't have music played on radio often. Rockbitch being the best example which, due to their tendency to fist each other and have sex on stage, don't play in England anymore.

[indierockboy]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 11 2003, 06:43 PM So when you download you are only stealing their retirement...and that is just fine. Sounds like a lot of rationalization going on here. You might also want to remember that computer graphic artists and game programmers are in the same boat and they seldomly go on tour...

did you even read my original post? i don't rationalize anything, i am a very big supporter of music. i've never burnt and album i didn't buy, and i am more than willing to pay the extra shipping charges and buy the albums directly from the bands, in an effort to increase their profit margin. i also have a closet full of shirts i've purchased while at shows. i'm about as good as a music patron as i can be on my limited salary, given how often i go out of my way to make sure the band profits. my point is that if you're going to argue something, you should at least have your facts remotely correct, which i don't think is too much to ask.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

indierockboy
??? Precisely why have you decided that my case is a threat to you, and why am I required to prove that I read your post. I was refuting your attack on my post, I am not suddenly opposed to your first post that I did not even comment on. Are you confused or what???

[indierockboy]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 11 2003, 11:51 PM indierockboy ??? Precisely why have you decided that my case is a threat to you, and why am I required to prove that I read your post. I was refuting your attack on my post, I am not suddenly opposed to your first post that I did not even comment on. Are you confused or what???

i didn't decide you were a "threat" nor did i attack your post. and if you wish to avoid having your vague posts addressed in such a manner, then perhaps you should write more pointedly, hmmm?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

indieboy
From reading your post it looks like you assumed that I was opposed to you in some manner, otherwise your response makes no sense at all. My post was not even about you, so get over it...

[Geoff332]

File sharing does not cross any human rights

But it does challenge property rights. Now, you might not think that property rights are necessary for democracy. But this is an entirely different argument from what you suggested. It is also inconsistent with every contemporary justice system that I can think of (or at least the ones I would want to live under).

Filesharing does harm people. It takes something they have produced (their music) and gives it to someone else. The person who made the music gets nothing from it and if the person who receives it would have given them money for it in some other way, then they have lost that money. Now, you may consider that is not significant harm, which can be argued for. But to assert that it doesn't harm anyone is not factually correct.

You can (and do start to) make a case that the harm is less than the benefit of file-sharing. But the assertion that "it would be undemocratic for government allow laws to be passed against the majority of people" is false with all the definitions of democracy. If you rest your criticism on this assertion, then you are on very dubious grounds. The argument that, "everyone does it, so it must be OK" is not a good place to start, especially when there are alternatives.

[indierockboy]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@Sep 12 2003, 12:17 AM indieboy From reading your post it looks like you assumed that I was opposed to you in some manner, otherwise your response makes no sense at all. My post was not even about you, so get over it...

you did nothing but restate yourself, adding no clarity to your point than you hadn't already. now, if you would actually direct your post at somebody instead of writing in vague, easily interpretable terms, we might actually get somewhere.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by Geoff332@Sep 12 2003, 12:20 AM But it does challenge property rights. Now, you might not think that property rights are necessary for democracy. But this is an entirely different argument from what you suggested. It is also inconsistent with every contemporary justice system that I can think of (or at least the ones I would want to live under). Filesharing does harm people. It takes something they have produced (their music) and gives it to someone else. The person who made the music gets nothing from it and if the person who receives it would have given them money for it in some other way, then they have lost that money. Now, you may consider that is not significant harm, which can be argued for. But to assert that it doesn't harm anyone is not factually correct. You can (and do start to) make a case that the harm is less than the benefit of file-sharing. But the assertion that "it would be undemocratic for government allow laws to be passed against the majority of people" is false with all the definitions of democracy. If you rest your criticism on this assertion, then you are on very dubious grounds. The argument that, "everyone does it, so it must be OK" is not a good place to start, especially when there are alternatives.

Well, I am communist, I'm not too supporting on property rights...

In terms of harm, I was talking about physical harm, as you had raised the point of killing jews. But if we are going to turn this a little...the money people would have lost if, instead of downloading, bought legitimately would do far greater harm to them than the lost revenue for the companies. (ah, i just re-read the last post and you raised this...)

If we are a democracy it is the will of the people that matter. If they wish to create a law, that doesn't contravene human rights, it should be created. If they wish one turned over, and it does not breach human rights, then it should done. As I don't agree that property rights are human rights, and I do believe, and you havn't disputed, that the majority support file sharing, to actively make laws stopping file sharing would be supporting the minority over the majority. As the law is against the will of the people, it is undemocratic.

And I never said it is okay because everyone does it, I am saying it would not be okay for a democratic government to support judgements against the majority.

If it is so horrific a crime that you need to prosecute 12 year olds for committing it, yet the majority support it, it is the duty of politicians to persuade the majority against it through debate, not law.

[Geoff332]

I am saying it would not be okay for a democratic government to support judgements against the majority

If those judgements effect the rights of a minority, a democratic government is obliged to support that judgement. That is the half of democracy that you missed out. A state that does not enforce this aspect of 'democracy' is a tyranny of the majority.

If this is your view of democracy, then fine: but it's not mine and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a society that didn't protect the rights of its citizens, even against the will of the majority.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by Geoff332@Sep 12 2003, 09:14 AM If those judgements effect the rights of a minority, a democratic government is obliged to support that judgement. That is the half of democracy that you missed out. A state that does not enforce this aspect of 'democracy' is a tyranny of the majority. If this is your view of democracy, then fine: but it's not mine and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a society that didn't protect the rights of its citizens, even against the will of the majority.

The rights of the minority are not being infringed in this case, if as I do, you do not consider 'property rights' to be human rights.

This supposed all evil mobocracy is no worse than the state we are in currently, where instead of the whims of the majority being prevelant it is the minority. The most obvious, and current, example being the G8's control of the world economy, and in effect, the world itself. I just hope the poorer countries of the G21 arn't seduced off the boat by the US and EU.