I'm sure this post will be taken out of context by some, but it is worth considering.
There was a short story I read decades ago by scifi author Larry Niven that has stuck with me. In this future, medical science had perfected the art of organ transplants, they could transplant any part of a body from one person to another. Initially the source of organs was people who died in accidents and death row inmates. Because the demand for organs was so high, the appeal process for death sentence went from about 20 years to 20 days. People stopped committing the death sentence crimes, because they would, without question, die if they got caught, so the people kept voting in laws for the death sentence for less and less crimes and people stopped committing those crimes, finally it got to a point where too many traffic violations meant you got the death penalty.
Now, you should read this story if you aren't already familiar with it http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/04/national/main3330186.shtml - basically this woman got fined $222,000 for "sharing" 24 songs. This has already been upheld on appeal. The law actually allows for up to $150,000 per download, so she got off pretty lucky for just the 24 songs. I'm looking at some of these bloggers with 1000 albums and 10,000 songs, with hundreds of downloads per song, so let's use this news story as a financial base where they charged only $9,250 per song - you're looking at nearly $10 Million in fines. Doesn't matter if you can't pay it now, you'll pay it for the rest of your life.
Now this is in the US, I don't know what other countries have in this regard, but if you are in the US and you are posting or linking to songs, no matter where they are hosted, you are subject to this law and penalty, and the RIAA can get your information to follow it up, and now that they have a precedent, they are going after people. So you sit there in your bedroom uploading songs, thinking it's all fine and no one is watching, the recent activity should prove that people are indeed watching, and you're lucky that the files are just getting removed at this point and you aren't getting a summons to appear in court.
So if you knew that with near certainty that you would be thrown in debtors prison, or in the extreme example, killed, for "sharing" files, would you still be inclined to make your current argument and continue?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Hi PK, I think you should also read this page and take a look at how the RIAA campaign is doing, in case you are thinking about suing uploaders and file-sharers:
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/
There are many interesting articles about the Thomas trial, abd this one really stands out:
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/01/according-to-cary-sherman-of-riaa-sony.html
Cheers,
Esteban from Argentina.
I've said it many times, the RIAA is inept and the way they've handled this has been stupid, but they've got the deep pockets and I'm more than willing to share with them the information that I've gathered. I've already talked to them before about how badly they are handling things.
No matter what though, even if the chances of getting caught are slim at the moment people who want to risk to be paying a fine for the rest of their lives are pretty much death imo. But then of course people still smuggle drugs even when they know they can get caught too.
And for what? I love special cd-packages. If there are two versions i always grab the special one even when it's a bit more expensive. Downloading stuff is so basic, no liner notes (which is a very good thing to have when i buy a jazz record!!), no package. The only artist from which i buy MP3 files is Coil but that's because certain stuff from them is only available on their site as an mp3 and not on disc.
Of course the RIAA isn't always doing stuff the right way. But imo if you read certain people who love to download and tell that in this blog, i couldn't mind anyway. I do hope they get caught and i do hope they have to pay a fine for the rest of their life. Harsh yes, but then again they are asking for it.
Meh i will still share my many many albums :)
@ Joker, but that's the point. The disc is yours, but the music is not. When you buy a cd for £12 (or whatever) that price gives you the right to enjoy that music for the rest of your life! BARGAIN!
It does not buy you the right to freely distribute that music.
So it's ok to share your many many albums if you are the musician and composer of those albums. If you are not, you only get yo share the plastic bit, not the music bit.
but that's nice, mobiles all round eh?
What's cocksocking? Haven't heard of that one before?????
We of course don't want to sue people. We simply want them to understand that the right thing to do is to give something in return for the pleasure of listening. And to respect the artists right to decide about their own work.
But, there is plenty of people getting really tired of having to spend lots of time with searching around and make sure others don't use their work in an unwanted way.
So. I'm not very surprised that some of them have stopped trying to handle the issue the gentle way.
I mean, even the giant record companies first tried to talk some sense into the downloaders.
And it's kind of understandable if the rightowners sooner or later gets tired of all the "fuck you's" and decide to do it the rough way.
I'm not for war or suing or any kind of that stuff, but I can see what's happening when people just continue to steal the artists work.
As I said on another thread:
Artists and labels ARE adapting, but will never "adapt" to have to give away their work for free to people who have no sense of ownership.
Hansi, the problem with the labels is that they began to adapt at a very slow rate, and I think it's a little late (about 8 years late) to tell people how they should access and use their music in the digital age. It's just a bit too late to go for that, people have made their choice, and they're not backing out that easily.
Those "f*** you" comments you are getting, are the result of the RIAA's/IFPI lawsuit campaign, most kids in these day associate any record label to them. Remember this the next time you put money on these high-paid lobbyist that've done nothing for the labels and the artist. They're just wasting your time and money.
People just got so sick of them that they won't even hear any kind of argument (no matter how valid is) from anyone in the music industry, even when they're not associated with the RIAA.
I trully respect everybody's comments and I agree that artists should be fairly compensated for their works, but sometimes It just doesn't look like they are putting their minds on how things works in this digital age. You may not like it, but it's already happening.
Cheers,
Esteban.
hansi, do you like music????
Stop with the computers and internet, and we talk after that.
Is forbidden use drugs...and so what??!!!
I use what why want use
I buy my records and I do what I want to do with them
Well, never mind
Esteban - I'm going to probably start another post on what you guys see as the solution because I keep seeing people say the labels haven't reacted fast enough, they need to adapt, etc., but no one has actually said what those things are. Labels have been doing digital distribution with itunes since it started and they're working with all the other ones as well. When Napster showed up, it caught everyone by surprise, the labels, the consumers the artists, etc., once a legal model came about, everyone went with it. It isn't like the industry is sticking with 8 track tapes or something, they've certainly been adapting.
Hi Esteban,
Maybe the music industry was a bit late. I don't know i wasn't interested as slong as itv was about low bit rates. In year 2000-2001 I saw it a bit like you guys. As promotion. The sound quality could not be compared to the "real stuff". But now it can, and therefore it have become a problem.
Anyway, late or not, I do not believe it is too late. It is not a fixed situation. We will see. My guess is that the feeloaders will have to adapt to a new reality.
cheers,
Hansi
Shawn,
How can we make arguments when legitimate and thoughtful posts are being censored by you left and right on this very site?
I've got no idea who you are, but the bulk of the posts that I didn't let through basically said "Hansi and Gert, I responded to you but Shawn won't let my post through", which isn't true. I don't see a point in letting through a post that says your posts aren't getting through, when all the relevant ones have. Start signing with a consistant name and I'll know if you're part of the discussion as well, but so far I think you're the same guy that has signed with a dozen or so different names with messages like I described. I haven't seen anything from you recently that contributed to the discussion with a solution.
How can anyone contribute to a discussion if posts that address points people make are being deleted by you?
And what constitutes a "relevant" post in your mind? We were having a discussion, they brought up their points and opinions, and I responded to them in an intelligent manner in order to further the discussion.
I originally posted as A.G. but it was clear that you were deleting my posts once you saw my name and not bothering to read the content of the posts.
How about the thoughts of the other people who are still allowed to post on here? Do you really want actual back-and-forth discussion on the issues of sharing music online, or do you prefer that any furthering of the dialog be stifled instead?
I love the stance you're taking now, much more reasoned than what I didn't post. I am not filtering based on name, I read every post and if it is redundant, slanderous or pointless, then for the most part I don't let it through, sometimes I do, but we're a hell of a lot more cooperative than the sites that have been removing every single post by us. The very fact that I'm having this discussion proves my point.
"So if you knew that with near certainty that you would be thrown in debtors prison, or in the extreme example, killed, for "sharing" files, would you still be inclined to make your current argument and continue?"
Ahh yes, the threat of death or financial ruin would be a good way to deal with those pesky dissenting opinions. What a stupid post...
Try addressing the actual question - the point of which is proving that you know it is wrong.
"Ahh yes, the threat of death or financial ruin would be a good way to deal with those pesky dissenting opinions. What a stupid post..."
- If i want to kill someone i already know the possible consequences
- If i want to deal drugs i already know the possible consequences
- If i want to download music i already know the possible consequences
There is no threat from any of us hear, we just remind people what possible could happen if you are uploading/downloading music. Someone in the US has to pay 9k-ish a song. How many downloads do you have on your comp? Really worth the risk?
Gert
the death penalty when enforced quickly is an absolute deterent. If you KNOW without a doubt, that if you are caught doing what you are doing will result in your death within a couple months, you won't (in most cases) do it.
I know nothing about Nivens personal beliefs or politics, but he's right on this point.
Post a Comment