The R.I.A.A.: A 21st Century Mafia, Part 1
05/29/2004 16:04 Filed in: Music
yeah...I said it...
This week the Recording Industry Association of America issued another 493 lawsuits against computer users who have supposedly downloaded music illegally. That brings the total somewhere around 3,000, but frankly I've lost count.
Question--have the lawsuits persuaded a significant portion of song swappers to stop? I really don't know. I've read some reports that say yes, and some reports that say no. But get this--none of the cases have so far made it to court. The users who have received subpoenas have been threatened with jail time and criminal fines that range in hundreds of thousands of dollars, but most of the cases have been resolved for two or three thousand dollars and no time served.
The RIAA claims that it doesn't know who they are suing--you're just an IP addresses on the internet to them, or so they say. That's probably true because it is certainly not good press for them when they sue twelve-year-olds and single mothers who make less than $20,000 a year .
What the average person does not know is that NONE of these cases have made it to court. See here's what happens when the Mob...ummm....I mean the RIAA comes knocking on your door. They tell you that you are bad, bad, bad because you have stolen music and the copyright laws say that you will go to jail and have to pay fines of $400,000 (which, of course, is hard to do when you're twelve years old, or on welfare, or clear $21K a year). BUT they quickly tell you of the LOOPHOLE. If you will kindly promise to never ever, ever, ever download music again AND pay a few thousand dollars, you won't ever have to worry about them again. It will ALL go away.
Hey, I think I saw a similar plot on The Sopranos a few Sunday nights ago...
Well, if this sounds like a shakedown...if it sounds like racketeering to you, I agree. And so does Michelle Scimeca , a New Jersey woman who was sued by the RIAA and has counter-sued based on the older gangster/racketeering laws in the law books. It will be interesting to see how this one turns out.
I am glad to see Ms. Scimeca's counter-suit because the RIAA's claims need to be settled in a court of law. Everyone so far has been so intimidated by the RIAA that they have settled out of court. I've been privately hoping that someone would challenge them, that they would finally hit someone with the resources to fight back. Why? Is Rick Mansfield in favor of stealing music? No, not really. But our current copyright laws are so outdated, that by their standards, I honestly don't think that what song-swappers are doing is illegal.
Now before you send me your counterpoints (which, of course, I do welcome), hear me out. I didn't say that song-swapping wasn't immoral; it probably is. However, I'm not sure that our current laws would make it illegal.
I mean come on, I'll debate the whole issue with anyone, anytime, AND I'll take either side of the debate. That's how convoluted this situation is.
Copyright laws simply haven't kept up with technology. You know, twenty-five years ago, the television networks and movie studios tried to block your attempt to tape a television show on your VCRs. However, the courts decided that you can tape a show or movie or any other broadcast as long as it is for non-commercial use. Same goes with taping music recorded directly from the radio. I'll come back to this point in my next blog.
It's hard to determine exactly what crime you've committed if you get a lawsuit from the RIAA. See here's the dirty little secret: they aren't suing the people who are downloading music. They are suing people who are sharing music.
But for sake of argument, let's say they were going after the people who were downloading music because basically, if you are sharing it, odds are you've been downloading it. So what is that the equivalent of? Is it the same as going into Wal-Mart and stealing the latest Avril Levigne CD? Well, no not really because you aren't actually walking into Wal-Mart and sticking a physical CD in your pants and walking out the door while smiling at the greeters. In fact, you aren't taking anything physical at all. You're taking data and there it gets a bit iffy.
But someone might claim it's stealing because if you take this music, Avril Levigne isn't getting any money (which she put the time and effort into recording for your listening pleasure) for your ability to listen to her music. Well, let's think about this a minute. I can listen to her on the radio--granted not at my time of choosing--but I don't pay for that. Not the same, you say because the radio station pays for the right to broadcast it. Fair enough. But again, what is the equivalent crime? Since there's no physical theft, is it the same as sneaking into the music studio and stealing the reels she recorded. Well no, because you just made a copy. And there' s not even the breaking and entering charge because you've done this all from the privacy of your own home (or local coffee shop--more about that, too, in my next blog).
Here's something else you need to know. When you buy the latest Avril Levigne CD (regardless of whether you get the physical CD from Wal-Mart or legally download it from the iTunes Music Store ), you aren't really sending any money to dear sweet Avril. Actually most of it goes to the vendors and the music producers. Avril makes money when you buy her concert tickets and pick up the t-shirt while you're there. The record producers want Avril to go on tour to promote the CD which is where they make their money.
So who is being cheated when you download music? Well, if anyone is, its the record producers. And who are they? Well,...ummmm...they are the folks who make up the RIAA. Starting to make any sense now?
Now, you (and the RIAA) may counter, BUT, BUT, BUT the artists need the producers to fund the creation of their CDs. Well, maybe; maybe not. Maybe, just maybe, the way things have always been done aren't enough to keep up with the new digital age we're living in. Maybe we need a new way of supporting artists that will leave the middle men out of the loop. What if you could still support the artist and know that almost all the money you spend, whether on the concert ticket, the t-shirt, or even the physical CD actually went to the artist? What if the physical CD wasn't all that important. The music itself could be traded all you want, but you could still support the artist.
There may just be a way. I don't want to go there right now in this blog, but if YOU want to look into it further, I would suggest you read the book Next: The Future Just Happened by Michael Lewis (no I am not making any money on that link). You know you can buy that book OR check it out from the library OR borrow it from my own bookshelf.
And that leads me to the only real equivalent I know of for song-swapping. I will explore that AND play the Devil's advocate a bit more in the second part of this blog.
Stay tuned...
This week the Recording Industry Association of America issued another 493 lawsuits against computer users who have supposedly downloaded music illegally. That brings the total somewhere around 3,000, but frankly I've lost count.
Question--have the lawsuits persuaded a significant portion of song swappers to stop? I really don't know. I've read some reports that say yes, and some reports that say no. But get this--none of the cases have so far made it to court. The users who have received subpoenas have been threatened with jail time and criminal fines that range in hundreds of thousands of dollars, but most of the cases have been resolved for two or three thousand dollars and no time served.
The RIAA claims that it doesn't know who they are suing--you're just an IP addresses on the internet to them, or so they say. That's probably true because it is certainly not good press for them when they sue twelve-year-olds and single mothers who make less than $20,000 a year .
What the average person does not know is that NONE of these cases have made it to court. See here's what happens when the Mob...ummm....I mean the RIAA comes knocking on your door. They tell you that you are bad, bad, bad because you have stolen music and the copyright laws say that you will go to jail and have to pay fines of $400,000 (which, of course, is hard to do when you're twelve years old, or on welfare, or clear $21K a year). BUT they quickly tell you of the LOOPHOLE. If you will kindly promise to never ever, ever, ever download music again AND pay a few thousand dollars, you won't ever have to worry about them again. It will ALL go away.
Hey, I think I saw a similar plot on The Sopranos a few Sunday nights ago...
Well, if this sounds like a shakedown...if it sounds like racketeering to you, I agree. And so does Michelle Scimeca , a New Jersey woman who was sued by the RIAA and has counter-sued based on the older gangster/racketeering laws in the law books. It will be interesting to see how this one turns out.
I am glad to see Ms. Scimeca's counter-suit because the RIAA's claims need to be settled in a court of law. Everyone so far has been so intimidated by the RIAA that they have settled out of court. I've been privately hoping that someone would challenge them, that they would finally hit someone with the resources to fight back. Why? Is Rick Mansfield in favor of stealing music? No, not really. But our current copyright laws are so outdated, that by their standards, I honestly don't think that what song-swappers are doing is illegal.
Now before you send me your counterpoints (which, of course, I do welcome), hear me out. I didn't say that song-swapping wasn't immoral; it probably is. However, I'm not sure that our current laws would make it illegal.
I mean come on, I'll debate the whole issue with anyone, anytime, AND I'll take either side of the debate. That's how convoluted this situation is.
Copyright laws simply haven't kept up with technology. You know, twenty-five years ago, the television networks and movie studios tried to block your attempt to tape a television show on your VCRs. However, the courts decided that you can tape a show or movie or any other broadcast as long as it is for non-commercial use. Same goes with taping music recorded directly from the radio. I'll come back to this point in my next blog.
It's hard to determine exactly what crime you've committed if you get a lawsuit from the RIAA. See here's the dirty little secret: they aren't suing the people who are downloading music. They are suing people who are sharing music.
But for sake of argument, let's say they were going after the people who were downloading music because basically, if you are sharing it, odds are you've been downloading it. So what is that the equivalent of? Is it the same as going into Wal-Mart and stealing the latest Avril Levigne CD? Well, no not really because you aren't actually walking into Wal-Mart and sticking a physical CD in your pants and walking out the door while smiling at the greeters. In fact, you aren't taking anything physical at all. You're taking data and there it gets a bit iffy.
But someone might claim it's stealing because if you take this music, Avril Levigne isn't getting any money (which she put the time and effort into recording for your listening pleasure) for your ability to listen to her music. Well, let's think about this a minute. I can listen to her on the radio--granted not at my time of choosing--but I don't pay for that. Not the same, you say because the radio station pays for the right to broadcast it. Fair enough. But again, what is the equivalent crime? Since there's no physical theft, is it the same as sneaking into the music studio and stealing the reels she recorded. Well no, because you just made a copy. And there' s not even the breaking and entering charge because you've done this all from the privacy of your own home (or local coffee shop--more about that, too, in my next blog).
Here's something else you need to know. When you buy the latest Avril Levigne CD (regardless of whether you get the physical CD from Wal-Mart or legally download it from the iTunes Music Store ), you aren't really sending any money to dear sweet Avril. Actually most of it goes to the vendors and the music producers. Avril makes money when you buy her concert tickets and pick up the t-shirt while you're there. The record producers want Avril to go on tour to promote the CD which is where they make their money.
So who is being cheated when you download music? Well, if anyone is, its the record producers. And who are they? Well,...ummmm...they are the folks who make up the RIAA. Starting to make any sense now?
Now, you (and the RIAA) may counter, BUT, BUT, BUT the artists need the producers to fund the creation of their CDs. Well, maybe; maybe not. Maybe, just maybe, the way things have always been done aren't enough to keep up with the new digital age we're living in. Maybe we need a new way of supporting artists that will leave the middle men out of the loop. What if you could still support the artist and know that almost all the money you spend, whether on the concert ticket, the t-shirt, or even the physical CD actually went to the artist? What if the physical CD wasn't all that important. The music itself could be traded all you want, but you could still support the artist.
There may just be a way. I don't want to go there right now in this blog, but if YOU want to look into it further, I would suggest you read the book Next: The Future Just Happened by Michael Lewis (no I am not making any money on that link). You know you can buy that book OR check it out from the library OR borrow it from my own bookshelf.
And that leads me to the only real equivalent I know of for song-swapping. I will explore that AND play the Devil's advocate a bit more in the second part of this blog.
Stay tuned...