The R.I.A.A.: A 21st Century Mafia, Part 2
06/22/2004 16:09 Filed in: Music
Much to do about data...
If you haven't read part 1 of this blog, scroll down and start there. Otherwise, you won't be up to speed.
Okay, where were we? In part 1 I tried to expose the fact that the actions of the RIAA in all their lawsuits was little more than bullying people into paying them money. Also, I wanted to point out the fact that our current laws on copyrights are in a mess because they have not kept up with our technology. Further, I tried to get YOU thinking about what kind of law is actually being broken in peer-to-peer music services, and begin to think outside the box in regard to the way musical artists and their fans exchange services (in this case, music) and payment for their service.
I left you with the suggestion that you pick up a book called Next: the Future Just Happened (which is already more than two years old, so if you haven't read it yet, you're really behind). And I even suggested that you borrow my copy. I suggest that you borrow my copy because, in reality, that's about all music swapping is equivalent to. Let me explain.
There's a reason that the original Napster was shut down (and you know of course, that Napster 2.0 has nothing to do with the original Napster, don't you? They just bought the rights to the name). The way Napster worked was that you bought the newest Avril Levigne CD and created MP3 files on your computer from it. Then you uploaded those files to the Naptster website, using their software which allowed other people to download the music. Pretty easy right? Yes, and even with our messed up copyright laws, the original owners of Napster had trouble defending what they were doing. Nevertheless, they uncorked a bottle of change upon the music industry. They demonstrated that music is easily transferred back and forth in data form. Further, once it's in data form, it's pretty easy to get it for free. And then, people everywhere really liked the idea of getting music for free. The problem was, however, that all the music was stored in one location. So once the RIAA legally targeted Napster, all they had to do was shut down Napster's servers to stop the music swapping.
As detailed in the book Next, the very day that Napster died, peer-to-peer song-swapping was birthed through the use of the networking software already built into the operating system of your personal computer. What peer-to-peer file sharing does is to set a folder on your computer with full download rights from any user. Software such as Kazaa and Limewire merely provide an interface for networking software that you already have. These programs allow you to do searches all across the internet for whatever song or artist or album (or video, video game, software title, etc) that you are looking for. Once you have performed your search, you find a list of what you are looking for available for download.
So, say for instance, that you want to get a copy of the song "Don't Tell Me" by Avril Levigne, but you don't want to pay for it. Well, perhaps -I- have paid for it and it is in the shared folder on my computer. You might be in another state or even in another country. But the internet connects us just as if we were in the same room with a crossover network cable between us. If you have a fast enough connection, within a few seconds, you have a copy of "Don't Tell Me" on your computer that is no different than my copy.
Now, getting back to the RIAA lawsuits...as I pointed out in my last blog, the RIAA isn't suing people who are downloading music, they are suing people who are sharing music. So, theoretically, they wouldn't sue you for making a copy of my "Don't Tell Me" MP3, they would sue ME. And this brings us back to the question I was asking at the end of my last blog--exactly what is it that I have done that is so illegal?
I don't remember exactly where I heard it, but the closest equivalent I have ever heard is that it is like someone leaving the doors to their personal library unlocked and wide open and letting anyone come in and get whatever they wanted. How is that illegal?
Let me restate what I said in the first blog. I am not condoning theft. I am being critical of our current copyright laws and our lawmakers for their inability to keep up with technology and the bullying tactics of a bunch of middlemen (the the music producers represented by the RIAA) who are making desperate attempts to hold on to a passe way of doing business.
Notice also, that there is a lot of spin that goes on in the way the RIAA presents their case. They talk about people stealing music. I guess that's because it's hard to rally people around the idea that you are going to sue someone for sharing something.
Since "stealing" music gets so much of the attention, let's go back to that idea. What is downloading a music file off the internet equivalent of? Well, about this much--have you ever gone into the library and made a photocopy of an article out of a magazine or book? Every photocopied an entire chapter? If you've ever done anything like this, you're about as equally guilty as the 15-year-old who downloaded "Don't Tell Me" from the shared folder on my computer.
But wait! you're thinking to yourself... Isn't it perfectly legal to make a copy of an article out of a magazine for your own purposes as long as you're not going to sell it or make any kind of financial gain from it? Okay, think about that really hard and apply it to the whole issue of song swapping. What's the difference? What's the real difference?
By the way, there are those who would make the case that it is illegal for you to even make a copy of that article for your own personal use, but I don't care to chase that rabbit.
In the final part of this series, I am going to throw a few more scenarios at you that aren't easily answered, and then take a look at the attitude of the current popular culture (especially teenagers) regarding this issue and demonstrate to you why this is a genie that is NOT going back into her bottle easily.
Stay tuned... a little while longer...
If you haven't read part 1 of this blog, scroll down and start there. Otherwise, you won't be up to speed.
Okay, where were we? In part 1 I tried to expose the fact that the actions of the RIAA in all their lawsuits was little more than bullying people into paying them money. Also, I wanted to point out the fact that our current laws on copyrights are in a mess because they have not kept up with our technology. Further, I tried to get YOU thinking about what kind of law is actually being broken in peer-to-peer music services, and begin to think outside the box in regard to the way musical artists and their fans exchange services (in this case, music) and payment for their service.
I left you with the suggestion that you pick up a book called Next: the Future Just Happened (which is already more than two years old, so if you haven't read it yet, you're really behind). And I even suggested that you borrow my copy. I suggest that you borrow my copy because, in reality, that's about all music swapping is equivalent to. Let me explain.
There's a reason that the original Napster was shut down (and you know of course, that Napster 2.0 has nothing to do with the original Napster, don't you? They just bought the rights to the name). The way Napster worked was that you bought the newest Avril Levigne CD and created MP3 files on your computer from it. Then you uploaded those files to the Naptster website, using their software which allowed other people to download the music. Pretty easy right? Yes, and even with our messed up copyright laws, the original owners of Napster had trouble defending what they were doing. Nevertheless, they uncorked a bottle of change upon the music industry. They demonstrated that music is easily transferred back and forth in data form. Further, once it's in data form, it's pretty easy to get it for free. And then, people everywhere really liked the idea of getting music for free. The problem was, however, that all the music was stored in one location. So once the RIAA legally targeted Napster, all they had to do was shut down Napster's servers to stop the music swapping.
As detailed in the book Next, the very day that Napster died, peer-to-peer song-swapping was birthed through the use of the networking software already built into the operating system of your personal computer. What peer-to-peer file sharing does is to set a folder on your computer with full download rights from any user. Software such as Kazaa and Limewire merely provide an interface for networking software that you already have. These programs allow you to do searches all across the internet for whatever song or artist or album (or video, video game, software title, etc) that you are looking for. Once you have performed your search, you find a list of what you are looking for available for download.
So, say for instance, that you want to get a copy of the song "Don't Tell Me" by Avril Levigne, but you don't want to pay for it. Well, perhaps -I- have paid for it and it is in the shared folder on my computer. You might be in another state or even in another country. But the internet connects us just as if we were in the same room with a crossover network cable between us. If you have a fast enough connection, within a few seconds, you have a copy of "Don't Tell Me" on your computer that is no different than my copy.
Now, getting back to the RIAA lawsuits...as I pointed out in my last blog, the RIAA isn't suing people who are downloading music, they are suing people who are sharing music. So, theoretically, they wouldn't sue you for making a copy of my "Don't Tell Me" MP3, they would sue ME. And this brings us back to the question I was asking at the end of my last blog--exactly what is it that I have done that is so illegal?
I don't remember exactly where I heard it, but the closest equivalent I have ever heard is that it is like someone leaving the doors to their personal library unlocked and wide open and letting anyone come in and get whatever they wanted. How is that illegal?
Let me restate what I said in the first blog. I am not condoning theft. I am being critical of our current copyright laws and our lawmakers for their inability to keep up with technology and the bullying tactics of a bunch of middlemen (the the music producers represented by the RIAA) who are making desperate attempts to hold on to a passe way of doing business.
Notice also, that there is a lot of spin that goes on in the way the RIAA presents their case. They talk about people stealing music. I guess that's because it's hard to rally people around the idea that you are going to sue someone for sharing something.
Since "stealing" music gets so much of the attention, let's go back to that idea. What is downloading a music file off the internet equivalent of? Well, about this much--have you ever gone into the library and made a photocopy of an article out of a magazine or book? Every photocopied an entire chapter? If you've ever done anything like this, you're about as equally guilty as the 15-year-old who downloaded "Don't Tell Me" from the shared folder on my computer.
But wait! you're thinking to yourself... Isn't it perfectly legal to make a copy of an article out of a magazine for your own purposes as long as you're not going to sell it or make any kind of financial gain from it? Okay, think about that really hard and apply it to the whole issue of song swapping. What's the difference? What's the real difference?
By the way, there are those who would make the case that it is illegal for you to even make a copy of that article for your own personal use, but I don't care to chase that rabbit.
In the final part of this series, I am going to throw a few more scenarios at you that aren't easily answered, and then take a look at the attitude of the current popular culture (especially teenagers) regarding this issue and demonstrate to you why this is a genie that is NOT going back into her bottle easily.
Stay tuned... a little while longer...