More RIAA tactics

[Nolonemo]

From today's New York Times:

"Some of the world's biggest record companies, facing rampant online piracy, are quietly financing the development and testing of software programs that would sabotage the computers and Internet connections of people that download pirated music, according to industry executives."

for complete article: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/business/04MUSI.html

[Karate Media]

Where's txpharaoh or adam -- I need their input on this thought:

I thought one of the loopholes of downloading music was that you could download an mp3 if you owned the CD.

For example, you own a CD but don't own a CD-ROM drive, or it's broken, or your software MP3 player doesn't rip MP3s, just plays them (a little far-fetched, I know, but not entirely implausible). It would be legal to download an MP3 in this case, because you are essentially "format-shifting" something you have already bought -- covered by the current interpretation of Fair Use.

In fact, didn't one online MP3 site have an "MP3 Locker" system that was based on this premise?

If my presumptions are correct, then any sort of action as described in the NYT article would be in opposition to Fair Use (as currently interpreted), not to mention make a mockery of the American legal concept of "innocent until proven guilty" (although that concept seems to be fleeting in all aspects of American society)

[txpharoah]

Where's txpharaoh or adam -- I need their input on this thought:

I'm here.

I thought one of the loopholes of downloading music was that you could download an mp3 if you owned the CD.

Right now, yes. And no. I don't work with music much, and this one is so hard to follow. I think this very minute... I don't really know. I don't have time to check out Lexis/Nexis today to see what's been going on recently.

For example, you own a CD but don't own a CD-ROM drive, or it's broken, or your software MP3 player doesn't rip MP3s, just plays them (a little far-fetched, I know, but not entirely implausible). It would be legal to download an MP3 in this case, because you are essentially "format-shifting" something you have already bought -- covered by the current interpretation of Fair Use.

Format-shifting allowed. Backing up CD to tape, MP3, etc. Backing up DVD to VHS, etc.

In fact, didn't one online MP3 site have an "MP3 Locker" system that was based on this premise?

Lots of failed/unsupported technologies along this line have been made in the past 5 years mostly, but all along since right after CD-R technology was invented, and Sony got pissed off about mod chips and PSX games being copied. Same for RIAA.

If my presumptions are correct, then any sort of action as described in the NYT article would be in opposition to Fair Use (as currently interpreted), not to mention make a mockery of the American legal concept of "innocent until proven guilty" (although that concept seems to be fleeting in all aspects of American society)

If RIAA made malicious software to damage a computer, and mine was damaged, I'd personally sue the $h!t out of them, and file a class-action lawsuit in court. That goes against DMCA too, as well as several other laws. They cannot destroy our stuff because they are mad. This is a modern world, not the stone age where we club each other when mad.

They would be doing little more than creating a computer virus. Good luck to them. Personally, I'd like to see RIAA and MPAA bankrupt, or at least somehow otherwise learn that they are here for EVERYBODY'S best interest, not just corporate pocketbooks. They are just as much a pain for artists and companies as they are for consumers.

And yes, I work for a big corporation, and I'm well-paid, but it doesn't mean I like everything that goes on. Consumers can be far dirtier than companies when it comes down to it. And the peak of all this mess will probably happen within 5-10 years. Somebody's going to have to be set straight, and right and wrong are going to be defined better. Copyright laws and everything else are getting out of hand. I have to restudy this crap each year because of it.

[kuranuk]

I'm not sure if it's covered in this article, but not only is the RIAA trying to come up with viruses or similar malicious code to control pirated MP3's, they're also trying to get legal immunity to do it:

An RIAA-drafted amendment according to a draft obtained by Wired News would immunize all copyright holders -- including the movie and e-book industry -- for any data losses caused by their hacking efforts or other computer intrusions "that are reasonably intended to impede or prevent" electronic piracy.

The article is here:
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47552,00.html

[Karate Media]

TX -- hmm, that's what I thought...Unfortunately, the RIAA seems to have many believing that downloading (free) music in and of itself is a crime.

The great Jeff Tweedy of Wilco said last year that (to paraphrase) "Just because you write and record a song doesn't entitle you to make money off of it." (of course, his band also made their last album available via free MP3s until they were able to find a label to put it out)

I've been trying for the past few months to use this as a starting point for some writings/essays on the commercialization of creativity and how this has corrupted the motives and beliefs of creative individuals. The idea would be to follow the transformation of copyright laws and the various entertainment industries (starting at a point before they could even be considered "industries").

The idea would also be to attempt to give some credence to the oft-wailed defense of "If I'm not selling it, it's not piracy." If you can use historical evidience to prove that creative works have no inherent monetary value, then you can judge the idea of using free-market economics in defining piracy: to wit, if the marketplace decides that your creative work is worth $0, then it is worth nothing, at least monetarily. Since one is not stealing a physical copy of the recording (hence, something that would have inherent monetary value), and one is not selling the MP3s for profit (nor is one using their MP3 server as a location for advertising revenue, a la some sort of file-swapping "radio station"), then could it be considered piracy, or free-market uprising? The burden of proof could be on the artist to prove that their work has some sort of inherent monetary value that is higher than "free."

Right now, this is still a jumble of ideas in my head, so don't pick it apart too much (any input is appreciated, though). And also let me state that I consider myself in the business of being a creative individual (as a musician, a graphic designer, and a writer -- none all too well, but creative nonetheless) who has been paid for his work previously. I also count among my friends and clients a great number of musicians, some of them wholey professional musicians (no day jobs). Just saying that this is not a pro-piracy rant from someone who doesn't know any better

[txpharoah]

I would absolutely like to see that finished writing/essay. I'm interested (which isn't easy to do).

The historical aspect is one that another poster got me to thinking of recently, and original intent has a large validity in law still.

And I know about musicians. I have professional friends in country music (only job is the guitar, drums and singing), and I hear a lot about creativity, recording label, managers, and the mess of it. Little of it is positive.

As far as the RIAA, they could vote to vigilante execute pirates. Doesn't mean it's legal though. My gut feeling is somebody hasn't consulted with a lawyer yet before opening his/her trap at the RIAA.

Just let some editorial writers get at this if it's true (I'd do it, but am otherwise too busy this month, and wish to keep my free time free.).