What's the Big Deal with Music Piracy?

missed opportunities by the RIAA

It seems to me that this is one of the central points of this article:

This piece will, however, assert that legal action, and the haphazard manner in which the RIAA has pursued it, runs counter to the business interests of every single label represented by this organization.

If the major labels want to see increases in their album sales, they need to start investing in the album again.

While these distribution systems have traditionally worked best and most noticeably for small acts, there is no real reason to believe that large, major label artists cannot (and have not) benefit from these channels. In this day and age users are not willing to buy a product that they have not heard, and with the advent of both file-sharing and single-track music purchases they are even less willing than in the past to pay for 10 songs only to enjoy 4 or 5.

it's possible to leverage digital distribution models to spur on business.

Instead of paying the RIAA to waste time suing end users and potential customers, the Big Four should be thinking of ways to leverage the technology of the day in imaginative ways to benefit themselves and their artists.

So - does that make this a really good article then?

Just for my own knowledge and not being a smartass here; did you (Brian) happen to download In Rainbows and if so, did you pay anything for it?

Yeah, I concur I had a lazy reading.

I think this is a fine article (I did vote for it) but my "annoyed" mode took over due to a beef I often have with article that go into the grandma issue. And, if this isn't about pirates -- I think the headline is a bit misleading, as well.

As stated in the article, they are not successfully protecting the content. File-sharing is increasing. The law-suits do nothing as a prohibitive measure.

Ultimately, punishment is never a deterrent to crime, but we still punish people for committing crimes. What I'd like to see is a coalition of people who care about music, who ask tough questions of everyone:

The RIAA -- they deserve to be held over the fire for the choices they make that fly in the face of reality.

The Artists themselves -- they contribute to the RIAA's actions, and no one ever focuses on that, instead focusing on how they are "getting screwed" by their contracts. Is there a union for recording artists? It seems to me that a strike seems like a good idea.

The violators/pirates -- I have no sympathy for the vast majority of this crowd, and their activities should be rejected, if any serious criticism is to be lodged/listened to.

Just for my own knowledge and not being a smartass here; did you (Brian) happen to download In Rainbows and if so, did you pay anything for it?

Yes, and yes. I think I paid $5.65 US for it.

That was the price after the amount I put in translated over to US currency. I'm guessing I put in $3.00 knowing that it would translate to over $5 in US currency. I don't really recall the exact amount, but it was above 5 and below 6.

I know this really isn't all that relevant to the article but rather just deals with the sidetrack discussion of the Radiohead album - I downloaded it but didn't pay for it. I didn't really like it that much - of course, being a music pack rat I still kept my copy.

Look, as much as I believe whole-heartily that the RIAA is bad for the industry, that they represent a dying (but kicking and screaming) industry -- you've worded this a bit disingenuously:

When people have a problem with the RIAA, they cite the same grandmother (not plural) and the same dead person and the same family. In all the time they've been suing people, (years, now?) I think people need to either come up with some better examples of false positive, or stop making it seem as though the handful that exist are a significant portion of the thousands of pending lawsuits.

Ok, how about 14 year old girls, another dead person. and single mothers? A crapload of college students?

Seriously Brian, what your missing is an old piece of information frequently passed around among journalists, which simply is this. If one day a janitor should go fishing through the garbage and find telltale evidence that his business is defrauding it's investors, that means that the same business has defrauded it's investors a hundred times. Most of the time, people don't catch this stuff.

If I can go out and find numerous examples of people who obviously weren't guilty and yet were sued, how many examples exist that I couldn't find? And just how severely do people who've given away a music track deserve to be punished?

Frankly, I find your attitude a little mystifying.

And Brian, if it's more examples that you really want, I do have more. I ran out of room in my article, because I wanted to cover more then just extreme examples, but if your really telling me you need them, I'll write another article describing some more horror stories.

Those were just the best ones.

I downloaded it but didn't pay for it. I didn't really like it that much - of course, being a music pack rat I still kept my copy.

This is exactly why I advocate for the pirates. I've had the opportunity to not waste $10, $15 or $20 by getting a solid listen before I intend to buy an artist's CD. It helps, of course, that the majority of the music I am ever interested in listening to comes from unsigned DIY artists or independent record labels, almost none of which are a concern to the RIAA.

I do, however, like to download a lot of stuff, some of which I may end up buying in CD form. Most of the artists whose music I download end up bilking me out of anywhere from $10 to $50 in tickets and merch-table goodies. Otherwise, like finalcut, I end up keeping the less-spectacular stuff around, not listening to it. The staggering sobreity of my pack-rattines came when my external hard-drive just recently fried. After acquiring data recovery software, my girlfriend and I salvaged a mere 6G of music we actually liked and wanted to listen to out of a prior digital library of almost 80G. I like to think that I saved a lot of money not spending it on even a few of the songs of the myriad albums I used to own, especially when I really only still enjoyed listening to about a tenth of it. At the same time, having downloaded that much music, I was obviously a better target for some kind of lawsuit.

Additionally, I think that the file-sharing world helps to serve as a virtual library for the unpolished, abandoned, and otherwise idosincratic albums out there. Live shows, remixes, mash-ups, side-projects, out-of-print albums, and ablums of disbanded bands all are to be found by the fan who cares to look.

I don't believe I say anywhere in this article that you should feel bad for people that get sued. In fact, the first sentence of the second paragraph clearly states I'm not defending the actions of music pirates, so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up in the context of this discussion, which is, essentially, "Why does the RIAA care so much."

I'd like to add that some of the people who've been sued were clearly innocent. Despite their innocence, they generally paid out more money then they would have had they settled, because employing a lawyer in the state of origin will always cost more then the settlement offer.

That's my real problem with the RIAA. What the RIAA is doing is simply abusive. It's an abuse of our legal system, and an abuse of common sense. (As a matter of fact, it's probably illegal, but I've hesitated to write an article on it, because I'm not sure anyone would read it.)

I'd like to add that some of the people who've been sued were clearly innocent.

How do you know?

I'm guessing you haven't been reading my articles.

To re-iterate, a Mr. Lee Thao (for instance) demonstrated that at the time the filesharing occurred he didn't have a working cable modem. Part of the reason people keep bringing up the grandmother isn't simply that the woman was deceased, it's that she couldn't possibly have committed the crime, she didn't have a computer and didn't know anything about the internet.

Tammy Anderson (read my articles if you want more background) was accused of uploading misogynistic gangster rap, which is unlikely since she's a single mother who doesn't care for that style of music, and also knows nothing of the internet. She is attempting to organize a class action lawsuit for malicious prosecution against the RIAA, which she characterizes as being made up only of people who are innocent, like her.

In one case (go read the RIAA's curious relationship with it's customers if you want more background) when a single mother defended herself by indicating that she wasn't the one who uploaded the music, after the case was dismissed they sued her fourteen year old kid. When the legal action raised some interesting problems regarding who was the kids guardian, the RIAA demanded a legal guardian be appointed for the kid so they could continue the lawsuit.

I gotta tell you Brian, though I have never pirated anything, I do have a lot of sympathy for these people and it troubles me a little that you can say you don't.

Well, first, I don't want to delve too deeply here, because Eric has already said he's not really discussing piracy.

So, quickly:

I think worrying about what happens to those who pirate music and how the RIAA handles it is an okay thing to be concerned about, but it won't do anything to push the industry forward. It's a distraction, and like as not, that's what they want.

I still say that if you add up all the false positives, vs. the (I think you say in your article) 20,000 people who have been sued, even if there are others, you'd find that they are well within the limits of pegging the wrong guy. Other areas -- say murder trials -- put people on death row who are innocent. I really wish that those who get worked up about this would put as much effort behind protesting that situation. But, even if they don't, my point remains: When you have a justice system, some people are inevitably going to get pegged when they shouldn't. That doesn't mean we should do away with the justice system.

What I've never seen someone who opposes these trials do is propose a method in which the labels get to continue protecting their content. (And yes, because the artists agreed to sign to a label that is protected by the RIAA, I count them as part of the problem.) The only proposals you see are: "You'll never stop piracy, so don't even try."

Well, in utopia, that sounds great. But, it's what we in the real world call: "Not helping the issue by proposing something that will never happen."

So, my tiered plan would be:

1. I would renounce any sympathy for those who actually are pirating mass quantities of music. Those people are hurting the cause, and usually -- what they do goes well beyond viral marketing. They're a distribution channel, and most of them are never going to pay for music no matter how convenient it becomes.
2. I would announce my intention to pursue legal methods of listening to the music I want to hear.
3. If a legal method is not available, I would simply not listen to that music.
4. I would organize a group of people who agree to one, two, and three, and I would pummel my representatives for reform of copyright laws, and also reform in the way these cases are handled.
5. I would drop any pointless discussion of "how viral marketing benefits the industry" because if the industry doesn't care, it's a silly argument, and a non-starter. The industry isn't required to benefit, and no one can force them to make smarter choices, and if they stay stuck in the mud, they'll eventually collapse. In the meantime, no one really has a right to expect them to provide content in a convenient method if they're too stupid to do so.
6. I would lobby the artists (pummel them as I pummel my representative) those who are enabling the RIAA with their silence, and with their inaction. If more of the artists never speak out, the industry will never budge.

As for a class action lawsuit, that's great: For the lawyers who are putting it together. Consumers won't benefit, and the RIAA won't be stung by it in any real fashion. Meanwhile, the < 100 people who deserve to be compensated for their troubles will see their compensation dwindle because of the 19,900 freeloaders who fit into the first category of my tiered plan. In short, they'll be rewarded for being stupid enough to pirate mass quantities of music.

If these people want to "hurt" the RIAA, they need to continue taking their cases to court. The one woman who was smart enough to do so lost some time, sure -- but her attorney fees were paid for by the RIAA after she won. Those are the sort of victories that hurt.

Yes, I read your articles, but no I don't really see any information that changes my mind. I think those who fight the RIAA are doing no favors to the industry as a result of the manner in which they're fighting, and the arguments which they're using.

And, so much for "quickly."

This "don't talk because the industry probably isn't listening" argument is kind of... stupid. It pretty much means we should write or discuss anything unless the existing power structure agrees with it already.

Yeah, I'm serious. People have been trying that argument for years, now. Consumers haven't changed their minds (the studios or the RIAA) companies like Apple have, though. Which leads me to believe that the way to change their minds isn't by telling them that a practice they utterly despise is "good" for them. If they haven't seen that by now, they're not going to see it in the future. Consumers need to look into better ways of reaching the labels.

At any rate, I said upfront if people want to do that, fine. Do it. But, as I also said, this isn't a one argument debate, and actually getting something done is going to take more than that, and I don't see "more than that" happening. It's always fun to be a revolutionary when it's easy.

I will say that one of the things that bothers me about this whole debate is that "either you're with us, or you're against us mentality. I simply think both the RIAA and the "anti-RIAA" crowd are barking up the wrong tree.

Hi Eric,

Your points are a little argumentative. I am an artist. I have quite a lot of music in the field, in various shows, in films, in various other commercial venues.

Limiting this discussion to RIAA, etc., does not address the scope and consequences of proposed legislation. What we are facing as artists is mandatory licensing. Currently, we do not have to "provide" if we don't like the terms of a license...whether that is to a record company or a producer, or any other outlet for our work.

Legislation under consideration essentially takes OUR property, and eliminates our right to control it.

Actually, I'm afraid it's you that's reframing the argument, not me. As I said, you need to remove the RIAA and other corporate interests from the argument, because ultimately it is the ARTIST ALONE, not the artist-listener, or even the artist-corporation, that is at issue.

The artist makes all these decisions, whether to license to a corporation or not. The power must be left to the artist.

They can watch the whole show for free the next day at home on YouTube.

No.

And obviously since audio or video quality is of no object (since the entire world has embraced MP3s, and they sound worse than cassettes) than it really doesn't matter what it looks like or sounds like - as long as it's free.

What year are you living in? Have you ever even listened to an MP3? Worse than cassettes? What cassettes are you listening to and why are you the only one who can see how good they are?

The idea that all of this 'free' music gets more people to come out to your live shows is false. In fact, if anything, people are lazier than ever when it comes to getting in their car, paying for gas, driving to a show, and buying a ticket. Why should they?

Because seeing music performed live is an experience that cannot be replicated on YouTube. I think you'll be surprised to find that audio pirates are quite obsessed with sound quality, and nothing can can match the way music sounds live better than hearing it as it's done.

I'll agree that pirates don't, by and large, buy much music. Still, the music they do buy, no matter how small the dollar figure, tends to be music that they actually like, and are artists they feel deserve the financial support.

And seriously, what kind of MP3 are you listening to? While it may not be the same kind of listening experience as that of an LP, most MP3s are encoded with a reasonable enough bitrate for the sound quality to exceed that CDs. Where did this sub-tape quality MP3 come from?