I’m not applauding the latest RIAA tactic, but I think I may be sliding over to their corner.
About six months ago, a friend of my roomate, who lives in LA, was tagged by RIAA with a file-sharing lawsuit. RIAA did a “John Doe” lawsuit because the complaint was filed against an IP address with the ISP provider, rather than directly against a human identity. The ISP has to forward the suit to the individual and then provide RIAA with the person’s name. Anyway, the roomate’s friend was freaked out to get a serious lawsuit against them, especially considered that it was friends using her Internet connection to swap files.
**Sidebar — what if someone is out there in the neighbordhood hijacking my wireless internet connection and swapping files and I get sued? RIAA can’t physically prove it was me swapping files, right? Can they search my hard drive?**
Anyway, the friend ultimately had to settle. Sort of like many of the other teenagers out there who are having to settle. Just goes to show that your home-based activity can become publicly available.
So the point of this entry was to say that I think I’m in corner of RIAA. They are an association protecting the sound recording industry and have decided to sue people who are allegedly stealing their members’ property. I may not be in favor of the tactic and the public relations decision but I understand the rationale.
Before everyone response with “invasion of privacy”, let’s just recognize that the RIAA is successfuly suing people, so there’s some judge somewhere that affirmed RIAA’s assertion that swapping files is not protected under an home-intrusion defense. We don’t know the law but we know it’s working for RIAA right now. I think that I might be interested to see how long the suit siege continues.
I wonder if there’s some kind of application that let’s you trade files while blinding your IP address or the file type/title to the ISP…
I’ll stop typing now.
Sam
Pandora’s Box
The funny thing is, the RIAA is trying to plug a hole here and there while the dam’s already burst.
Music/Video/Warez piracy is just that: piracy. It’s stealing. However, there’s nothing that the RIAA or anyone else can do about it, short of major overhauls to the Internet itself. Plus, ISPs just won a court case that states they do not have to turn over IP addresses of their subscribers.
It’s now too easy to form a file-swapping network, as connections gets faster and the developmental code becomes more advanced and accessible. You can’t encrypt mp3s, because instead of piping the sound as I play it into a speaker, I could pipe it into a file, and voila! I have an unencrypted mp3. Same with video.
The RIAA can’t sue 20 million people, even though I bet there are some lawyers are salivating at the prospect. And as the music industry seems to become more corporate and more consolidated and more formulaic, a good scare like this might help mix things up, make it more grass roots.
As for blinding your IP address to your ISP, that can’t happen. That’s like making a phone call and somehow blinding Verizon to the fact it’s you calling and billing you for it. The connection goes from your computer directly to the ISP, then to the Internet, so they’re gonna know who it came from.
JSYK, I admit, I’ve downloaded music, movies, and programs. I want to make home movies, and I’m a techie, so I want the coolest features. However, I’m not about to pay $600 for Adobe Premiere. But if I ever got to the point where I charged money to make movies, then I’d buy it right away. Music is different, if it’s usually a band I like, I’ll buy the CD, but I won’t buy the CD anymore for just 1 song I like. I’ve downloaded a lot of Wiggles’ songs, but I’ve also bought 8 DVD/VDRs of them as well, and I know by the time all is said and done, I’ll own the collection. But it’s the coolest thing to see my 17-month old sitting with headphones on his head bopping out 🙂
Copyright infringement vs stealing
Gotta disagree with this statement. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, not stealing. Stealing is depriving an individual of his/her property. Copyright infringement is making unauthorized copies of material. Stealing is a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the value of the goods stolen. Copyright infringement is a tort (civil case, not criminal) unless the value exceeds $6000, at which point it can become a crime. Obviously, in the age of massive P2P networks, copyright owners have an easy time of proving $6,000 damages. But nevertheless, unless it involves large sums of money, copyright infringement is not criminal. It can get you in hot water, though, like libel, defamation, wrongful death, or other torts.
Early knowledge and education in the USA was built on ignoring the copyrights of Europeans. Asia is building its economy and educating its citizens by most of the population ignoring copyrights, although officially we have agreements to prevent that. So, in the right circumstances, ignoring someone’s copyright can be a noble and, dare I say it, patriotic act.
However, logging on to eDonkey2000 and sharing your latest copy of “Boobs and Butts in Las Vegas”, Britney Spears’ latest hit, or an old Kansas album probably is not noble or patriotic 🙂
That’s just a hot button for me. Depriving a corporation of potential revenue is not the same as stealing from them. It is depriving them of potential revenue that would probably only be realized at an extremely low rate of conversion if said revenue could only be purchased legitimately. Life in the digital age sure is interesting.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
File trading..
YOU have Boobs and Butts in Las vegas TOO??!! Weird.
Go after swappers, not technology
As scary as it was for me to get a cease and desist from the MPAA within a few days after I decided to try out file swapping using a program called eMule to download The Hulk (Important note: it sucked), I think it was the right thing for them to send me that takedown notice.
As a technologist, the important thing to me is that they don’t go after the technology that enables file-sharing, even if copyright owners prosecute those people who use the technology to infringe. Peer-to-peer networks have fantastic legitimate uses. Heck, the porn industry apparently loves P2P, because it gives cheap films a lot more publicity and potential customers. It’s the big-budget films that get hit hard by P2P. In addition, anonymizing file-trading applications like the Freenet project allow people to express opinions that are otherwise censored in their home countries. Such programs are victories for human freedom of expression without fear of death from oppressors. And if you think you’re free to express unpopular opinions in the U.S., try posting bomb-making or anarchy-encouraging links on your web site and see how fast you’re thrown into federal prison for a year. In my opinion, though, anonymizing networks could be a wonderful tool for revolution. And from our own history, we know there comes a time when revolution is necessary to preserve human dignity.
I don’t have a personal thing against file-swapping copyrighted works that are not mine, or for it, really. However, if people swap other people’s copyrighted works, they must be prepared for that copyright owner to press a tort against them if they are discovered. Going after the individuals infringing one’s copyright is the correct approach. Going after the technology that enables them to infringe is not. Source code and programs are a form of speech, and should be protected.
As for me, the moment I’m done with my album, I’m going to be setting up permanent eMule, Freenet, and other P2P nodes to host my stuff. I encourage people to swap them; from where I sit, the more the merrier on the albums I produce for pleasure. But on my for-profit projects, of course I’ll encourage swappers to purchase my work legitimately. I’ll do so in a more friendly way than the RIAA, but nevertheless I’ll let people know where they can purchase the music they are swapping.
My stance on P2P has changed dramatically over the years. When I first heard about a friend using Napster (heh, it was Justin, who asked me “What do you think about file trading?”), I said “they are all thieves, and should go to jail”. Once I understood the fair use and other issues a bit better, I softened that position. I’m a copyright owner, and have a legitimate interest in seeing my rights enforced (see the copyright on all pages of barnson.org for example), but at the same time, I think information is made to be shared. Infringers should be prosecuted if the copyright owner wishes to do so, and if the owner doesn’t mind people sharing his work, the technology should exist for them to do so in peace.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
RIAA is in the right, but still not blameless
I agree with the RIAA from a legal standpoint — however, the “civil disobediance” of music swapping is, in part, a response to the music industry’s emphasis on profit over quality. Up until around 1970, most albums that sold were singles — a cost effective way to get only the songs you wanted. The record industries pushed LP sales as a way to turn a higher profit – they’re not much more expensive to manufacture, but were much more expensive.
Then, with the advent of CDs, a format with a *huge* profit margin (they cost a little over a dollar apiece to manufacture), sales of singles were virtually eliminated.
So now we’re faced with spending $18 on one good song and 13 crappy songs. I can see where file sharing came from.
That said, I think that the dollar-a-song music download sites (iTunes, MusicMatch, etc.) are a good compromise – like a return to singles.
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor