RIAA caught with hand in the cookie jar?

[Neo Neko]

http://www.kensei-news.com/bizdev/publish/factoids_us/article_23374.shtml

An interesting and not at all surprising read. The RIAA comes off yet again as being less than truthfull. Whodathunkit? But this time there are some numbers to go along with it to contradict them. :D

[Doom9]

Hehe. Reminds me of "don't trust statistics you haven't faked personally"

[dragongodz]

geffroman - when the RIAA uses the excuse of "we are losing money" to plead their case for violating peoples rights(getting information about you without due process etc) then they have made it part of arguement.

to use your analogy, would you want someone coming around your house because they strong armed the shop keeper into giving your name as someone who buys coke from their shop so its possible you stole 1 at some time ? and thats without any legal proof. thats what the RIAA are doing to ISP's and using the excuse of "we are losing money" as their justification.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by geffroman
I dislike the RIAA and it's methods... But one argument people use to bash the record industry really sucks... WHO CARES HOW MUCH MONEY THEY MAKE... It's none of your business...

And that is where you start to go wrong. To be quite correct the RIAA is not a company. But a lobby group. Now the fun thing is that the RIAA is made up of many publicly held corporations for the promotion and marketing of media. Which means that we as the public should have the rights to see their financial statements and cash flows. Something which AFAIK has not been allowed to happen yet. How much money they make is such a huge issue because they cloud the air about how much it costs them. And without knowledge of how much it costs one knows not how much they make. Is it reasonable? Is it remotely what could be considdered fair market value? At this point only the RIAA members can say and they aren't. How much they make is important because they have been found repeatedly guilty of price gouging and collusion. They are using external non-market forces to skew the market further in their favor. So at this point not caring how much they make makes you a poor consumer.

Originally posted by geffroman
There are a few truths we like to PRETEND are not real...

One: P2P software is used for stealing all the time. more than any other purpose that is it's number one use. Defending P2P for it's legitimate uses is a stretch at best.

Actually again you are wrong. It is logically impossible to steal anything via P2P. That is just RIAA proppaganda. Not any sort of truth. Strictly speaking no one has ever stolen anything via P2P. Most are in breach of license. But a song downloaded is not a sale lost by any stretch. Many that download would have never bought. And many who bought did so only because they downloaded. P2P should not have to be defended. The fact that it is being attacked is stupid in the first place. The whole issue is with the RIAA and it's members distorting the perception of reality. Unit's sold are not units sold but units shipped. Every download is a lost sale. Both are complete BS. But any RIAA member or representative will happily parrot them to you all day long.

Originally posted by geffroman
Two: If you owned a quicky mart and charged twice as much for a COKE as the grocery store you would NOT be liked.

your analogy is flawed already. Stores don't own the trademark or copyrights for coke they just sell it. Meaning that technically no one store can monopolise it. RIAA members on the other hand do and have. So in order for your analogy to make any sense Coke should be the one setting the price and not the stores. It's not like stores should be trusted to set individual prices. That is unless you follow the ideals of capitalism. If coke parcticed price gouging like almost all RIAA members then prices would be particularly uniform from store to store. There is little room for store markup before you push the cost well beyond what a consumer finds remotely acceptable. The average markup on a retail item is 100%+. Guess how much the average retail markup on CDs are. Considerably less than 10+. That means that all the profit from CD sales is being made by those who promote the CDs and not those who sell them. Trust me I know I have had access to these figures in the last year or so. That is why almost all "music" stores are now defunct. There is no profit to be had selling CDs! The local mall had no less than 5 "music" shops back in the day. Guess how many there are now. ZERO. Not only that; there used to be many smaller shops scattered about the outlying area. But there has been a 95%+ decrease in them over the last few years as well. So what does that leave us with? A few national chains like CD Warehouse wo make most of their money off of used CDs which they buy cheap and sell for aproximatly 150% markup. And then there are the multi-retail outlet chains that carry a wide variety of items including many big ticket items with massive markups. Best Buy, Walmart, Target, Circut City, etc etc etc. If they relied on CD sales they would all go out of business instantly because there is no money to be made selling CDs. Just ask any retail professional. And everyone accepts this because the big fish are so big they crowd out the little ones completely.

Originally posted by geffroman
Some people would not buy from you. Some would buy and grumble. But whether you make a little profit, or a big profit or a loss has nothing to do with justifying theft. If someone walked into your store and STOLE a COKE they should go to jail. For a group of people to stand outside and protest that the criminal is justified because you made too much money last year is just STUPID.

But you see that is not what has happened. The guy just anylised the coke and is making coppies for himself. The store never lost anything.

Originally posted by geffroman
When we fight the RIAA with these kind of ridiculous arguments we look stupid.

No. That can only happen if you take everything the RIAA says on face value.

Originally posted by geffroman
If the record industry makes a big profit or a loss, it has NO RELATION TO STEALING THEIR MUSIC.

Actually it has a huge relationship. It is not any sort of justification. But the relationship is huge and rather obvious.

Originally posted by geffroman
Now complain about the prices of music all you want. I support that. Just don't pretend downloading those songs for FREE with P2P software is JUSTIFIED or anything BUT STEALING because you think they make enough money inspite of your theft.

Well the moment anyone makes that argument I think you will see alot of disagreements here. No one here makes that argument here.

Originally posted by geffroman
I don't like the idea that someday my ISP may cut me off because the RIAA has bullied them into monitoring my legitimate use of P2P just because the punk kid next door is downloading thousands of dollars of free music. I am going to lose my legitimate rights someday cause of theft committed by others. Why don't we call a spade a spade and quit grouping the punk thieves in with our legitimate cause. We will surely go down with them if they are allowed to continue.

Well untill we expose the RIAA and it's members along with their words and numbers for what they are [complete BS] no one will listen to us. So in the meanwhile as the RIAA and friends lament to the lawmakers of their non-existant woes [had to buy a smaller yacht this year and spend a week less at the summer home] I will play on with the worlds smallest violin.

[mf]

Originally posted by geffroman
Two: If you owned a quicky mart and charged twice as much for a COKE as the grocery store you would NOT be liked. Some people would not buy from you. Some would buy and grumble. But whether you make a little profit, or a big profit or a loss has nothing to do with justifying theft. If someone walked into your store and STOLE a COKE they should go to jail. For a group of people to stand outside and protest that the criminal is justified because you made too much money last year is just STUPID.
Come up with new anologies. The stealing one is old and boring (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65012). You are not saying any new things, you're just joining the RIAA with their faulty reasoning.

[Wilbert]

Bottomline: Taking what is not yours is stealing... too many people think it's only a crime if you get caught AND your lawyer loses in court...! Your momma's shoulda raised you better!
Which is nonsense as often stated. Let me pose you some questions:

1) Is it theft, if you are recording from radio?

2) Is it theft, if you are recording from television?

3) Is it theft, if you take a picture from the house of your neighbors?

[r6d2]

Originally posted by Wilbert
Let me pose you some questions:Well, actually cases 1 and 2 are covered by the copyright law. Radios and TV stations have gotten permission from the owner of the copyright to air the copyrighted content (usually for a fee). You can of course make your own home recordings.

The problem with P2P is that you have no right whatsoever to "air" a copyrighted content. ;)

As per case 3, I guess it depends on who's house are we talking about. :) I remember having attempted to take a picture of a street saxo player at the Fisherman's Warf in San Francisco, and he told me I could not do it if I did not pay for it. :D

The RIAA's statistics may be certainly tweaked, but they are about revenue, not about units sold. So there may be a correlation if prices dropped, which they seem to have been doing lately precisely to fight piracy. For instance with the MPAA, where I live you can buy almost any original DVD in a store for less that 7 bucks.

BTW, which geffroman's post are you all quoting? :confused: Did he just delete it?

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by r6d2
Well, actually cases 1 and 2 are covered by the copyright law. Radios and TV stations have gotten permission from the owner of the copyright to air the copyrighted content (usually for a fee). You can of course make your own home recordings.

They refuse such a consession for P2P. If they were progressive thinking they could make even more money setting up similar licensing for P2P networks. At which poitn said networks could then legally sell their services or even provide them without selling. The point is there is no way to make P2P legal if they don't allow it. And they don't want it. But it is something users clearly want. But it has come down that it's not what the user wants but what the execs want. Because the execs after all don't need those damn needy consumers. Oh wait they do. :p

Originally posted by r6d2
The problem with P2P is that you have no right whatsoever to "air" a copyrighted content. ;)

Not exactly true. Even in the US there are limited instances where you do.

Originally posted by r6d2
As per case 3, I guess it depends on who's house are we talking about. :) I remember having attempted to take a picture of a street saxo player at the Fisherman's Warf in San Francisco, and he told me I could not do it if I did not pay for it. :D

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. What was he gonna do if you took one without paying? Sue you? Fat chance. The worst he could do is chase you and beat you up at which point you could sue him. Even celebrities can't keep people from taking their pictures when they are out in public. And people make a living off that alone! You don't have to pay anyone to take their picture. Then again they don't have to cooperate.

Originally posted by r6d2
The RIAA's statistics may be certainly tweaked, but they are about revenue, not about units sold.

Those statistics they are using to show consumer trends have very little to do with consumers. Basically nothing to do with consumers. What does it say when RIAA members ship less units but retail sells more units? It says that something is different on the retail end and not the consumer end. So if anything the RIAA should be accusing retail outlets of stealing and not consumers. It would make more sense. In the classic traddition of major groups like Microsoft the RIAA is sucessfully making mountains out of ant hills and mass producing lies.

Originally posted by r6d2
BTW, which geffroman's post are you all quoting? :confused: Did he just delete it?

Seems he deleted it.

[r6d2]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
But it has come down that it's not what the user wants but what the execs want. Because the execs after all don't need those damn needy consumers. Oh wait they do. :pI agree with you point about their lack of vision. The problem is that if a P2P "payed" model is enforced, they stop adding value, and that is bad for their business. Artist could collect from the customers directly. But I think that effect is ultimately inevitable, just a thing of critical mass. So we'll end up with neither artists nor consumers needing a non-value adding dinosaur, and they must evolve or be extinct.
Not exactly true. Even in the US there are limited instances where you do.I was not aware of this. Do you know how possibly P2P can be allowed within the copyright law? Under fair use, perhaps?
What was he gonna do if you took one without paying? Sue you? Fat chance.Of course not. I did not take the picture, but not because I was affraid. I did not because the guy did not want to, and I think every person has he right to decide how his personal image is distributed, either for a fee, or for free. I could have got away with it, of course, they same as I can do it with P2P, but I choose not to. I prefer to respect the artist's terms and conditions. It is his decision.
again they don't have to cooperate.Of course. And if they don't, you should not force them to do it, don't you think?
What does it say when RIAA members ship less units but retail sells more units? It says that something is different on the retail end and not the consumer end.Something is different indeed. Timing.

And it's actually sort of funny. The RIAA bases the album popularity on units shipped (although they call them "units sold"). They even award "golden" and "silver" and "platinum" records to the artists within a day or two after the first shipment. When they say an artist has sold 1.000.000 copies, they are actually saying they shipped them. There is not possible way that 1.000.000 people go to the stores the very same first day and buy them all.
Seems he deleted it. Interesting. Seems you guys convinced him and he took his statements back. :)

[UGAthecat]

Sorry if this gets even more off topic than the argument has already been, but...
Eventually all of this bickering will be a moot point, and I can't wait for that time. Until then I'll just ride it out downloading what I want to, and buying what I want to.

I see one of 2 things happening in the future(or a lesser version of either of these 2):
1. The RIAA and other copyright holders reaffirm that their meathooks are already in our politicians, and the USA if not the whole world becomes a police state ruled by copyright holders (or maybe something less drastic but still attempting to get to this).
2. Musicians will wise up and realize they don't need to go to studios to make good music. This will lead to them recording all of their live shows, and releasing the best performance of each song for little or no money on the internet. This will encourage people to go see live shows, and musicians will go back to making money the way performance art was intended to make money, by performing.

Yes, since it's creation, music has been a performance art. A recording of an individual performance is damn near worthless, except that it might be better than other recordings of other individual performances, but that only makes it more valueable than another near worthless recording. This can be reinforced by the fact that no matter how good that song you bought or downloaded is, you will eventually get sick of hearing it over and over again, but you can bet that you would suddenly like it again if you saw it performed live.

Granted the same thing won't fix the problems of downloading Movies and TV and Printed materials, but movies and TV are already on the way to fixing this (with product placement), and getting into those would be veering even further off topic.

[Neo Neko]

The point of the discussion is to keep option 1 from happening. It's getting to the point where one can no longer sit idly by hoping the best of the world. Too many feel compelled to complain when something does not turn out the way they want. But they oddly did not feel compelled to vote on it. As they say the squeaky wheel gets the oil. And it is going to take a ton of us to drown out the cash amplified squeaks of the big corporations. Right now they are telling shitfaced lies and getting away with it.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by r6d2
I was not aware of this. Do you know how possibly P2P can be allowed within the copyright law? Under fair use, perhaps?

I own album X on CD. You own album X on cassette, 8 track, 7mm reel to reel, or 45 RPM record. You want a digital copy of content you have already paid for. You have rights to the content. If you download it from me there is no issue. This sort of thing does happen. Perhaps even more often than we think. Which makes the RIAA/MPAA claims and those of there senate lap dogs even more rediculous.

The RIAA/MPAA's philosophy is flawed in hundreds of ways. There has been no serious study of file sharing and it's effects on anyones part. So anyone who says it's effects are clear are clearly lying. How many who download keep everything they download? Not I. How many have downloaded format shifted versions of content they have rights to? I have. How many of those downloads are of things that can be technically found legally free elsewhere on the web? How many of the files downloaded are fakes? And then do fakes count for something? Would someone have bought something even if they had not downloaded it? And those are just a few things they have not taken into considderation.

The bush government is all about talking about actionable intelligence. But this is at least the second time they have not taken their own advice.

[r6d2]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
You want a digital copy of content you have already paid for. You have rights to the content. If you download it from me there is no issue.In the case you mention, I have the right to the content, you also have the right to the content, but you do not have the right to upload (distribute) it. That right belongs to the copyright holder.

My actual statement was:
The problem with P2P is that you have no right whatsoever to "air" a copyrighted content.You said it was not exactly true, but as seen above you did not provide a good example, and IMHO there is indeed an issue. I hope you can provide an example which shows that distribution of copyrighted material under P2P is allowed.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by r6d2
In the case you mention, I have the right to the content, you also have the right to the content, but you do not have the right to upload (distribute) it. That right belongs to the copyright holder.

Not exactly true. We both have rights to the content. But so long as I do not extract payment from you in some way it is 100% legal for me to "air" it to you. it would however be less legal for me to copy the cd for you and charge you for the materials. If what you said was true then what would be the legality of taking a portible sterio to the public park to listen to your CDs. You would have to spend all day running people off or provide earplugs so they don't accidentally hear it. That's rediculous. Which is exactly why it is not illegal. Now on the other hand if I had a private patch of land and charged people to enter and listen that would be somewhat illegal. Which is why shop owners etc have to pay licenses if thay do anything more than public radio or TV broadcasts. No what would happen if someone was recording at the park and picked up what you are playing. Is that illegal? Strictly speaking no it is not. The RIAA etc would like to make it illegal. But it's not. They dream of a utopia in which recorders would recognise licensed materials and caese to function in their presence. Which would raise fun situations like recording your children playing in the park but some asshole walks/drives by with a loud sterio causing the audio to shut down just as your kid says his first words. Or someone walks by with a copyrighted visual content and the video would cut out. Sounds stupid right? And it is. But that is what the RIAA and friends want.

The only problem with sharing copyrighted content is when you profit from it. And in that sense P2P is little more than a public park. Most P2P network opperators make little to absolutely no money on their networks rather it is often a pure loss. Similarly most of the client software does not cost either. Further alot of what is being shared are not 1:1 coppies for anything but software. Which makes the RIAA/MPAAs claims of perfect digital coppies laughable. This would mean that P2P is basically the equivalent of recording from the radio or in the park under optimal conditions! Hardly illegal in that respect. So fine go after those selling pirated material [aka real pirates] or those sharring lossless coppies. But let the others alone or at least provide them with some reasonable fee or method to keep doing what they are doing. The groups in the RIAA and MPAA have to pay for radio and TV advertisements. Plus radio and TV advertisements at least in the US pay for the operation of those radio or TV stations. So why not establish a central RIAA/MPAA ad bank including text, image, audio, and video ads so as to be functional even on simple CLI P2P clients. Then have any network that wishes to be legit serve the ads either through the network or through their clients. Instead of costing the groups to advertise it would give them free advertising. Further it could even make them money just from advertising. But as I have said they are just thick headed short sighted morons. They are not happy to just have their cake and eat it too. They want all our cakes.

[r6d2]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
as I do not extract payment from you in some way it is 100% legal for me to "air" it to you. [...] The only problem with sharing copyrighted content is when you profit from it.What you are saying is that if technology eventually allows a zero-cost, 100%-quality copy of any copyrighted material, then you are allowed to distribute it. And that, my friend, I don't know if it is legal or not, but makes no sense at all.

The copyright holder is the only one allowed to decided how distribution is done, and if he is willing to charge for it. If you can show me the line of reasoning which shows how can you deduce your conclusions from the copyright, I'd be glad to hear and embrace it.

To me, what you are doing is a clever but simple and free interpretation of something that is neither in the letter of the copyright law nor in its original spirit of protecting the rights of the creators.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by r6d2
What you are saying is that if technology eventually allows a zero-cost, 100%-quality copy of any copyrighted material, then you are allowed to distribute it. And that, my friend, I don't know if it is legal or not, but makes no sense at all.

If both parties have paid the artist their due at one point or another for the content why should they have to pay the artist again if they do not wish to. I am not saying it should be legal for all people to exchange all copyrighted materials regardless whether they have the right or not. All I am saying is that those who have rights to the content also have the right to exchange it amongst themselves. Only the copyright holder and cooperating retail establishments have the right to sell for a profit. But consumers can prolliferate it amongst themselves if they have all purchased a coppy.

Originally posted by r6d2
The copyright holder is the only one allowed to decided how distribution is done, and if he is willing to charge for it. If you can show me the line of reasoning which shows how can you deduce your conclusions from the copyright, I'd be glad to hear and embrace it.

For us it is covered under fair use. And it is impossible for anyone to completely control distribution. Copyright makes no such provision. Copyright serves to make sure that the copyright holder is party to any profits derived from the copyrighted content. And it does not cover much more than that. In fact there is a long standing precident of almost 30 years where sharring copyrighted content with friends and aquaintances is not a prossecutable offence. The wrinkle comes in with how do you define friends and aquaintances on P2P. Most just share with anyone as equals. That is the worst thing P2P is really doing. Just expanding to the extreme the distribution radius of a single individual. It is not reducing sales. It is not as a trend hurting artists or anyone else.

Originally posted by r6d2
To me, what you are doing is a clever but simple and free interpretation of something that is neither in the letter of the copyright law nor in its original spirit of protecting the rights of the creators.

Actually for us it is in the letter of the law. With the doctrines of fair use and copyright it is fully legal and covered. The spirit of copyright law is not to provide for a media based police state. The spirit of copyright law is to provide creators a period for which they can derive fair compenstaion for their works. Fair only goes so far as it does not violate others rights. Which the RIAA/MPAA are currently doing. So we are well beyond the relm of fair compensation. They are requesting private information without adequate reasoning for the violation of individuals right to privacy. And what do they do whith this information when they get it? They blackmail those "implicated" into paying for a costly settlement which just happens to be less expensive than it would have been for them to take the case to court against those groups. Not one of these cases has actually seen a court case. Justice is not being served. We are just laying the foundations for a police state where citizens have no rights.

Technicaly much of what goes on over P2P is not really legal. Then again just as technically it is not really that illegal either. The problem is there is no clear cut coverage of a persons rights in this situation. It is yet another case where our technology has exceeded the speed at which we can make laws. So in light of that due process is being ignored and those with the funds allowed to write their own laws.

[shevegen]

We must see it as one side of the truth,
that corporations dominate the world,
and the flow of development (i mean the general path, NOT the community of developers etc.., just look at some court decisions due to patents),
not the people.

I doubt this will change anytime soon.

"What you are saying is that if technology eventually allows a zero-cost, 100%-quality copy of any copyrighted material, then you are allowed to distribute it. And that, my friend, I don't know if it is legal or not, but makes no sense at all."

I am not that involved in the discussion, but for my part I must say that it depends on the point of view.

If you are a content provider relying on copyrighted material then you surely wont be fond of anything or anyone coming with full source code to you to modify and use at ~ 0 cost.
But do I care?
I dont exist to get more and more money, and more and more property to boost any status symbol, and I DO NOT MIND AT ALL if others are rich - i simply do not care.

The movement goes a lot further, because it LIMITS your CHOICES.

I often read that without patents there will be no development.
Which is not true as long as there are people motivated to do something. If the cost for something is reduced by a lot, then it becomes feasible to use cheaper resources (open software, open hardware, and someone's time who is just motivated about a topic... dont you believe that people centuries ago just invented something because they wanted to become rich. thats wrong but serves as a good lever)
Its a more idealistic point of view, of course.

Big lobby groups will continue to attempt to gain as much profit as possible (and securing their income), so a media based police state is IMO only a logical follow-up to that kind of thinking.
There is no "Fair compensation" from an industry point of view.
You have money to spend on? Come, we are waiting for it.