I misread it the first time too. I think that violation would go under the 2nd example, not the first. i.e. a movie could easily be considered worth more than $1000

Ahhh, that makes a little more sense. How much something is "worth" would seem a somewhat difficult thing to determine, though.

Alex,

I'd have a easier time siding with the MPAA/RIAA if:

(A) they weren't constantly complaining about their "lost profits" being solely due to file-sharing when the numbers simply don't bear it up, and the actual amount of so-called "losses" coincide not with the trends in filesharing, but in their trends of putting out crappy products, never releasing product, or causing 99% of products to go un-advertised in Clear Channel's payola schemes.

(B) they weren't still wedded to the idea of "every file shared is a lost sale"

(C) they hadn't created the industry in such a way that artists become indebted for life and never own their own works.

(D) they hadn't engaged in nationwide price-fixing last decade

(E) they weren't STILL engaging in price-fixing today

Oh I can't say that I feel sorry for the record companies. Had filesharing never happened they never would have budged into the new millenium with programs like Rhapsody or iTunes. You're right about some of the silly notions they harbor ("if you don't download it, you will certainly buy it").

At the same time, I have difficulty viewing the sharing of files as some sort of "civil right." They may have a monopoly on the corporate airwaves (though one can argue they're actually the slaves to Clear Channel), but that's not the only way to get music. It's the most convenient, but the record label filtering system is (in part) exactly the service that the record industry provides. It's a little hypocritical to say "I'll let you (the record companies) do all the leg work in finding and promoting bands, but I resent the money you make from it!"

So I guess I still have the "pox on both your houses" view when it comes to record labels and fileswappers.

I actually just read a book about intellectual property rights titled "Free Culture." One of the points it made is that the RIAA almost always wins (or has favorable plea bargains in) cases against supposed file-sharers, even when they're innocent (several just hosted college network search engines, never sharing files directly). Why? They have the time and the money for a long, drawn-out trial, the defendants don't.

There actually is a legitimate connection between the RIAA's recent crusade against file sharing and a civil right - privacy. Back in the VHS days, they had to get a warrant to check your place for illegally-copied tapes. Now they can subpoena records from your ISP to get your identity. It's like going through library records, and shouldn't be possible without reasonable suspicion & a warrant.

I think the RIAA heavily restricts the production and distribution of music in this country and can't possibly make a case that the stifling of American culture is worth the minimal real-world losses due to file-sharing.

Linus,

The first issue mentioned is a procedural rather than legal issue. The same could be said any time a large entity is up against a small one, but you can't simply put the law on the side of the "little guy" simply because of his comparitive size.

The "warrant" does fall more into the 'civil rights' realm and if the EFF were more simply looking at protecting user privacy, I'd be less mocking. But the EFF has effectively taken the position that it's unreasonable for their to be serious consequences when it comes to file-sharing and protecting the practice itself (or at least advocating a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" enforcement policy). I can't entirely get on board with that.

I agree with Michael about the fictitious "lost sales" that the record industry keeps harping on. I even agree with your last paragraph that the record industry does more harm that good. That said, I don't think that's necessarily up to you or I to decide. We may think that way, but most people - for whatever reason - like being fed their music and appreciate the streamlining of the process.

And lastly, I'm not sure how much the trading of copyrighted files and/or being untraceable on the Internet are (or should be) wedded to the notion of American culture. I wonder aloud if the price of the freedom the Internet provides might be transparency.

[this comment has been edited]

The spread of music that Americans like listening to is aided immensely by file sharing. These days, there are three options: buy the CD (expensive if you don't know if you'll like it), borrow it from a friend, or wait until you hear songs on the radio. None of these facilitates the spread of culture (music) as well as file sharing.

Rather than focus on the illegality of something that 30+% of Americans have done at some point or another, why not offer positive reinforcement for NOT deciding to download music rather than buy it? Why not put more money into finding and supporting the artists and less into creating CDs, litigating the innocent to scare the guilty, etc.? Let's move on as a country.

Linus, I don't disagree one bit on that part. I think the record companies have been going about this the wrong way ever since Napster reared its head.

As someone once pointed out very well. These lawsuits are all about the RIAA finding a reason to exist. The Music industry has moved past the need for such an organization. The RIAA knows it, and they are scared. They are trying to prove they need to be there to protect the artists, when in reality they have been in the way the entire time.

I started checking a lot of the music I really love to listen to and the groups. I found that a lot of the great groups I really really like, became popular despite the music industry, not because of it. They created such a stir the industry couldn't ignore them anymore.

As my brother likes to tell all these new artists in the small clubs of Houston. "Give your music away. Look at the Grateful Dead. They made sure that everyone that came to their concerts left with one of their CDs." The music industry would rather you nickle and dime the fans.

RAW,

http://firstmonday.org/issu...

This is a wonderful piece which points out PART of the reasons I think the RIAA are full of it when it comes to file sharing.

The REAL reasons their profits are down?
#1 - With the legal requirement that they kill the MAP (Minimum Advertised Pricing) system back in 2002, prices on CD's have FINALLY started to come down. The bad news (for music lovers) is that this hasn't affected mom-and-pop music stores, because the RIAA members just hiked up the rates they charge those stores, which has caused many of them to go under - price fixing in action.

What did happen is that stores like Blockbuster and Walmart started to be where more and more people bought CDs, and they always tend to price lower. Since the RIAA members have to offer "large bulk" wholesale discounts, that means they have functionally made less $ per CD sold.

#2 - lack of new acts and new releases. This is a BIG one.
http://azoz.com/music/featu...
At the same time the RIAA were bitching and moaning about "piracy" they were drastically cutting the number of new releases. The numbers don't lie, but the RIAA does.

Just as a side note, one of my coworkers has a friend who IS a record producer and lives out in California, and he relayed to me the news a couple weeks back that his friend is desperately trying to get OUT of the industry because, while the RIAA puts on a brave public face, the insiders know they're alienating their customer base more and more every year that Britney Spears-style pop and Rhythmic Accompanied Pottymouthing stay on top of the charts.

You won't find a spirited defense of the RIAA or the music industry for me (remember that most of my favorite acts are either unsigned or have been unsigned for most of their careers). My beef with the filesharers is not that the RIAA is great or that they're a bunch of rotten theifs, but rather the sense of entitlement that they have and the moral authority they claim.

Now I do believe that the music industry does provide a service to a mass majority of the people out there (even if not myself). I don't think they do a particularly good job of it, but it's largely a thankless job and by nature of the industry I don't think the ones that do the "best job" would be the most financially rewarded.

And I take arguments that the music industry is going to "go down" about as seriously as I do repeated arguments for the last half-decade or so that Microsoft is in 'serious trouble' and the next big event will be the last straw that brings them down.

It's possible that the music industry as it exists won't be around ten years from now, but it'll likely be replaced by something equally soulless and inane.

And to be frank, a lot of what is wrong with the current music industry is not even the labels' fault, but rather the fault of radio stations that won't play anything that isn't either in the top forty or highly derivative of something that is. If I had to name the biggest enemy of music today, it would be Clear Channel and not the RIAA.

But again, none of this is to say that I think that the RIAA and major labels are good things and worth defending, merely that they do provide a service (albeit poorly) that most people (not including myself) don't realize they appreciate and that in a world where people want something for nothing and their services are intermediary (as a filter between the artists and the audience) and so they are likely to be unliked even if they did do their job well.