The RIAA is right

I think owners of CDs should be able to rip them (for their own use), but I am oh so tired of this tired “Britney Spears” joke.

A few years ago, I listened to a lecture by Lawrence Lessig, and he made the exact same Britney Spears joke, as a way of side-stepping whether people should be allowed to “share” CD rips. It was irritating, because here he is, presenting his issues in a thoughtful manner, then when the big elephant in the room is dealt with, he dismisses it with a lame joke, and never dealt with that particular issue again in his talk.

Aside from all of the heat & flashes of light, the RIAA member companies seem to be in deep denial about how the very nature of their business has changed. The disruptive technologies that have brought us to this point are genies out of the bottle and aren’t going to go back easily, if at all.

Every one of these companies has changed hands in recent years, saddled with debt calculated against projected earnings based upon the ‘good old days’ when they got fat selling baby boomers their record collections all over again on CD and their video collections on DVD. I have news for you people, whatever the law says or is stretched to say- the gig is up.

Maybe the shareholders of these public companies should sue the executives of the MPAA/RIAA for failing to perform due diligence as to the financial aspects of their mergers/buy-outs/take-overs. Executives and Directors have an obligation to make decisions based upon accurate and realistic data and analysis. It’s not the consumer’s fault that their pie in the sky projections are flat wrong.

Maybe when they start developing musicians instead of rappers the market will change. Not my problem.

Aside from all of the heat & flashes of light, the RIAA member companies seem to be in deep denial about how the very nature of their business has changed. The disruptive technologies that have brought us to this point are genies out of the bottle and aren’t going to go back easily, if at all.

Every one of these companies has changed hands in recent years, saddled with debt calculated against projected earnings based upon the ‘good old days’ when they got fat selling baby boomers their record collections all over again on CD and their video collections on DVD. I have news for you people, whatever the law says or is stretched to say- the gig is up.

Maybe the shareholders of these public companies should sue the executives of the MPAA/RIAA for failing to perform due diligence as to the financial aspects of their mergers/buy-outs/take-overs. Executives and Directors have an obligation to make decisions based upon accurate and realistic data and analysis. It’s not the consumer’s fault that their pie in the sky projections are flat wrong.

Maybe when they start developing musicians instead of rappers the market will change. Not my problem.

Thanks to the RIAA for reminding me why I started a blog against a software company trying to charge legitimate users to use it since, well, they might be pirates:

http://techfettis.wordpress.com

The RIAA and MPAA are getting so greedy about the mere thought of any lost revenue what so ever that they are starting to flail wildly out of control. Will they ever learn how to properly conduct their business with the changing times or are they just going to keep going until they have nothing left?

Unrelated Robert but it looks like your blog is blocked from here in China. I’m doing a few digital backflips to get access.

Also I think Qik is not available outside the U.S.

Happy new year.

Unrelated Robert but it looks like your blog is blocked from here in China. I’m doing a few digital backflips to get access.

Also I think Qik is not available outside the U.S.

Happy new year.

All the more reason to go back to that stash of 8-track tapes we have stashed in our garages. Long live Foghat!

VRM is about two key things: 1) Independence, and 2) Engagement.

We don’t get independence from suppliers. It’s something we get from ourselves, and that enables us to deal with *any* interested supplier on our terms — and not just theirs. Therefore VRM is not something that suppliers give us. So, while Radiohead did the right thing by letting the market determine what its music is worth, its relationship system is still a silo’d one. Meaning it only works with Radiohead. We need a system that allows us to pay any artist whatever we feel their music is worth to us. Independently.

Which means we need terms of engagement that live on the buyers’ side of the marketplace. That’s what I was suggesting a few months back, for example, with A Public Market for Public Music.

The new music business must be one that enables non-coercive “willing buyer/willing seller” mechanisms that are universal rather than silo’d separately by each supplier, each with their own terms of engagement. That’s what we have today with the zillion different CRM systems that inhabit the world — all of which control “relationships” with buyers entirely from the seller’s side. Without VRM on the buyer’s side, the terms of engagement will still be set by the seller.

VRM is about two key things: 1) Independence, and 2) Engagement.

We don’t get independence from suppliers. It’s something we get from ourselves, and that enables us to deal with *any* interested supplier on our terms — and not just theirs. Therefore VRM is not something that suppliers give us. So, while Radiohead did the right thing by letting the market determine what its music is worth, its relationship system is still a silo’d one. Meaning it only works with Radiohead. We need a system that allows us to pay any artist whatever we feel their music is worth to us. Independently.

Which means we need terms of engagement that live on the buyers’ side of the marketplace. That’s what I was suggesting a few months back, for example, with A Public Market for Public Music.

The new music business must be one that enables non-coercive “willing buyer/willing seller” mechanisms that are universal rather than silo’d separately by each supplier, each with their own terms of engagement. That’s what we have today with the zillion different CRM systems that inhabit the world — all of which control “relationships” with buyers entirely from the seller’s side. Without VRM on the buyer’s side, the terms of engagement will still be set by the seller.

know what http://play.clubpenguin.com/miniclip.swf find out! After that go to http://ceciley.wordpress.com/ PLEASE!!!!!!

I think the link in Doc’s post ought to be to http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000202.
And it’s well worth the read!

(Is ‘newest first’ comment listing a particularly Linux thing?)

I think the link in Doc’s post ought to be to http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000202.
And it’s well worth the read!

(Is ‘newest first’ comment listing a particularly Linux thing?)

It seems pretty obvious to me from these comments that none have read the actual briefing. It doesn’t say the RIAA wants to prevent is from copying music for your PERSONAL use. The case involves copying music then SHARING it with the world. No different than me buying Robert’s book, taking it to Kinko’s, making hundreds of copies andhanding it out on the street corner.

Jerry:

“Have you actually read the briefing, or are you just basing your sarcasm on information you skimmed from other blogs? Why not read the actual briefing then make your argument? The brouhaha is being taking out of context. And while I’m no defender of the RIAA, their position is that the defendant ripped CD’s to “the mp3 format” and stored them on his computer (specifically his shared Kazaa folder) with the intent to distribute. You need to view this case in its proper context.”

+1

The summary judgment and the follow-up brief all specifically state that the law suit is based on the distribution of the files, not the ripping of the files from CD. Howell initially submitted a defense that the music was legally purchased and he ripped to the computer for personal use. At that point some mysterious entity then moved these files to his Kazaa directory without him knowing of the fact. However, he could provide no proof of such entity.

It was the movement into the Kazaa directory and hence making the items available for distribution that triggered the suit.

MiB are not going to be jumping out at you as you walk down the street, listening to your iPod. Well, they won’t because of the music you’re listening to.

Facts, people. I know facts aren’t fun, but can’t we try focusing on the facts? At least, from time to time?

Jerry:

“Have you actually read the briefing, or are you just basing your sarcasm on information you skimmed from other blogs? Why not read the actual briefing then make your argument? The brouhaha is being taking out of context. And while I’m no defender of the RIAA, their position is that the defendant ripped CD’s to “the mp3 format” and stored them on his computer (specifically his shared Kazaa folder) with the intent to distribute. You need to view this case in its proper context.”

+1

The summary judgment and the follow-up brief all specifically state that the law suit is based on the distribution of the files, not the ripping of the files from CD. Howell initially submitted a defense that the music was legally purchased and he ripped to the computer for personal use. At that point some mysterious entity then moved these files to his Kazaa directory without him knowing of the fact. However, he could provide no proof of such entity.

It was the movement into the Kazaa directory and hence making the items available for distribution that triggered the suit.

MiB are not going to be jumping out at you as you walk down the street, listening to your iPod. Well, they won’t because of the music you’re listening to.

Facts, people. I know facts aren’t fun, but can’t we try focusing on the facts? At least, from time to time?

Thanks for the voice of reason, Shelley. So much for the accuracy and reliability of “citizen journalism”. And people complain about the accuracy of the MSM? Sheesh. But will Scoble or any of these bloggers admit to not knowing the facts before posting? Unlikely. Just another “drive by shooting” from Scoble in order to get links and attention.

Jerry: I’ll admit it. On this post I was going off of what I saw on TechMeme. Now I see a ton of those bloggers backtracking (like Engadget).

Jerry: I’ll admit it. On this post I was going off of what I saw on TechMeme. Now I see a ton of those bloggers backtracking (like Engadget).

@29 Well, I guess the adage “Don’t believe everything you read” applies to the blogging world, too. Too bad most bloggers don’t apply it. Most are more interested in getting linked to than getting facts straight.

Yes, Engadet backtracked (as they should have) about the basis of the original lawsuit, but that doesn’t mean that Robert’s post isn’t spot on or that the RIAA is not making an additional argument in Howell that ripping is not allowed. This is in contradiction to their position in Congressional testimony and in oral arguments in the Grokster case. Ray Beckerman did a detailed analysis when the supplemental brief was first filed that is worth reading:

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/12/riaa-files-supplemental-brief-in.html

Yes, Engadet backtracked (as they should have) about the basis of the original lawsuit, but that doesn’t mean that Robert’s post isn’t spot on or that the RIAA is not making an additional argument in Howell that ripping is not allowed. This is in contradiction to their position in Congressional testimony and in oral arguments in the Grokster case. Ray Beckerman did a detailed analysis when the supplemental brief was first filed that is worth reading:

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/12/riaa-files-supplemental-brief-in.html

@33. Certainly interesting, but Mr.Beckerman, by his own admission is theorizing that the “and shared folder” language was added after the first draft. So, all this is is Mr. Beckerman’s opinion. What we do have as fact is the actual briefing, which clearly states the RIAA charges that the files were unauthorized be cause the intent was to share them.

Even if Mr. Beckerman’s OPINION is correct, and the attorneys representing the RIAA are stupid enough to tyr tom make an additional argument regarding copying music, the judge in this case, on this specific issue, would most certainly apply stare decisis. because the Supreme Court has already ruled on the specific issue of “copying music for personal use”. I rather doubt any lower court would rule against a previous SC decision on this specific matter.

This issue in this case is the illegal sharing of the files, not the fact that they were copied. If the latter is what the RIAA is also arguing, they’ve already lost the case because the RIAA themselves state it is perfectly “legal” to copy music for PERSONAL use.

So, Mr. Beckerman’s opinion, while certainly interesting, is moot. And we are again back to some in the blogosphere leaping before looking. This is the problem with “citizen journalism”. Bloggers have no editors to pressure them to do fact checking or research.

So this story did turn out to be BS.
I’m glad to see Robert, engadget, and the rest backtracking. The original “take” made no sense anyway, given that it would essentiall deem iPods illegal (the vast majority of music on iPods is CD-rips, not iTMS purchased songs), which should’ve made it obvious that nobody was sued for merely ripping their own CD.

So this story did turn out to be BS.
I’m glad to see Robert, engadget, and the rest backtracking. The original “take” made no sense anyway, given that it would essentiall deem iPods illegal (the vast majority of music on iPods is CD-rips, not iTMS purchased songs), which should’ve made it obvious that nobody was sued for merely ripping their own CD.