Why I Dislike The RIAA
scott
So I haven’t blogged in a while, and I keep getting these false starts on entries — triggered by news events, interactions with customers, etc. But today I think I need to make a statement.
Recently it came to light that the organizers and/or distributors of the Peer-to-peer (P2P) filesharing program Limewire are being sued by the RIAA, an organization/cartel that represents/pimps large-label music artists. The lawsuit is based on the premise that the Limewire software (in addition to surreptitiously installing spyware) promotes illegal filesharing of copyrighted works. Which leaves me with a few issues to share:
* of course it does. Limewire provides users with a free method of linking up with thousands (if not millions) of fellow-users worldwide via peer-to-peer connections. Certainly some copyright-free content is there on this network of files, but what do people want to share? Movies, music, and software applications. The same movies, music, and software applications that are sold at false premiums by major corporations. While each of these necessarily entail production by scores of people who must be fairly paid for their labor, it has become increasingly realized that the producers of such media ask a much higher price than entails the sum of artist/writer/programmer royalties, raw production cost, and modest profit.
Microsoft Office, a suite of software fundamental to business, education, and essentially anyone that wants to use computers for basic word-processing functions retails for nearly 400USD. Audio CDs, which contain music from noted musical artists (and other people who produce such atrocities as Rap and Hip Hop) retail for nearly 20USD. The industry itself has tipped its hand in this regard — on the iTunes Music Store (which contracts with major labels to establish pricing), individual tracks can be bought for 0,99USD — often resulting in a much lower cost per album than purchasing a CD.
Just as no sane person would purchase a house, or car, or fresh produce sight-unseen, no one should purchase a non-returnable CD with the mere hope of enjoying it. Enter file-sharing.
As might be gleaned from the wild success of the iTunes Music Store, Napster, and other legal music purchasing enterprises, the per-song purchase model works.
So?
So stealing music is technically wrong, but in this instance consumers have spoken (and continue to speak). Many people download music, evaluate it, and if they enjoy it purchase it through legal means. Not everyone is so scrupulous, however, and some people are even less scrupulous to the degree that they provide widely and anonymously entire catalogues of downloaded music for others to acquire. Both of these phenomena can be linked, whether by tenuous filament of reasoning or rigid beam of logic to the desire to not purchase CDs sight-unseen (or sound-unheard?). Outside of the scope of this little tirade of mine are those who (re-)sell music (and other media) to which they have no legal or legitimate claim. I maintain unequivocally that such behavior is illegal and is, in modern parlance, pretty much as close as one can come to the classical definition of piracy without being on the high seas.
* the lawsuit seems fundamentally flawed — if it is based on the premise that Limewire encourages illegal filesharing, it must necessarily focus on the technologies and methods that make such action possible. Murder cases focus on motive and opportunity, fraud cases focus on chains of responsibility and access to records and information, and as such any investigation into Limewire or other such applications must focus on the underlying fundamental technologies that are essential to their functions. Such programs as Limewire do not exist in a vacuum, running on countless computers, communicating with other peers as if through the aether — unless the aether is Ethernet, facilitating standardized network communication through IP protocols and telecommunications networks.
The Suspects: TCP/IP, Ethernet, and the Internet Backbone Providers.
TCP/IP - a protocol. A method of signalling through itty-bitty wires and fibers to transmit data from point to point. TCP/IP data has a destination, and a source. It also has content. Information, and direction. Two points leading to purpose. And intent behind that purpose. If a software program is culpable for sharing music, then by all means so is the way in which it transmits shared information. After all, without this TCP/IP protocol, such communication would be impossible. So, RIAA, where’s the lawsuit against the patentholders or users of the TCP/IP protocol?
Ethernet - a manner of making a wire. Developed by Xerox in Days of Yore, this standard for wiring has become (criminally!) prevalent in computer networks in homes, businesses, and network operations centers. Without a medium to transmit data, programs such as Limewire would be rendered as willing islands in an unforgiving sea of non-conductivity. Just as a shooting cannot reliably be prosecuted without a proverbial smoking gun, any claim of electronic copyright infringement cannot be sustained without a medium for such a (heinous!) crime. So, RIAA, where’s the lawsuit against Xerox, and any other company that makes, sells or uses ethernet cabling?
Internet Backbone Providers - parties to a conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. By using these nefarious technologies previously mentioned, Internet Backbone Providers (such as Sprint, UUnet, Level3, and a bunch of others) provide the bread and butter of copyright infringement. Sure, someone could copy a file containing copyrighted media onto a disc, take it to the neighbors, and load it onto another computer, thus completing a full, bona fide infringement of copyright. But these Internet Backbone Providers … man, they make it easy. A global reach. An anonymous, dynamic protocol. A person could share thousands, millions of files with as many people worldwide. So… again — RIAA, where’s the lawsuit against the telecoms and internet backbone providers?
Seems like if you’re gonna do a job, you should at least do it right.
Or maybe somebody’s barking up the wrong tree.
Do guns promote murders? Do cigarettes promote smoking? Do reliable, affordable import cars promote driving? Of course. But why, oh, why? Perhaps because they facilitate a desire. Guns in a world without malice would be nothing more than conversation pieces. Cigarettes in a world without chronic addiction and overblown romanticization of smoking would be nothing more than a wasteful use of a wasteful plant. And in a world of matter transporters, personal jet-packs, or a more highly developed ecological ethic, motorcars would be nothing but a silly anachronism.
So what does this mean? Limewire is no different. It’s a tool to fit a need that will not vanish should Limewire fall. As with anything large and well-known, countless others stand ready to fill the vacuum left by the giants’ collapse. And what does that mean? The consumers have spoken. File sharing is not going to go away. Hackers and enterprising coders stay, almost by definition, multiple steps ahead of lumbering companies stuck in a 1950’s mindset.
But what stands out about these modern times and their so-called crimes is that music piracy by and large is a non-issue. Record labels have been criticized for not paying artists their due, and for pocketing most of the profits from CD sales. The RIAA claims that record sales have fallen phenomenally due to music piracy, but such numbers have been widely disputed — in large part by a vocal constituency of customers who claim that CD sales have dropped not because Aunt Ethel wants to have all of Sinatra’s dreamy smash-hits on her computer at her desk, but because the major labels have nothing of desire to offer — such pop-culture artifacts as American Idol have spawned major-label CD releases that in any other age wouldn’t have made it past the home video camera. Paris Hilton even has an album now, for no reason other than that she can afford to. Oh, but people aren’t buying. So it must be because people would rather steal the premium, professional, worthy, imaginative content available on little silver discs than pay a Jackson apiece for what essentially amounts to a grab bag of musical tracks. And when someone sends a song to a friend, they must be of criminal mindset and intent. Never mind that their interest in a song, and their perception of another person’s enjoyment of the same might be stronger than their loyalty to a corporation. No, let’s love the RIAA, for they bring us such wonders. Like suing computer-novice grandmothers and, in one case, a dead woman. The RIAA is on record suggesting that lawsuit-victims drop out of university and attend community college to help offset settlement payments. Which is, of course, perfectly reasonable
…right?
Posted on: Saturday, August 5, 2006 at 11:30 pm 
General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Comments are closed.
