Stop the RIAA

[DGMacphee]

As a serious post, there was a report just released in the last few days by Forrester Research that had some interesting details about the correlations between iPod owners and music purchased from iTunes.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Forrester's recent analysis of more than 2,700 US iTunes debit and credit card transactions reveals that 3% of online households made an iTunes purchase in the past year. Apple's iTunes proves that $0.99 micropayments for digital music can lead to substantial revenue; buyers spent an average of $35 at iTunes over the past year. With half of all transactions costing $3 or less, though, transaction fees threaten to make iTunes unprofitable. Since the introduction of the iTunes Music Store, Apple has been steadily selling just 20 iTunes tracks for each iPod sold, suggesting that even at $0.99, most consumers still aren't sold on the value of digital music.

The report's author, Josh Bernoff, expands a little in a blog.

Since iPods went on sale, people are consistently buying about 20 iTunes per iPod. There's been a small uptick to 23 lately, but that's it. What's the explanation? It's either:

1. People are buying at a low but steady rate, but replace their iPod every few years -- which would imply that iPod user market is growing more slowly than it appears, or

2. People buy about 20 songs and then get tired and don't buy any more.

Now, to further extend this discussion, here's a good op-ed piece from Joe Lewis of webpronews.com.

There's no denying that people love their iPods. Filling the portable devices with content, however, seems to find users looking more toward unprotected formats and pirated tracks, rather than dealing with the hassle of paying for content with little to no device portability.

Bernoff puts it this way, "There's a problem here. CD sales have fallen 20 percent over five years. The message here is not that CD sales are coming back, the ability to obtain pirated music is now so widespread the DRM looks to consumers more like a problem than a benefit."

How long has the handwriting been on the wall when it comes to DRM and iTunes?

f digital music aficionados are becoming disillusioned with iTunes, then other services need to step up to the plate and offer a viable alternative.

Nick Carr shares a similar viewpoint, putting the ball in the recording industry's court:

"The upshot of the study is clear. Online sales of digital music continue to be relatively modest, and if music companies want to increase them they'll probably need to look beyond Apple's iTunes store, which may well be tapped out as a source of growth. I'd be surprised if we don't see record companies make a concerted effort to open more online retailing channels in 2007, probably selling songs in unprotected MP3 format."

People want easy access to their music, and once purchased, they want the ability to do anything they want with it. This is the nature of the portable media beast. If the choice is between DRM and piracy, you can bank on the fact that piracy is going to win that battle every day of the week (and twice on Sunday). And if other music services can offer a lower cost, DRM-free alternative, iTunes is in for some serious trouble.

Obviously, people are fine paying for music. Otherwise, no one would have bought the 1.5 billion songs from iTunes. The problem is people are starting to realise how fiddly the Fairplay DRM. And consider that there's a number of ways to by-pass the DRM, which makes having Fairplay more of a hurdle for piracy rather than something that stops it.

I understand the moral implications of piracy but consider when people are faced with  this decision: why pay for something cumbersome compared when you can something easy-to-use for free (though illegally)? It's obvious why people prefer to download music rather than pay for it.

But I do believe people would be okay paying for their music and staying within the confines of the law. Consider the positive initial reaction to iTunes. However, I think more people would pay for music if they dropped a lot of the DRM protection.

I know that the only thing stopping me from buying music from iTunes is the cumbersome DRM. I prefer to have control over the things I own. I don't have a problem buying my music -- I believe when you pay for something, you're putting commitment into something, and the more commitment you invest, the more you value it. And I do value my music.

However, I also like to have control over what I commit to. I don't like committing to things I have limited control over.

[EagerMind]

Interesting reading, DGMacphee.

I find it amusingly ironic that the very steps the music industry has taken to prevent losing sales - locking down content to prevent people from making copies of it - is actually causing declining sales. Not only does it not stop people from making copies, but people are more inclined to get pirated music so they don't have to deal with the DRM.

Unfortunately it leaves the consumer between a rock and hard place. Not only is music downloaded from legitimate onlines stores encumbered with DRM, it's worse quality than what you can get on a CD (MP3 being a lossy compression). If I could download music in a lossless compression format (like flac) without any restrictions on its use, then I'd considering getting my music online.

Unfortunately CD's aren't a much more attractive option. Not only are they overpriced (someone explain to me again why the RIAA's pricing model doesn't constitute a monopoly?), but it seems like more and more they're trying to put DRM on them as well. I don't know, maybe (hopefully!) the whole Sony debacle has caused record labels to rethink their position bit.

Not quite sure what the answer is. I personally don't condone downloading pirated music (though I can certainly understand why people do it). I find myself in pretty much the same shoes as Traveler: with a fairly old and small collection of music that gets a bit boring after listening to it all the time.

With the advent of HD television (at least in the U.S.), the situation isn't any prettier on that front either. Anybody ever heard of HDCP? All I can say is, here we go again.

[Darth Mandarb]

Not quite sure what the answer is.

Create a website/program offerring ALL music from ALL labels EVER produced in high-quality mp3 format w/ a [reasonable] monthly subscription for unlimitted downloads.  Simple.

The difference is that when you give out cookies, you paid for, say 10 cookies, give away 8, only have 2 left. So you paid for 10 cookies, 10 cookies get eaten. Also, cookies are done after you've eaten them.

If you buy a CD, and share your MP3's, you're not doing the same. It'd be the same if an album you bought as MP3's has 10 tracks, you give out 8 of them, and delete your own MP3 of the songs you gave out. Then it's a good comparison. Now, not so much

It's still a good comparison.  You're buying a product and freely giving it to those that didn't pay for it.

So if a guy buys a CD with 10 songs, rips it to mp3, and gives the songs to 10 people only.  That's okay?  It's just not okay if he gives multiple copies?

1 cookie or 1,000 doesn't matter.  Those eating the cookies didn't pay for them.  They are stealing the cookies and are thieves!!

[MrColossal]

It's not a good comparison and they aren't thieves.

If I buy a tv and give it away, no one stole it. The company got money for 1 tv and 1 tv was transfered leaving no tvs in my garage.

When I take an MP3 from someone the company got money for 1 CD and 1 cd was transfered and there is still a cd in my cdplayer and another in someone elses.

And to reiterate:

I don't want to pay a high price for something therefore I steal it.

I steal it and don't get in trouble therefor it is not illegal.

You want music but it's too expensive or you have a moral reason for not downloading the music. Outcome: You don't get to listen to or you take a moral stand against owning the CD. That's the way things work for 99.9% of every other good. Want to hear the music and support the artist? Go to a show and buy a cd directly off of them. If that performer doesn't tour around you or it'd be really expensive to see every show, too bad. That's the way it works. You either buy the cd or you don't.

Also, since you stated that the reason you don't download DVDs is because it isn't as easy as loading up a program and searching and downloading. What if it was? Would you download them then? What if it was real easy to just download a movie without paying for it and watch it on your TV? [then again, with torrents, it's terribly easy to download movies and can be downloaded in a few hours]

[voh]

It's still a good comparison.Ã,  You're buying a product and freely giving it to those that didn't pay for it.

No it isn't a good comparison. You're buying a pack of cookies, and if you give them away, that's fine. They've been paid for. If you buy a CD, and you give it away, that's fine. It's been paid for.

If you start making copies of that CD, creating identical products, while retaining your original. You've still got your own copy, you won't be buying antoher one, whoever you gave the copied CD (or MP3's to) won't buy the album because they've already got one.

You're comparing an edible (and therefore ultimately perishable if not eaten) product, which is limited to one use per definition, to something one can copy, use over and over again, and will never go stale.

Your comparison is flawed.

addition after reading Ashen's post:

If you give a cookie away, you can't eat it anymore. If you give an MP3 away, you can still listen to it. That's where the discrepancy lies.

[Ashen]

So if a guy buys a CD with 10 songs, rips it to mp3, and gives the songs to 10 people only.  That's okay?

To go back to voh's earlier example: If you give one (different) MP3 to each person, and then destroy the original CD (and your MP3 copy), then possibly. Provided they never give copies to anyone else.

I still agree with your basic position, I just think this example is seriously flawed, and not doing you any favours.

[Darth Mandarb]

I don't want to pay a high price for something therefore I steal it.

I steal it and don't get in trouble therefor it is not illegal.

Do you hear that knocking sound?  That's the internet police and they're coming for yo' ass!!! 

I understand the "discrepancies" and the "flaws" but the simple fact remains that people are enjoying a product that they didn't pay for.

So if a person were to buy a CD, rip it to mp3, destroy the CD and give away the mp3s and then delete the copies he has, he's doing nothing wrong.  So if the person he freely gave the mp3 to makes 10 copies of each and freely gives them away is it the first guy's fault for giving it to him in the first place?  The second guy is giving away something that was freely given to him so is it his fault?  Maybe it's the record label's fault for producing it in the first place?

I'm really not trying to step on anybody's toes here ... I respect all your opinions on this subject.  The over-all point I'm trying to make (and beating a dead-horse doing so) is that it's a confusing jumble of shit and the bottom line is no matter how much people rally against file sharing it's going to continue.  If the recording industry hires 10,000 people to fight against it they'd still be outnumbered more than 100,000 to 1.  They cannot win this war they've chosen to fight.  All they're doing is making themselves look even more greedy and incredibly foolish and turning consumers against them.  One good thing to come from their foolishness ... it's exposing their greed and corruption and opening a lot of eyes.

In truth, I'd say all the negative energy directed towards it [file sharing] just makes it increase more.

"But ... but ... You can't do that!!!" feebly stammers the RIAA.

"Wanna bet?" says John Q. Public as he opens LimeWire ...

[Helm]

The subject, though open to a lot of viewpoints, is not very confusing, Darth, and you're fast becoming incoherent.

[voh]

That we agree on. The recording industry needs to find out what they can do to make legal purchasing more interesting and more worthwhile, rather than put all efforts on dissuading people from illegally downloading. Because let's be honest, that'll always continue. Whatever protection scheme they figure will stop them, or at least slow them down, is usually beaten within a couple of days.

The internet's a big place, and it's given everyone an equal voice. This is what the RIAA can never beat - the fact that there's so damn many people trying to do the same things. What they need to do is work with the consumers, not against them.

[biothlebop]

I feel that there is something wrong with how copyright laws (especially regarding intellectual property) work currently.
If an american breaks american copyright law, the RIAA takes action, and doesn't step outside of legal boundaries in the process, everything has happened the way it should, even if they sue a MS patient (as long as that patient was the one responsible for breaking the law).

One problem comes from how money influences opinions that form laws (lobbyism for example), and I don't see the current copyright laws serving the public interest.
Not to mention that America in it's turn pressures other countries to enforce similar copyright-laws.

The hardest part is to motivate citizens to take interest in their society and fight for their moral values. Everything that you do counts, even internet petitions. Breaking the law and stealing mp3s will too, but unless you believe that people should be allowed to break the law when they wish, you are sending the wrong message. The RIAA (and other organisations) might even fight back on the same terms (probably will too, in order to survive), but they have more money than you (and will probably crush you).
Organise yourself, take a stand, fight for what you believe in, don't merely opt for convenience. Luxury products like music should even be quite easy to boycot.

[Darth Mandarb]

The subject, though open to a lot of viewpoints, is not very confusing, Darth, and you're fast becoming incoherent.

My last post was intentionally "incoherant".  There are countless opinions on the subject.  Now matter how much one thinks his/her opinion is "correct" there are others who think something different.  That makes the situation confusing.  Though I have the solution to the confusion (which I stated a few posts back).

The internet's a big place, and it's given everyone an equal voice. This is what the RIAA can never beat - the fact that there's so damn many people trying to do the same things. What they need to do is work with the consumers, not against them.

In total agreement there.

[Nikolas]

I would imagine that the idea is this:

You bought a CD, which contains 10 tracks! You paied fees and royalties for 10 tracks! If at some point there appears an 11th track then BAM! it goes wrong! Don't know whos fault is it, and anyway, noone would ever go and make 10 mp3s and destroy then the CD...

Of course RIAA are totally morons by fighting this totally stupid war. Things are changing and there's no turning back. simple facts.

Still atm piracy is considered "stealing" (although I dont' agree with the term, still someone gets something that he should've paid for, but never did...). BTW, I watched a rented DVD today (Superman Returns, quite bad imho), and the piracy part was not skipable, but it could move fast forward, which made things easier... ? Also my sons Whinie the Pooh DVDs, don't have any piracy info and stuff...

In the end, Darth (who I repsect you, and I agree with all your points, as well as Rick! But Rick didn't show up saying, I rip mp3s but I'm certain it's not illegal!), what made me feel a little bad, is that you are after your own convinience and nothing else. While Rick (for example), seems to be doing some kind of "crysade" against the RIAA and informing people, you're simply after your easier life: While ripping the hell of mp3s (and why not? I don't entirely dissagree), you still buy DVDs (although they probably cause more pain than the CDs), for the simply reason that you wouldn't be able to enjoy them so much. This simply is breaking all the things (on which we agree on) you said earlier.

How come you're against RIAA, DRM and all that stuff, against the anti-piracy ads, teh high prices etc, adn still buy DVDs, but not CDs? Come on! Think about it! One needs to be a little more "coherent" to his options and "small rules" he sets up. Other wise you are basically canceling everything you said about the above stuff (RIAA and so on so fourth). Don't you agree?

I really hope I'm not insulting anyone with this post, it's of course not my intentions.

[Darth Mandarb]

In the end, Darth (who I repsect you, and I agree with all your points, as well as Rick! But Rick didn't show up saying, I rip mp3s but I'm certain it's not illegal!), what made me feel a little bad, is that you are after your own convinience and nothing else. While Rick (for example), seems to be doing some kind of "crysade" against the RIAA and informing people, you're simply after your easier life: While ripping the hell of mp3s (and why not? I don't entirely dissagree), you still buy DVDs (although they probably cause more pain than the CDs), for the simply reason that you wouldn't be able to enjoy them so much. This simply is breaking all the things (on which we agree on) you said earlier.

How come you're against RIAA, DRM and all that stuff, against the anti-piracy ads, teh high prices etc, adn still buy DVDs, but not CDs? Come on! Think about it! One needs to be a little more "coherent" to his options and "small rules" he sets up. Other wise you are basically canceling everything you said about the above stuff (RIAA and so on so fourth).

I don't understand why it's so hard to simply accept that I don't like the cost of CDs.

Nickelback is one of my favorite bands.  They are coming in concert down here in March and I already bought my tickets.  2 tickets for $122.84, bought and paid for.  I have every Nickelback song I can find on mp3.  I don't own a single one of their CDs.  I support them by buying concert tickets (and I'll get a shirt when I'm there).  If that isn't good enough for them ... they can cry about it at their mansion in the hills while lounging by the pool behind the garage with 15 luxury cars while their man-servent refills the apple-tini.

I REALLY don't like the cost of DVDs either (especially now that I'm buying HD-DVDs at 29-39 USD each).  But if I want to watch them, right now, just "digging out my wallet" is the most convenient way to do it.  I'd rather spend 20 dollars on a DVD than spend hours downloading, converting, burning, etc.  This isn't the case with mp3.  It takes me 1 minute to pull down a song and I can instantly listen to and enjoy it.  The music biz needs to pull their heads out of their greed corrupted fat-asses and get with the times. 

Adapt or go extinct.  Good riddance I say.

And before anybody says "but without the record companies you wouldn't have music ..." do you REALLY believe that?  Without greedy pigs running the show we'd actually see "the day the music died"? I don't think so.

[Helm]

Nickelback is one of my favorite bands.

sorry, this is off-topic, but OUCH

[ManicMatt]

See, I'm just trying to get you to understand it's not legal, it's not my opinion, it's FACT. I don't care what you do, but you keep trying to come up with excuses and justifying your actions.

Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, rental or digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings. (Title 17, United States Code, Sections 501 and 506). The FBI investigates allegations of criminal copyright infringement and violators will be prosecuted.

Here is a link to the FBI's page. See?

http://tampa.fbi.gov/investprograms/internetfraud/theftofintellectualproperty.htm

Can you refute THAT?

No you can't.

Remember, I'm not saying if I think it's right or wrong, I just can't believe you think it's totally legal to do so!

[Darth Mandarb]

Didn't comment on this in my last post:

While Rick (for example), seems to be doing some kind of "crysade" against the RIAA and informing people, you're simply after your easier life

I admire Rick's informed "crusade" against the RIAA.  The way I look at it is like this; I'm opposed to it, but this debate has been going on for years and isn't going to stop anytime soon.

Show me a petition I agree with and I'll sign it

Ask me my opinion on the matter (this thread) and I'll give it.

Devote a lot of my time and energy to fight against something that can't possibly win in the first place?  Nah.

If that's "simply after my easier life" than sure, I guess I'll agree with that.

Here is a link to the FBI's page. See?

http://tampa.fbi.gov/investprograms/internetfraud/theftofintellectualproperty.htm

Can you refute THAT?

No you can't.

Thank you Matt.  That is what I was looking for.  Though it seems more like it was written by a kid than an actual law-maker.  If that is legit, than I'll admit to "theft".  I won't stop doing it, but I'll admit to it.

Nickelback is one of my favorite bands.

sorry, this is off-topic, but OUCH

Why "OUCH"?  Because you don't like Nickelback?  Well ... they must suck then.  I'm sure their millions of fans who keep them at the top of the billboard charts and selling out concerts world wide would agree.

[MrColossal]

So if it was easier to download DVDs for free and display them on your TV you would do that too?

What about computer programs? Those you download, install and use right on the computer you downloaded them on, no burning required.

Also, the cost of setting up your house to allow you put a movie on a removable storage device and display it on the TV is probably much less than that of buying DVDs for the rest of your life.

You don't like the prices of things so you take them unless it's not convenient? This is my take away from this thread.

[ManicMatt]

Thank you Matt.  That is what I was looking for.  Though it seems more like it was written by a kid than an actual law-maker.  If that is legit, than I'll admit to "theft".  I won't stop doing it, but I'll admit to it.

Finally! 

If you delete the rest of the url it goes here, which surely would be legit? I actually started off from looking in the overall FBI website, and did a search.

http://tampa.fbi.gov/

Why "OUCH"?  Because you don't like Nickelback?  Well ... they must suck then.  I'm sure their millions of fans who keep them at the top of the billboard charts and selling out concerts world wide would agree.

Bad argument dude, because the same could be said for Westlife, Backstreet boys, or whatever talentless pap you can think of. My point being, an argument that suggests something is good because loads of people like it doesn't mean it's good! However Helm is just being a big meany! Nickelback are okay, but I am not into them.

[voh]

MP3s may be protected by copyright, but Dutch copyright law contains several provisions that limit the rights of the copyright holder. Dutch copyright law for example states in article 16b that it is allowed to make a few copies of a copyrighted work, if those copies are only used for private practice, study or use. This is called a "home copy". Under Dutch law it is permitted to convert your CD collection to MP3, and to play those MP3's at work, as long as they are not played back publicly so all your colleagues can hear them.

The same applies for rented or borrowed CDs, because the law does not require that you must be the legal owner of a work in order to be allowed to make a home copy. By analogy this also applies for music in other formats, such as MP3's as found on the Internet. According to Dutch law it is therefore legal to copy a rented or borrowed CD, or to download music from the Internet for one's private use.

Such a home copy may not be distributed any further, because it may only be used for private practice, study or use. Downloaded music may thus not be put on the Internet or be transmitted to anyone else.

I love my countryÃ, 

[Darth Mandarb]

So if it was easier to download DVDs for free and display them on your TV you would do that too?

What about computer programs? Those you download, install and use right on the computer you downloaded them on, no burning required.

Also, the cost of setting up your house to allow you put a movie on a removable storage device and display it on the TV is probably much less than that of buying DVDs for the rest of your life.

You don't like the prices of things so you take them unless it's not convenient? This is my take away from this thread.

I've run my own company for several years now.  I'm developing "something" (sorry, under wraps can't talk about it) that I intend on selling.  I know full well what the value of that product is, what it costs to produce, manufacture, and distribute.  I know how much I need to charge to make a profit and still serve my customers fairly.  I'm not going to mark it up 200% just so I can be filthy rich.  I could do so, but I'm not going to.

That is what I'm opposed to.  I'm opposed to the general public being so brainwashed that they fork over ridiculous amounts of money on over priced products and never question it ... just mindlessly "going with the flow" and continually getting screwed over.

Bad argument dude, because the same could be said for Westlife, Backstreet boys, or whatever talentless pap you can think of. My point being, an argument that suggests something is good because loads of people like it doesn't mean it's good! However Helm is just being a big meany! Nickelback are okay, but I am not into them.

Just because millions think something is good doesn't mean it is.  Just as one person thinking something is "OUCH" doesn't mean it is.  It was just his opinion, which is fine, but it didn't really need to be said.

Edit - I'm getting wierd looks at work here ... so I might not respond for a bit as I need to actually accomplish some work!  I'm enjoying this debate though, and will return later!