If This Isn't Corporate Greed, What Is?
I know this may get me in a ton of trouble, and really I don't have the money these days to pay for a good lawyer, but I have to admit that I am currently doing something which might land me in a court of law sometime soon.
I am listening to music on my computer.
No, not downloading illegally, not sharing music illegally, just listening to a Lenny Kravitz song right now, one that I ripped off his "Greatest Hits" CD a couple years and two computers ago. However, the RIAA has officially set a dangerous precedent in their unending attempt to extort money out of music fans... they are now suing people WHO BOUGHT THE MUSIC LEGALLY.
Normally I don't jump on the "corporations are evil" bandwagon, but for several years now, I've been railing against those who feel that the millions of dollars they make in the music business just isn't enough. I trashed Metallica when they went after Napster. I've long been against the Recording Industry Association of America (motto: suing college kids and grandmothers for everything they have since 2001) and their practice of filing lawsuits against people who download music. I've always felt that there are better ways of fixing the problem of the record labels losing money, things like, I dunno, PUTTING OUT BETTER MUSIC! Now to be fair, they have lowered their prices, with the help of chains like Target, Wal-Mart, and Best Buy, and they have begrudgingly allowed iTunes to flourish because they at least get money through that system. Myself, I am a reformed downloader, meaning I used to use Napster and Morpheus and all those file-sharing sites to download songs, but once I realized that it was probably safer to spend a little now than a lot later on lawyers, I stopped. Now I pay the 99 cents per download for iTunes, I download songs for free when they're made available by places like Fuse (legally), and of course, I still buy CDs. So I figured I was safe.
Apparently, now none of us are. Last week, the Washington Post reported that a man in Arizona has been sued by the RIAA for ripping songs off of CDs he purchased onto his computer. The RIAA is actually claiming that it is ILLEGAL to rip songs onto your computer!
This is the last firewall we have, folks. Existing copyright law says that if you buy a CD, you own the tracks on that CD, and can do with it what you like. Listen to it, rip it to your computer or iPod, use it as a target for skeet shooting, whatever, it's all legal; it's what is known as "fair use". Legal experts and courts have agreed that if you buy a CD, you can rip it to your computer and listen to it AS LONG AS YOU DON'T GIVE IT TO ANYONE ELSE. However, the RIAA disagrees with this and they maintain that since the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 does not explicitly mention computers as a means of recording music, it's illegal. Of course, it would invite all kinds of bad publicity if the RIAA sued Microsoft, Apple, and every other maker of CD ripping technology for giving people the means with which to rip songs off of CDs. So naturally, they go after individuals, hoping that once faced with a RIAA "pay up or else" letter, they will quietly fork over the money and you'll never hear about it.
This of course tells us what needs to be done: we need to SPEAK UP! We need people to say, as this man in Scottsdale has, that we're not going to take this. We're not going to allow ourselves to be bullied by an industry that makes billions of dollars, and we're going to fight back. I hope this guy takes the RIAA all the way to the Supreme Court if need be. Then, I hope he countersues the RIAA for all that he's had to go through. I would say a perfect amount would be... every penny the RIAA has collected from all the college kids they've sued these last few years. You see, according to a recent article from our very own Sub-Standard, errr, Post-Standard here in Syracuse, the RIAA's lawsuit system has become self-sustaining. They send letters to college kids telling them to pay or else, the kids pay, and the money goes to send more letters. Well, if this guy in Arizona (or anyone else who fights back) finds a way to get that money shelled out for "mental anguish, pain and suffering", then that takes away the incentive to keep sending those letters. That's just how it is with lawyers; take away the incentive to sue ($$$$) and they'll stop suing, at least in this case anyway.
If the RIAA wins and sets the precedent, then what's to stop them from suing ALL OF US? They see no connection between this practice and falling CD sales; they prefer to think that they're suing because of the falling CD sales when in reality, these lawsuits are as much to blame as anything. You know what the stupidest part of all this is? The RECORD COMPANIES THEMSELVES helped to create this mess by creating technology that lets a person rip a CD to their computer but then blocks it from playing if it gets shared illegally. Now of course, this didn't really work all that well, but you conceivably have a situation where someone bought, say, Velvet Revolver's "Contraband" CD, which has this technology, used it to rip some tracks for use on his computer only, and then he could get sued by the very industry that created the technology FOR USING IT! Oh by the way, the person in question here is ME. Because I HAVE that CD and I USED THE TECHNOLOGY TO RIP IT!
My biggest question with all of this is: where are the usual anti-corporate players in this? Where is the ACLU? Where is John Edwards, Mr. "I'm Running For President to Stop Corporate Greed"? I would ask where are the Hollywood liberals, but they're the very artists that the industry is trying to "protect", so you have to wonder where their loyalty is in this. If you're all so concerned about what corporate greed is doing to the youth of America, you had better take a look at this, because more and more young people are reacting to what is going on by buying FEWER CDs and obtaining MORE music illegally. It's your choice; tell the recording industry to move into the 21st century, pass laws to force them to do it, or watch the whole thing go belly-up as all of our money ends up in the hands of lawyers.
As for me, I think I'm going to now listen to an "illegal" Modest Mouse song...
I am listening to music on my computer.
No, not downloading illegally, not sharing music illegally, just listening to a Lenny Kravitz song right now, one that I ripped off his "Greatest Hits" CD a couple years and two computers ago. However, the RIAA has officially set a dangerous precedent in their unending attempt to extort money out of music fans... they are now suing people WHO BOUGHT THE MUSIC LEGALLY.
Normally I don't jump on the "corporations are evil" bandwagon, but for several years now, I've been railing against those who feel that the millions of dollars they make in the music business just isn't enough. I trashed Metallica when they went after Napster. I've long been against the Recording Industry Association of America (motto: suing college kids and grandmothers for everything they have since 2001) and their practice of filing lawsuits against people who download music. I've always felt that there are better ways of fixing the problem of the record labels losing money, things like, I dunno, PUTTING OUT BETTER MUSIC! Now to be fair, they have lowered their prices, with the help of chains like Target, Wal-Mart, and Best Buy, and they have begrudgingly allowed iTunes to flourish because they at least get money through that system. Myself, I am a reformed downloader, meaning I used to use Napster and Morpheus and all those file-sharing sites to download songs, but once I realized that it was probably safer to spend a little now than a lot later on lawyers, I stopped. Now I pay the 99 cents per download for iTunes, I download songs for free when they're made available by places like Fuse (legally), and of course, I still buy CDs. So I figured I was safe.
Apparently, now none of us are. Last week, the Washington Post reported that a man in Arizona has been sued by the RIAA for ripping songs off of CDs he purchased onto his computer. The RIAA is actually claiming that it is ILLEGAL to rip songs onto your computer!
This is the last firewall we have, folks. Existing copyright law says that if you buy a CD, you own the tracks on that CD, and can do with it what you like. Listen to it, rip it to your computer or iPod, use it as a target for skeet shooting, whatever, it's all legal; it's what is known as "fair use". Legal experts and courts have agreed that if you buy a CD, you can rip it to your computer and listen to it AS LONG AS YOU DON'T GIVE IT TO ANYONE ELSE. However, the RIAA disagrees with this and they maintain that since the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 does not explicitly mention computers as a means of recording music, it's illegal. Of course, it would invite all kinds of bad publicity if the RIAA sued Microsoft, Apple, and every other maker of CD ripping technology for giving people the means with which to rip songs off of CDs. So naturally, they go after individuals, hoping that once faced with a RIAA "pay up or else" letter, they will quietly fork over the money and you'll never hear about it.
This of course tells us what needs to be done: we need to SPEAK UP! We need people to say, as this man in Scottsdale has, that we're not going to take this. We're not going to allow ourselves to be bullied by an industry that makes billions of dollars, and we're going to fight back. I hope this guy takes the RIAA all the way to the Supreme Court if need be. Then, I hope he countersues the RIAA for all that he's had to go through. I would say a perfect amount would be... every penny the RIAA has collected from all the college kids they've sued these last few years. You see, according to a recent article from our very own Sub-Standard, errr, Post-Standard here in Syracuse, the RIAA's lawsuit system has become self-sustaining. They send letters to college kids telling them to pay or else, the kids pay, and the money goes to send more letters. Well, if this guy in Arizona (or anyone else who fights back) finds a way to get that money shelled out for "mental anguish, pain and suffering", then that takes away the incentive to keep sending those letters. That's just how it is with lawyers; take away the incentive to sue ($$$$) and they'll stop suing, at least in this case anyway.
If the RIAA wins and sets the precedent, then what's to stop them from suing ALL OF US? They see no connection between this practice and falling CD sales; they prefer to think that they're suing because of the falling CD sales when in reality, these lawsuits are as much to blame as anything. You know what the stupidest part of all this is? The RECORD COMPANIES THEMSELVES helped to create this mess by creating technology that lets a person rip a CD to their computer but then blocks it from playing if it gets shared illegally. Now of course, this didn't really work all that well, but you conceivably have a situation where someone bought, say, Velvet Revolver's "Contraband" CD, which has this technology, used it to rip some tracks for use on his computer only, and then he could get sued by the very industry that created the technology FOR USING IT! Oh by the way, the person in question here is ME. Because I HAVE that CD and I USED THE TECHNOLOGY TO RIP IT!
My biggest question with all of this is: where are the usual anti-corporate players in this? Where is the ACLU? Where is John Edwards, Mr. "I'm Running For President to Stop Corporate Greed"? I would ask where are the Hollywood liberals, but they're the very artists that the industry is trying to "protect", so you have to wonder where their loyalty is in this. If you're all so concerned about what corporate greed is doing to the youth of America, you had better take a look at this, because more and more young people are reacting to what is going on by buying FEWER CDs and obtaining MORE music illegally. It's your choice; tell the recording industry to move into the 21st century, pass laws to force them to do it, or watch the whole thing go belly-up as all of our money ends up in the hands of lawyers.
As for me, I think I'm going to now listen to an "illegal" Modest Mouse song...
posted by Dave | 12:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home