TheAgitator.com
RIAA Gets Creamed
Monday, October 28th, 2002Hillary Rosen walked into the Oxford Union to defend the music industry’s attacks on P2P filesharing.
She then had her ass handed to her.
17 Responses to “RIAA Gets Creamed”
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
The biggest difficulty for Hillary Rosen is that she is forced to attack a position that is wrong…. from a position that is also wrong.
I still can’t believe how many people think on-line “sharing” of music is OK.
Theft is simply theft, no matter how many people are doing it or how simple it is to do. The arguments supporting music file sharing (stealing) all ring hollow:
1. People sample, then buy the music.
I know too many people who have downloaded entire hard drives worth of music, burn them to CD, and never actually buy any of it. So please, don’t tell me that crap anymore. Even if it is true across the population, it is akin to someone stealing a CD from the local record store, listening to it, and returning to pay for it later.
2. The music industry has been screwing people for years, so this just helps balance it back out.
Come on, the old saying “two wrongs don’t make a right” ring a bell with anyone? If you think prices are too high, don’t buy anything. I guarantee that prices will start to come down.
3. The bands already have more than enough money.
Yes, I have actually heard (and read) this argument several times.
So now it’s OK to steal from the rich, especially items that are not necessities? Yes, the Federal Government has been doing it for years, but that isn’t right either.
This is a clear case of moral relativism, everybody. Because many people think it is OK, then it must be.
I don’t care if EVERYONE thinks that this type of theft is alright, it is still wrong.
I agree with both comments above.
It is stealing to download cd-quality tracks without paying for them.
But what about tracks that you download that either (1) you would NEVER go buy at a store, or (2) you could not buy them even if you wanted to.
As to number 1, I have the song “Pac-Man Fever” on my computer. I also have a song by this rap-guy called Cam’Ron. If I didn’t download those songs, I wouldn’t go buy them. I just wouldn’t have them to listen to. So the RIAA loses nothing from me downloading them. You could still say it is not morally right to take them, but when you consider there is no damage suffered by the industry or the artists, I don’t have a problem with downloading the songs.
As to number 2, I think a blogger that we all read (but who shall remain transparently nameless) downloaded a Travelling Wilburys CD that was out of print and hard to find. So the RIAA stands to lose nothing with people downloading it. When that CD is downloaded, it is people downloading because that is the only way they get the songs. The same is true of live/bootleg/rare tracks. When you can’t get them any other way, how is it stealing to download them?
Also, there is an argument that downloading music actually helps artists even if it hurts the RIAA. People get exposure to bands they otherwise wouldn’t know, then go out to concerts (I don’t think you can download tickets to shows yet - they still cost money) to see them play. Because touring is where bands make the majority of their money, downloading music and expanding the concertgoing crowd helps them.
Roger, there are some problems with your statments.
1) You are combatting his unproven assertion with one of your own. So for all intents and purposes, until there is hard data, no one can assert either way whether downloaders buy more or less music. You certainly can not assert that the people you know would actually go out and buy the cds that they now are downloading for free.
2) The music industry has not shown a willingness to lower their prices over the past couple of years even though we have been in a recession and they’ve been competing with the free downloading. In fact, they’ve even been seen to perform a little price fixing (http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=entertainmentnews&StoryID=1515099).
So if we all stopped buying cds, guess what the likely reaction would be? And guess who would be blamed? Not the people protesting with their wallets as you would assert, instead it would the file downloaders getting blamed and being used as a scapegoat for more federal regulation.
3) I agree, it’s not ok to steal just because people are rich, although the dramatic appeals by the entertainment industry about how they are going to be starving in the streets soon aren’t likely to garner much sympathy.
This debate really isn’t a matter of whether theft is ok or not ok. It’s a matter of whether copyright gives an industry the right to dictate how a citizen uses the items that they have legally purchased and whether it is right for the government to reinforce that industry’s invasion on your rights to use your own property. This debate also centers around whether a technology with legitimate, legal uses can be outlawed because of it’s illegal uses. The entertainment industry and many in congress assert that not only can the use of your own property be dictated by industry and government, but also that they will outlaw any tool that may subvert their ability to maintain their control on the use and dissemination of the industry’s products.
Theft may be bad, but the reduction in property rights and the restrictions on technological innovation are more worrisome in the long run.
If file sharing hurts any particular industry then the solution is for the industry to develop new technology to prevent file sharing, not to lobby for more reactive freedom-limiting legislation. Maybe the RIAA needs to take the money they are spending on people attempting to influence superfluous legislation and pay someone to prevent their recording media from file sharing. I have no idea how that could be done, but necessity is the mother of invention. I trust the ‘invisible hand’ will guide us where we need to be and I see no need for any stumbling gov’t bureaucracy stifling the creative process. I personally would love to hold the patent on file share preventive recording technology. Why anyone would think for a second that legislation would make any positive difference to this situation? Whoever made that RIAA strategic decision should be fired.
-Tom
I’d would like to say that downloading is fine. Sure it’s stealing but music has been free forever. From copying tapes off the radio our even copying a vhs. Stuff like that has always been free. Were not wanting to “steal from the rich” we just do. Bands don’t make much money off of cd sales anyway. record lables take 90% or more off the sales. Uh boohoo if britney spears makes 100mil instead of 101mil i’m sure we’ll all be crying. This is a battle of record company’s trying to stay in bussnies. If nobody wants us to download then stop selling blank cds. People say that there just going to copy a cd a freind has well that’s stealing to! Downloading is fine stop fussing and join the fun!
I really don’t understand how come the issue is getting confused here.
it is not a matter of stealing, as so plainly put. there is an issue of the music industry overcharging for a product. piracy is not the cause, it’s the consequence.
as long as the industry refuses to lower their prices (and we all know they can, and still make tons of money) piracy will abound. and guess what?, when i was a kid, there was a similar argument used to the detraction of vcr’s and how they would put the movie bussines out on the street, here we are 20 years later, open your eyes, protest this, how come when divd’s came out they weighed in at a hefty 30 dlls a piece, now you can find them for 20 or 10 or 7, explain to me why beatles albums are still 17.99 for a single album.
My name is EdGuven McSchtouvisch i am a foreign exchange student for RUSSIA your website sucks. I didnt learn anything from it. you let me down on my class project.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree with EdGuven
Craig sucks
so does SALVADOR AND BRIAN JI
so does SALVADOR AND BRIAN JI
Craig Czuprynski is stupid and likes Alex Trevino
Hey, whats with this site getting spammed every 10 seconds??? Please, stop it so I and others can continue working.
Aint no mountain high aint no valley low aint no river wide enough baby
if u someone call brian or salvy baby
jonny