As of
last week, about 1,600 Americans have been trapped in the labyrinth
of the U.S. legal system by a body that, though it has no public
accountability, has established itself as a quasi-governmental authority.
Torn away from their lives, they face massive fines, court costs,
and even imprisonment. Were these people terrorists? Pedophiles?
Hapless under-employed twenty-somethings who had defaulted on their
student loans? Nope: They were ordinary computer users charged by
the Recording Industry of America with violating the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act.
While
it was originally
instituted in 1998 as part of the hardly publicly-minded World Trade
Organization's mandates for member countries, the DMCA
is one step closer to actually handing the country over to corporate
rule. (Lest we forget, the government is currently the sole property
of Halliburton.)
For instance, the Act gives the recording industry, which is a trade
group and not something that anyone actually voted on, essentially
Gestapo-like powers. Rather than the subpoena being given by an
actual judge, it can be issued by the clerk of a United States District
Court upon reasonable suspicion that you're hooked up to a peer-to-peer
network such as WinMX or KaZaA. Bamyour ISP has to provide
all your information, including your name, address, telephone number,
shoe size, and whether or not you wank to the girls jumping on trampolines
during the "Man Show" credits. And, if they find any music
files after they confiscate your hard drive, you'll most likely
be their indentured servant for the rest of your natural life, with
a large chunk of your wages garnished to pay off the "damages."
For a trade group to wield that kind of influence is ridiculous.
Hell, Ralph Nader wishes he had that kind of pull.
Moreover,
the entire argument that the recording industry uses to defend its
actionsthat it protects artists' rightsis patently ridiculous.
Music today is an industry; songs and "artists" are manufactured
the way Andy Warhol manufactured silkscreens and the Velvet Underground.
To suggest that Creed or Avril Lavigne or Justin Timberlake or some
other assembly-line device for branding sound is having the fruits
of their labors ripped off by file-swapping script kiddies is like
suggesting that Milli Vanilli is getting ripped off every time someone
fires up a karaoke machine. Through the magic of marketing, the
recording industry has made something otherwise worthless into a
precious commodity, restricted public access to it by making the
prices ridiculously high (have you seen what they're charging
for CDs these days?!), and then screaming bloody murder
when a black market develops.
What
the RIAA is really afraid of is that file sharing is destroying
this little racket they've got going. Historically, the recording
industry got huge at the same time that people moved from the shoulder-to-shoulder
crowding cities to the bland anonymity of the suburbslimiting
their access to live music venues and other sources of authentic
culture, but opening the door for the culture-manufacturing industry
to step in and provide us with an amazing simulation thereof, just
the same way that Wonder Bread and Spam are amazing simulations
of actual food. What the Internet has done is digitally reconnect
us into communities, short-circuiting the means of marketing, manufacture,
and distribution that the powers that be have invested so much in.
The RIAA,
a dinosaur if there ever was one, knows it's fighting a losing battle
against the forces of evolution. Sure, CD sales have declined, but
when you consider the lawyers' fees and work hours necessary to
indict, convict, and fine even a tiny portion of the people who
are swapping files, they're just throwing good money after bad.
Like the vicious dog in your neighbor's fenced-in yard, the RIAA
is dangerous, but sufficiently remote not to be worrisome to the
vast majority of people. And they know it: Take, for example, their
recent motions towards persuading
Congress that P2P networks are a one-stop source for computer viruses
and kiddie porn. Next thing they'll do is require you
to pay royalties if you get a song stuck in your head or you sing
"Happy Birthday" at someone's party. (Someone actually
owns the rights to "Happy Birthday," you know.)
What's
even more wrong is for a private entity to hijack the courts and
ruin the lives of a small portion of the people who are threatening
its imagined hegemony. The way to stop it is by the power of the
purse. I, for one, will
not buy another freaking CD put out by a major label
until the charges against every one of the people indicted under
the DCMA are dropped. Maybe then they'll finally shut the fuck up
and die.
(Incidentally,
I, personally, don't use peer-to-peer networks, simply because what's
out there is crap. Do a search for some of the people who've authored
half the mp3s on my hard drive"Lourds"
or "Every
13 Days" or "Trogdor
the Burninator"on any p2p, and you're going
to get zilch. People made music for millennia before Thomas Edison
ever made a wax cylinder, and the survivors huddled in the ruins
of our current civilization will continue doing it, at least until
the toxic zombies eat their brains. And if I ever meet Lou Reed
or Jello Biafra, I'll be sure to slip them a twenty for whatever
transgressions the Internet community at large has committed.)
Disco
sucks. Write to editor@corporatemofo.com
Posted
September 7, 2003 1:38 AM
I just read your RIAA boycott letter, and don't quite understand the logic of a consumer boycott in this case:
1. A person buys a CD.
2. Said person puts the songs of the CD on their server and shares it with the community.
3. Songs from the CD are now available to anyone with a computer and internet connection.
4. Availability of songs now aplenty, other persons don't visit their local music stores to buy said CD.
5. CD sales and residual income to the creators of the CD plummet.
(last figure I heard on the corporate radio station said somewhere around 26% from last year). Music stores aren't doing as well.
6. Producers must increase cost of CDs to recoup losses (same as
software industry)
7. RIAA comes in to enforce copyright rules (granted, through
questionable tactics that will take YEARS to figure out...).
8. Consumers come in and stop buying CDs, instead electing to
continue sharing to find their favorite songs...
The boycott suggestion continues the fall down the slippery slope, and does nothing to address the issue of copyright violation. The musicians are not to blame for Loss of revenue due to file sharing. If anything, blame the lawyers for executing impulsive and poorly thought-out tactics (filing a docket for Boston in a Washington court!?!?!?) in an effort to create an artificial deterrent to a serious problem. How bout boycotting speeding tickets or John Grisham novels...
The music (and I mean MUSIC - not SONGS like happy birthday or Trogdor (although I love that song) - music mixed, produced, and created with talented musicians, that cannot be reproduced by any old hack out there) is intellectual property, and deserves to be treated as such. The real argument the musicians need to discuss is the issue of live performances vs. studio performances. If the CD sales continue to drop due to file sharing, then the only place the musicians will have to recoup is in the live performances, resulting in exorbitant ticket prices, overpriced peripherals and merchandise, and outlandish food prices. (Bonnaroo, are you listening?)
Boycotting CDs sends the wrong message to the wrong people at the wrong time.
Posted
by: Dennis Whittaker
at October 4, 2008 4:13 PM
Is it illegal to possess mp3s of CDs you own? If I have Pretty Hate Machine in my closet that hasnt seen daylight in 4 years, but I have all the songs in mp3 format that I listen to on a daily basis... is that illegal? I don't see why it would be.
So, hypothetically speaking... if you get busted for downloading some mp3s, how do they (RIAA) know you dont own those cds? And if you get a subpoena that you are getting sued, what keeps you from going out and purchasing the cds, and then you are not illegally owning mp3s of that particular artist?
Posted
by: G
at October 4, 2008 4:14 PM
The wife and I have over two thousand albums on vinyl. I wrote the RIAA to see if it was OK to download the digital versions of the songs that I already owned on another format. This falls very close to the "time shifting" that our congress already allows. But I was informed that I would need to purchase all the albums AGAIN to change formats.
Bullshit, pardon my French
Tired of RIAA and DMCA,
Mike
Posted
by: Mike
at October 4, 2008 4:15 PM
While I enjoyed Ken's article, and agree with his arguments for boycotting the RIAA, I think he has missed a crucial element in the demise of the music industry as we know it. Ken sites the high prices of CDs and low quality of music as the reason for the development of a black market, which are both valid arguments. But he doesn't even mention the ties between the major labels in the RIAA, and the corporate radio stations (not to mention concert promoters) that are all but impossible to avoid in any but the largest markets.
The issue here is that for much of America P2P networks are the only access to any music other than the mass produced top 40. Ken mentions that he can't find music by "Lourds" on a P2P network, but has he tried to find a "Fergie" cd at the local Wal Mart (or even at a local music store). In their greed, the music industry, from recording, to distributing, to promoting, has thrown all their resources into a few "artists" in order to create big stars and big money in the hands of a few, through the brainwashing of the listening audience. There is more at stake here than the high price and the low quality of CDs.
While George Bush is out spending our tax dollars on "defending our freedoms", corporate America is busy spending our money eliminating our choices so that when it is all said and done, we will only be left with the freedom (but not the money) to choose between Ford and Chevy, Britney and Christina.
Posted
by: Elliott Hansen
at October 4, 2008 4:16 PM
Hey,
I got two comments about your RIAA article.
1. I've never downloaded music, but I don't pay a lot for my music. The pawnshop around the corner from my house is all the record store I ever need. I guarantee, all the latest pop will be available within a couple of months. You can always count on some teenage pothead culling his CD collection periodically for drug money.
And it's really great for a classic rock lover like me. I'd rather pay $5 for some Grateful Dead or Allman Brothers CD than the going $15 to $20 or more in the chain record stores.
I get my DVDs there, too.
2. You're absolutely right, disco does indeed suck. It sucks brontosaurus, blue whale and wookie all at the same time.
Posted
by: Sean from Florida
at October 4, 2008 4:18 PM
|
|