Five Years Into Suing Fans, RIAA's 'Sue Everyone' Strategy Has Failed, Miserably
from the and-yet-it-continues dept
The EFF has a long and comprehensive look into the RIAA's five year (and running) legal campaign against file sharing. It's a great overview that not only brings you up to speed if you haven't been following the whole thing, but also puts the entire campaign in perspective. The summary? Almost every move the RIAA has made in its legal campaign has backfired.It started with suing technology providers. All that did was make more people aware of file sharing. When it succeeded in getting Napster shut down, plenty of others showed up that were much more difficult to shut down. So, then, the RIAA shifted to suing individuals accused of unauthorized sharing, claiming that it was an "education campaign" to teach people that unauthorized file sharing was illegal. All that's done is turn many more people against the RIAA, while continuing to educate them that file sharing exists. In fact, many more people engage in file sharing now than five years ago when the campaign started.
So, effectively, the lawsuits haven't worked (the RIAA has not had a full trial turn out in its favor yet). It's turned public opinion massively against the RIAA and its associated record labels. It hasn't done anything to slow down unauthorized file sharing, and may have actually helped promote it. About the only "success" of the strategy is that it's turned into something of a cash generator for the RIAA, by frightening people, with strong legal language around flimsy evidence, into paying "presettlements" to avoid being sued. It's like a protection racket from organized crime. Oh yeah, it's worth noting that the musicians don't actually see any of that money.
So, by now it should be clear that this strategy has absolutely nothing to do with helping the music industry thrive or to actually deal with unauthorized file sharing. From the beginning it's always been a way to squeeze more money out of people through threats and intimidation. While I strongly disagree with the EFF's proposed "solution" to this issue (a compulsory licensing scheme), the review of the history certainly puts the whole campaign in perspective, and makes you wonder why anyone (especially any politician) actually thinks it's about helping musicians.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, strategy
Companies: eff, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One word answer GREED!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the artists
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Check out Celtic Thunder's YouTube features (Billboard Magazine lists them as the NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO group on their Top World Albums charts). Also Hayley Westenra, who has had three of her CDs top the world charts.
Their labels and management are aware that it is better to use downloads and YouTube to PROMOTE and make their money off selling MILLIONS of CDs and DVDs and DOWNLOADS by allowing FREE VIEWING and SAMPLING.
This is the business model for the future. RCIA take note.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why?
Why?
I'll tell you why.
Because the RIAA pays politicians to think it is, or at least to claim that they think it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Strategy Is Working
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Makes me feel like a new-age Robin Hood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Strategy Is Working
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
except no one will be waiting there to take advantage
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zombies
~~ Brains ~~
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
Not that any of you care, but the reason our nation is slipping toward a Socialist slave-state is because people like you fail to respect the property rights of others, if you ever take the time to understand the life and death importance of those rights in the first place.
Grow up, be responsible, stop stealing from other people, pay your way in life, or your life is going to suck more and more as time goes by, I absolutely guarantee it. That is the way reality works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
So how exactly are we hurting the artist?
Call us thieves if you want, but we are really people who refuse to step in line and shell out hard earned money to a company who rips off talent from other people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
You need to learn what property right is and what it is not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Satire ?
Surely, this is satire.
You can't be serious.
No ?
Just what are you smoking ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CD sales
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: CD sales
Well that is undeniable proof.
Certainly it could not have anything to do with the crap content. No way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
That's being said, monopolies can't justified even on only theoretical consequential reasoning. It must be justified on deonotological moral reason as well. I failed to see any justification in any form based on economic evidence or could be equal to natural rights.
Now, even if copying isn't wrong, I still wouldn't recommend that somebody should copy musics for the sake of protesting the RIAA. That give your adversaries moral ammunitions which they can use to oppress you. The best way to protect one's property rights is to support somebody who respect your right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
First of all, filesharers never really stole anything. Secondly, They probably gotten it from somebody who brought the musics in the first place. So after the point that somebody brought musics, it should be none of the RIAA's business. Profit loss is only potential. No loss were actually incurred.
Shoplifters actually stole something from the store. So the store have nothing to sell and they lost actual money. Profit loss is real.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
You who copy/download music without paying for it are thieves,
Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. Theft is theft. One is not the other.
That's not delusion, fallacy, rationalization, excuse, or justification. That is the nature of the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
"Theft" is a legal term, the scope of which is defined in statutes by legislative bodies, and not by internet blogs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Those things will suck you for $2 a song if you are not careful....
They are making their $$, in little tiny ways everyday....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whether or not if it is a moral action is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
Really? the following sites would like to disagree:
amiestreet.com
we7.com
7digital.com / emusic.com (free downloads sections)
archive.org
music.download.com
indiefeed.com
residentadvisor.net/podcast.aspx
creativ ecommons.org/audio
KEXP & KCRW free music podcasts
nin.com
...and so on.
YOU, along with the mainstream music industry, are the fool for not realising that there is a great deal of profit to be made by not merely selling the recording. Failure to see this means you're just an idiot, blinded by how things used to work and not how they're changing (as they always will change).
"our nation is slipping toward a Socialist slave-state "
Oh...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
"Theft" is a legal term,
That's kinda what I was getting at. Be a good little fellow debater and go read what I wrote. I'll wait...
the scope of which is defined in statutes by legislative bodies, and not by internet blogs.
Which is why I keep pointing out that no matter how many times you wander through comments saying things about "stealing music" or "downloaders are thieves", it just ain't so. Copyright infringement and theft are separate legal concepts.
But I suppose "downloaders are infringers!" just doesn't have the right ring of indignation to it, hmm? Aw, heck, silly me, who am I to get between you and a misinformed diatribe?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No, it need not be tangible, but it does need to be unique and taken such that the "thief" has it and "you" no longer do, except in certain narrowly defined situations (i.e., "Identity Theft") (which even is more properly a form of fraud than theft).
Nowhere in the US does the concept of "theft" usurp the concept of "copyright infringement".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In a very general sense these can operate in tandem. Under federal law copyright infringement can be broken down into "infringement" as a civil matter and "infringement" as a criminal matter.
Under state law (50+territories+commonwealths+protectorates) what could otherwise be viewed as federal infringement (civil or criminal) can be criminalized to varying degrees under state criminal law. In at least two states that quickly come to mind theft has been defined to include unauthorized copying of digital files (Florida and California).
Importantly, theft as typically used here by those who decry file sharing is being used in a colloquial sense, much like a student who "steals" the answers to a test.
The parsing of words does nothing to promote meaningful discussion. What is important is that the unlawful sharing of files can be subject to both a civil lawsuit and/or a criminal prosecution. Call the act whatever you want. The simple fact, however, is that the act contravenes federal and/or state law, and that such an act can have serious negative repercussions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Importantly, theft as typically used here by those who decry file sharing is being used in a colloquial sense, much like a student who "steals" the answers to a test.
But these same people then make the colloquial jump to "if 'stealing' music is ok then why not 'steal' a car?"
To effectively argue why this is NOT a fair analogy one must use PRECISE and CORRECT language. I understand the colloquial use, but letting it go invites the conversation to wander into the weeds where it does nobody any good. The parsing of words, in this case, is ESSENTIAL to promoting meaningful discussion. Without this parse, meaningful discussion gives way to useless noise.
and that such an act can have serious negative repercussions.
Indeed, and there's the topic. Should it? I understand what the law says. I question if it should be so.
Generally speaking, in most cases in history where large swaths of society basically ignore a law as written, we have come to decide (later with the benefit of hindsight) that the law was ill-conceive, unjust, or otherwise undesirable.
We have spent the past hundred years recklessly expanding the realm and timeframes of patent and copyright protection, to the detriment of the needs of the public such protections are meant to serve. Works that should have fallen into the public domain by now, as copyright was originally written, will likely not fall into the public domain until after I'm dead. Orphaned works are, legally speaking, lost to us. yadda yadda yadda.
What you are seeing is the public pushing back. That pain you feel, that is equilibrium reasserting itself. Don't worry. We'll all be better off for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Re patent law, it has not changed in any large repect other than through various judicial decisions comporting with Supreme Court decisions. The language of the statutes are not significantly different since patent law was codified in 1952. What has changed is judicial interpretation, and in its last two terms the Supreme Court has made some structual changes to "tweak" the system.
Re copyright law, it has changed significantly, starting with the Copyright Act of 1976 and continuing to date. Interestingly, only copyright law incorporates criminal provisions (patent law does not), but it is useful to note that criminal sanctions have been a part of copyright law since its inception in 1790. Personally, I believe the copyright regime was much more true to its historical antecedents until the 1976 Act, at which time it flew off into the wild blue yonder and has only become even more draconian with the passage of time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
do not agree that the law has been expanded recklessly for the past hundred years.
Copyright has been extended:
More properly known as the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act - copyright now covers a work as "the life of the author plus 70 years", and corporate works for 120 years. And then the DMCA just takes all of this and makes it even worse should there be a computer involved.
Continuous and pervasive expansion of copyright for 100+ years, to the point my grandchildren might not benefit from public domain use of works written in my childhood... you don't consider this reckless? Good God, man, what do you call it?
Patent expansion over the years - granted mostly accomplished by court fiat and not by change in legislation, but still has seen the obviousness test stripped, the requirement for specific language describing specific functionality all but abandoned to the point umbrella patents are the rule, "method" patents magically allowed - which still act as the doorway for software patents, which are a rant of their own - administrative changes in the USPTO that encourage rubber-stamp approval rather than honest, qualitative review, neutered courts, rubber-stamp injunctions, and policies that encourage and reward trolls.
This you consider as... hold on, let me get this quote right... "has not changed in any large repect other than through various judicial decisions [...] to "tweak" the system." Well, good for you.
I'm sticking to "recklessly expanding".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
starting with the Copyright Act of 1976
And just an aside, it would behoove you to take into account all of the facts before forming your opinions or questioning the opinions of others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Utility generally circumscribes "usefull inventions that fall within the scope of patentable subject matter under what is currently 35 USC 101. The broad scope of patentable subject matter in large measure traces its roots back to Supreme Court decisions. What we have now is a situation where courts are trying to figure out what the Supreme Court meant, and the Supreme Court periodically steps back into the fray whenever it believes its guidance has been misunderstood.
Novelty (35 USC 102) means that no single piece of prior art describes the invention as claimed in an application. In other words, a claimed invention is new from what has come before. Of course, merely because something is new does not equate to it being patentable.
The catch-all is ultimately non-obviousness as stated in 35 USC 103. This is not an easily applied standard simply because obviousness is determined at the time an invention is made, and not at some later date using later arising prior art. What makes this test so difficult is that one must always be wary of making this determination with the benefit of hindsight. The bar for what is and what is not obvious has changed over the years, but not to the extent many would have others believe. For example, a year ago the Supreme Court issued the KSR decision and pundits said "Great...a much higher bar." This was hardly the case in my view. It was no more and no less than a recognition that the scope of what constitutes prior art is a bit more expansive than some may have happened to believe.
Collectively, none of the judicial decisions have changed patent law in any significant respect other than, perhaps, the ongoing debate concerning business methods and some aspects of what some term "software" methods. How these latter two are eventually resolved is not clear at this time.
I would be remiss not to mention the pejorative term "trolls". In my view it is much too widely applied by persons quick to criticize patent law. In my case I tend to associate the term with those few who hold patents and treat them almost as if they are negotiable financial instruments (much like how home loans have been treated as has been made only too clear by the current financial situation in the US). These people did not invent anything. The inventor is not even in the picture. Instead, what we have in many cases are financial institutions treating them like any other financial asset and proceeding accordingly to "forclose" on them. For example, I am aware of at least one hedge fund underwriting a specific case, and have hired a NY mega-firm to handle the "foreclosure". To borrow a line from The Gladiator, under this type of circumstance "I am sorely vexed".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Another cardinal change in 1976 is that many of the formalities previously associated with claims of copyright were tossed by the wayside. The situation became even more problematic when about 1991 the requirement for copyright notice was relegated to the trash bin (interestingly, this was not only because of a longstanding treaty that up until that point the US has not adopted).
From there it was only a matter of time before Sonny Bono was adopted, the DMCA was adopted, and other controversial legislation started to make the rounds in Congress.
Think what you will about patent law, but from my experience it is copyright law that has gone through the roof and in many respects bears little resemblance to what was envisioned when the first copyright law was enacted in 1790. Patent law has changed since 1790, but compared to what has happened with copyright law such changes are almost in the "noise".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is not an easily applied standard
It's not meant to be. Considering that, with that piece of paper, you are handing a monopoly power to a person, it damned well SHOULD be a difficult decision, and one that the PTO should be required to make the case FOR rather than AGAINST by default.
The standard is something that would not be obvious to a practitioner of the art. I understand that a patent reviewer can't be an expert in every field. FINE. Convene expert panels to review applications, especially on subject matter that has proven to be contentious when the PTO is left to its own.
Collectively, none of the judicial decisions have changed patent law in any significant respect other than, perhaps, the ongoing debate concerning business methods and some aspects of what some term "software" methods.
I again bring up umbrella patents. The letter of the law requires that the patent particularly describe the specific nature and functionality of the invention. The courts and the USPTO, it seems, don't hold this same requirement.
Any patent that does not describe in sufficient detail the invention that one skilled in the art could build it, or in some cases even identify what it is being described, ANY SUCH PATENT SHOULD BE STRUCK DOWN, immediately, as it does not meet the requirements o LAW. And any reviewer or court that had any part in allowing or enforcing such should be held accountable.
I feel that this has been a "significant change," and one better undone.
I would be remiss not to mention the pejorative term "trolls"
I wouldn't call 'em that if they'd stop living under bridges and whacking people in the shins with clubs.
In my view it is much too widely applied by persons quick to criticize patent law. In my case I tend to associate the term with those few who hold patents and treat them almost as if they are negotiable financial instruments
OK, I'll be nice. You speak of "patent holding firms," though some companies that are not necessarily "holding firms" in an exclusive sense still do exhibit or have exhibited behaviors that one might describe... "pejoratively."
"I am sorely vexed".
As am I, but apparently a bit more than you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Think what you will about patent law, but from my experience it is copyright law that has gone through the roof and in many respects bears little resemblance to what was envisioned when the first copyright law was enacted in 1790.
No doubt, patent law has drifted, and in ways that can (and should) be criticized, but copyright has gone right off the rails.
the 1976 act truly was a major change in the entire body of copyright law.
Absolutely, I concede this. Bono screwed us, and it hasn't stopped, but that doesn't erase the prior 70 years, during which the length of protection was tripled. It's all anti-consumer. It all harms the public domain. And it's been going on for a hundred years. Arguing about which part is worse doesn't change this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berne Convention
Please correct me if I am mistaken
You are mistaken. Prior to the Bono act, the US was a member of the Pan-American Copyright Convention, which was in turn signed on to Universal Copyright Convention - we have been party to this since Geneva/1955. It sets the term of protection in Article IV, section 2, paragraph a:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Berne Convention
The change from a fixed term of years (28 plus 28) to a term based generally upon the life of an author plus a specified number of years thereafter did not take place in the United States until enactment of the 1976 act.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Has RIAA sued over sharing a partial file?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Berne Convention
Hmm. I'm not sure which one of us is correct. I know the US was part of the UCC. I know the duration it specified (I linked to it and everything). But CopyrightData.com doesn't seem to reflect that - in fact, it seems to say you're correct.
But then Wikipedia's pretty little graph seems to be based on ... something that's neither of these?
I go looking for references, and I find 3 different sources that seem to say 3 different things. *sigh*
It's late. I surrender.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Berne Convention
Wait, wait, here it is!
The duration as written in the Act continued to state 28 years plus 28 years, but "Beginning in 1962, and looking toward the enactment of comprehensive legislation revising the 1909 Copyright Act, Congress extended the terms of existing copyrights for successive brief periods of a year or more. The intent and effect of these enactments was to preserve copyrights nearing the end of their statutory protection from falling into the public domain before proposed legislation containing a longer term was passed and became effective." (source)
Basically, trying to meet the terms of the UCC, and with an eye towards the Berne Convention, Congress began passing yearly band-aids to keep work out of the public domain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Berne Convention
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15t.html
Even under what you accurately call "band-aid" fixes, our copyright laws were still markedly different from the rest of the world in that they only pertained to published works and required notices. That all changed starting in 1976 (actually 1/1/78 when the law went into effect), and the change was exacerbated when around 1990 even the requirement for a copyright notice was eliminated.
In reconstituting US copyright law to track that of other developed nations (most notably many in Europe), our copyright system, which at the time was restrictive, turned into a virtual free for all as even more liberal, expansive provisions were added.
Pre-1976 copyright law generally tracked what I would term the original intent of our Founding Fathers. I daresay that since then it bears very little resemblance to what was originally envisioned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA Greed
Originally the technology did not exist to create your own albums. But it has been available for the last 10 years. But still the old way of selling music remains.
When was the last time you purchased (or downloaded legally or illegally) an album that contained every song you loved? Why do we still have to put up with 'filler' songs? Why can't a person (without a home internet connection) go into a music store, purchase a blank CD, sit in a cubicle and for a few cents each listen and download songs to their CD (or iPod, or other device)? This was the promise of the new digital age! This has what has happened to photography - no more paying to process dud prints, print only those that you want at a much lower cost!
Why is there very little difference in cost between buying a CD at the store and downloading one? There are no production costs (CD cover, printing), no transport costs, no-one stacking the shelves, no one taking the money!
Why do movie soundtracks cost as much or more than the DVD movie?
Why should you have to purchase a 'version' of a 3 minute song for each device?
The simple reason music is downloaded illegally is because legal versions are far too expensive. And you get a choice! I'm not saying you should illegally download anything, but the market has spoken, but no one at the RIAA is listening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
Like Wall Street respects my property rights right? Like my bank respects my rights when it tries to take my home or when it drops outrageous fees on me?
I own plenty of music... and download plenty more. I support the music industry by going to concerts et. al.
Respect is earned...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But...
The word is getting out about the crap they are pulling over the judicial system. It just takes time and eventually they will fall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I own the copyright on the bible
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The Strategy Is Working
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's simple: Pay for it, or you're a thief.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To AnonymousCoward/Dosquatch
Time and time again I have perused the comments section of websites discussing copyrights and patents, usually within the context of piracy, and I am extremely pleased with the level of intelligent discourse between you two.
Rather than digressing to insults and slander, these two continued to present their opinions and evidence to support these views. Initially I could sense some underlying tension due to their opposing views, as is normal in any argument, but they continued to debate and chose to rely on facts rather than insults which is a rarity in online discourse in general. Toward the end of their debate it seemed each of them developed mutual respect for each others opinions.
Both posters presented arguments that were very literate and I dare say pleasing to read in comparison to the majority of this(and most others on this topic) article's commentators.
Which of the two commentators I agreed with more strongly I feel is irrelevant, as I haven't the knowledge to present a worthwhile argument due to the fact that most of the information I have gleaned on this topic has come from writers far less informed on the topic akin to most of the rest of the discussion in these comments.
This issue is obviously a heated one for many and although this debate has long since come to an end, meaning the posters very likely will never read this comment, I felt an overwhelming urge to show my esteem for the quality of dialogue shown here which is so rare in the real world and rarer still on the internet. Thank you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]