RIAA Spent $90 Million In Lobbying The US In The Past Decade

from the and-musicians-got? dept

Fri, Jan 7th 2011 1:04am — Mike Masnick

If you want to know why US politicians seem to always rollover and support the preferred legislative agenda of the recording industry, perhaps it's because the RIAA has spent $90 million in lobbying in the US alone since 2000 -- and the numbers have increased as the decade wore on. In 2000 the RIAA spent $4 million in lobbying, but by 2009, it spent $17.5 million. Of course, the spend has been somewhat in inverse correlation to the success of the major record labels. Considering how often we hear people assume that correlation of file sharing stats to record label revenue means file sharing is the cause of the labels problems, shouldn't they also claim that the more the RIAA spends on lobbying, the worse the labels do as well? Perhaps the answer for the record labels is to get the RIAA to stop lobbying.

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: lobbying, riaa
Companies: riaa

73 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Yogi, 7 Jan 2011 @ 1:22am

Underestimatiom
Does this also include all the jobs/perks that these politicians, their relatives, and cronies get after/before their incumbency?

This is a business model for thugs, not artists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 7 Jan 2011 @ 1:44am

How much did the tech industry spend on lobbying, Masnick?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 1:54am

Re:
How is that relevant to this discussion?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 1:54am

R.I.A.A. = Real Ignorant Assholes of America
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 1:57am

Someone please help me understand this!!!!
Lobbying (also Lobby) is money with the intention of influencing decisions made by legislators and officials in the government by individuals, other legislators, constituents, or advocacy groups.

Bribery, a form of corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.

How is Lobbying different from Bribery? They have almost the exact same definition, with the exception that bribery is a crime and a form of corruption.

Doesn't anyone see the irony in an industry that complains about theft, actively engaging in Bribery? If they call file sharing theft, shouldn't we call lobbying bribery?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Rust Belt, 7 Jan 2011 @ 2:15am

Re: Someone please help me understand this!!!!
@How is Lobbying different from Bribery?

The first is a legalized version of the later :-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 3:00am

Bribery is illegal
Lobbying is Government santioned Bribery " We'll keep bugging you until you do what we ask"

Really in the end, its the same thing!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 3:16am

Re: Someone please help me understand this!!!!
The money is called a "campaign contribution" instead of a "bribe", and both sides pretend that the politician in question doesn't just pocket the money.
US companies have been buying laws to hinder their competition in that manner since around the 1870s. Margarine is a classic example, with the dairy industry buying several arbitrary laws into existence, including one requiring margarine to be dyed pink.
Of course, these days it's less "pink margarine" and more "95-year copyright"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 3:29am

Those also include the love boat dinners?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 3:32am

Re:
Only honest people who pay taxes can ask that, you people don't pay taxes on your property so you don't qualify for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 7 Jan 2011 @ 3:50am

Re: Re:
How is the amount the RIAA spent lobbying relevant to anything?

Nice try at a dodge, coward.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michial Thompson, 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:04am

awwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor little mikee
Poor little mikee... Are you jealous that your not getting anywhere with your "poor woe is me" website?

If you wanted to make any difference in anything other than your wallet you would lobby just as much as the RIAA instead of getting on your high horse and crying about how Data should have rights, and it should be free and culture is being lost blah blah blah blah....

The RIAA is play the politians game their way, and no offense, but your getting your ass kicked in your battle for piracy. And you know why your getting your ass kicked? You just sit here and pout and whine like a little brat that didn't get his way.

The only ones listening are the ones just as lazy as your are, and you've managed to even turn a proffit off the morons.

You have advertisers on here that mock you by advertising with you in the first place. Advertisers like Dell, and even Verizon would lose their edge in the market place if you got your way, but they show so little respect for you that they just use your bandwidth to make more money so that they can further kick your ass in D.C. and sit back and laugh at you for allowing it to happen.

Grow a pair, get some morals and drop the Advertisers that mock you and start playing it their way. Or pack up and go back to your conspiracy theories about the Government having secret assasins and gangs of hired hackers out after the owner of Wikileaks etc...

Hell I'd say go write a book or something, but you don't even have the talent to write an entire post on here that is original, you have to do nothing but take other peoples work and do nothing more than copy and paste, then throw in a few comments to make it "fair use" and scan the readers into thinking you were "the first" to post about something.

I do have to give you credit though, you are pretty good with the alter egos that you use for posting all the supportive comments. Especially the ones that like to refer to me as a troll or the funniest ones that claim I am in the music Industry or whatever...

Hell the commentor egos are more entertaining than the posts themselves... How about you bring back your alter named "anti-mike" or better yet "dark helmet" they you had some pretty good comments using those alternate names...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JR Smith (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:12am

Lobbying
That's right, shoot the messenger. Lobbying should be illegal as it is in certain other countries. It is nothing more than legalized bribery.

We need to replace this poor excuse for a government with a government that actually serves the public interest. This must start with Congressional TERM LIMITS.

But I wouldn't hold my breath. The electorate is too apathetic and sometimes extremely stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:13am

Re: awwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor little mikee
Obvious troll is obvious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:22am

Re: Re: Re:
Um, because the major labels represented by the RIAA are in decline while RIAA spending on lobbying increases. The Tech industry is growing. Either they are putting in place more successful business models than the recording industry or they employ better lobbyists.

Either way, the RIAA seem to be wasting money.

I like the way you refer to Mike as Masnick. It sets a nice adversarial tone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:24am

Re: Re: Re:
If you can't answer that you're on the wrong blog.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:24am

Re:
Oh look - shiny thing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:26am

Re: awwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor little mikee
dumb troll is dumb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jaws4theRevenge (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:27am

Re: awwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor little mikee
I don't usually read walls of text from obvious trolls. I'm glad I made the exception for your post. I literally laughed out loud.

Dude, you're either a master of satire or an idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:28am

Re: Someone please help me understand this!!!!
bribery by rich people is lobbying
bribery by poor people is corruption

Got it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:31am

Re: awwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor little mikee
Paid your fine in the UK yet?
lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:35am

Re: awwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor little mikee
I don't have an ego. It ran away with my id.

But you, sir, are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:43am

Re: Re: Re:
So, you've given up even attempting a civil conversation and launch straight into the personal attacks now? Classy, yet again.

As for relevance, there's been a large number of stories over the last few years about questionable decisions being made by politicians in favour of the way the music industry currently does business. Decisions that favour the incumbent corporations ahead of artists, consumers and new businesses. If you honestly can't see why $90 million of lobbying money isn't relevant in light of that, you're not looking very hard at what's going on around you.

I still don't see what tech companies have to do with this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JustMe (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:51am

Re: awwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor little mikee
Obvious troll is also boring.

I'll point out that this website has been around for nearly 13 years (grats Mike), so it is clearly more than just Mike yammering about stuff that bugs him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I think he is saying that everyone else is doing it, so why them ... which is childish at best, but then what did you expect?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy7600 (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:56am

Re: awwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor little mikee
What's it gonna take, little michialee? A pipe to the side of your head? That's how you'd deal with it, right? Makes perfect sense to have the same done to you, right?

Which would you prefer, copper, pvc or plain old lead?

You're a troll of the highest order. Or flame baiter. Same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Berenerd (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 5:13am

Re: Someone please help me understand this!!!!
technically Lobbying doesn't involve money. They are just people who represent and organization or cause pushing to get heard by those who make the laws. The trips, and "gifts" come in because thats how you get heard on Capital hill...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 5:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not a coward!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 5:41am

Re: Someone please help me understand this!!!!
How is Lobbying different from Bribery?
Because lobbying involves lawyers and lawyers are the ones who make the distinction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve R. (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 5:48am

The CD "Contribution"
According to Entertainment & Stars: Music sales continue downward slump. According to the story, album sales totaled 326.2 million in 2010. That means that each CD sold (assuming RIAA involvement) contributed $0.036 to the lobbying effort. (I assume that the RIAA may get money from other sources too.)

May not be a big deal now, but if sales continue to decline and the RIAA increases its lobbying budget this "tax" could become a major drag on sales.

The article also states: "This is the fourth straight year that music sales in the US have shown a downward trend.". At least the article made no gratuitous unsupported accusation of piracy as the reason for the decline in sales.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 5:51am

I love the logic. If only the RIAA stopped lobbying, suddenly the bottom line of the music business would improve greatly. Right. Where did you get your MBA from?

Perhaps it would be better to frame the RIAA's lobbying effort with others. Without some reference, there is no way to understand what this really represented. How many billions of dollars is the music business in the US, and what percentage do they put to lobbying? Where does that rank against corn, tobacco, big oil, or homeless rights groups?

17 million is a nice golly number. But scaled to the size of their business, it is less than 2/10ths of a percent of income. They spend more on coffee for the lunch rooms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 6:03am

Re:
17 millions that we know of, not counting love boat dinners, hookers, cushy jobs for retirement and so forth.

You don't truly believe they have all that power without expending some real money do you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 6:03am

Re:
Troll has no reading comprehension.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James, 7 Jan 2011 @ 6:24am

Re: Someone please help me understand this!!!!
Lobbying is a dance around the bribery tent... with better food, and BEER! ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 6:28am

Re:
"I love the logic. If only the RIAA stopped lobbying, suddenly the bottom line of the music business would improve greatly. Right. Where did you get your MBA from?"
Actually, basic logic would answer this for you... it may not increase the bottom line, but the first thing you do when you're in a hole is stop digging. If the recording industry is hemorrhaging money as it claims, why keep spending so much on changing law instead of investing the money into the development of a successful business model?

"Perhaps it would be better to frame the RIAA's lobbying effort with others."
That's comparing apples to oranges, ears of corn, tobacco leaves, and oil barrels. They are all different industries and all have different regulations. Therefore, in a more heavily-regulated arena, you would spend more on lobby since the regulation (law) has a stronger hold on your income.

"17 million is a nice golly number. But scaled to the size of their business, it is less than 2/10ths of a percent of income. They spend more on coffee for the lunch rooms."
any references for this? I get where you're going, but I'd be interested to see the proof that their lobby budget is that low on the line-item sheet. I know the coffee is just a sarcastic example and I don't want to hold you to 'how much do they spend on coffee', but unless you have their full budget info, how can you know how much they spend on any of it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 6:29am

Sounds like throwing good money after bad. Just proves that no matter which party is in charge, GOP, TEA or whatever, they are still corrupt and bleeding us dry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
James, 7 Jan 2011 @ 6:30am

Re: awwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor little mikee
Wow really? Its obvious you make such an intelligent argument. I like how you try to make it personal, thats a nice touch. And, the use of the red herring to mis-direct readers from the information at hand.. you sir, are a master.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marco, 7 Jan 2011 @ 6:40am

Re: Someone please help me understand this!!!!
It's easy man,

One was approved to be legal and other is illegal. Simple as that. Same sh!t, different name. People are stupid enough to put stupid politicians deciding for them. In my country same crap ... But only now some companies are starting to try to use lobbies ... but it's still considered corruption ... yet ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 6:47am

Re: Re: awwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor little mikee
When I read that I thought this guy seems scared and angry. I really wish he would have put me in the list of alters like "anti-mike" and "dark helmet". I would have had fun with being an imaginary creation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 6:50am

Re: The CD "Contribution"
"That means that each CD sold (assuming RIAA involvement) contributed $0.036 to the lobbying effort. "

Oh my frakin god, you mean the labels pay RIAA more than they do their artists. I am so shocked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 6:56am

Re: Re: Someone please help me understand this!!!!
bribery by middle class is??? bribery?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 7:00am

Artists
Imagine if they'd given that money to the artists they represent and whose rights they're always going on about defending...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
princefeliz (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 7:30am

Re: Someone please help me understand this!!!!
Lobbying is for the Elite and powerful. Bribery is for the poor and wannabes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 7:31am

Re: Re: awwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor little mikee
Oh, if it isn't little jeremiee responding to little michialee about something he said about little mikee!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 8:01am

Re: Re: Re: awwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor little mikee
I thought everyone here except angrydude (who has been gone for a while), me and Michial were Mike's alts.

Ok, you got me. I have corresponded with Tim in the past and I'd be SHOCKED if I found out that him and Mike are the same guy. I can't speak about the anti-mike though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 8:03am

Re: Re: Re: awwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor little mikee
I thought everyone here except angrydude (who has been gone for a while), me and Michial were Mike's alts.

Ok, you got me. I have corresponded with Tim in the past and I'd be SHOCKED if I found out that him and Mike are the same guy. I can't speak about the anti-mike though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 8:12am

Re: Re:
Last time I looked, music sales in the US was about a 10 billion a year business, someone can correct me if I am wrong. I am only basing it on top line revenues, not any particular budget.

yes, the coffee thing is sarcastic, but probably pretty accurate. It is an incredibly small amount of money for such a large industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron Rezendes (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 9:11am

Re: Re: Re: Someone please help me understand this!!!!
"bribery by middle class is???"

Bribery by the middle class is impossible. The middle class essentially doesn't even exist anymore in the US.

There are the "haves" and the "have nots" - if you don't know which you are are then you're a "have not".

If you can afford to even entertain the thought of bribery then you are a "have".

When the "haves" use materials from other sources this is seen as business as usual and it's "how we've always done things"!

When the "have nots" use materials from other sources even legitimately, this is theft/piracy, and is quickly followed by a "have" "lobbying/bribing" the necessary officials to make sure the act is classified as such and all appropriate "have nots" shall be brought to justice!

When the hypocrisy is pointed out by a "have not" the "haves" then classify the said "have not" as a "freetard".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 9:43am

Re: The CD "Contribution"
You would be assuming that all of their income is from album sales alone. You would be wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 9:45am

Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, let me self correct:

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2011/01/06/report-us-music-sales-dip-24-03910-digital-46-ma rket

1.5 billion, so 1.1% of income. So coffee and the free soft drinks :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 9:52am

Re: Re: Re:
I wasn't trying to call you to task on numbers. I was trying to point out that arguing amount on this is missing the point.

The company I work for is facing some serious financial issues. Some of the changes that are coming about really are pocket change to the big picture. But every little bit does help. A combination of small changes along with major shifts in our company's way of doing business is what's going to save us in the long run.

So too with the music industry. Stop wasting money on trying to affect change in unnecessary regulation and move those resources towards new business models that aren't as challenged by the changing times. Seems like a more logical way to go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 7 Jan 2011 @ 10:25am

Re: awwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor little mikee
Wow it's rare you see a conspiracy theorist that thinks it's OK for laws to be made by people who have $90million to spend at the expense of everyone who doesn't. Thanks for the rare sighting of a dichotomy, though I'm hoping it'll be a few years before the next. One is enough
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 7 Jan 2011 @ 10:30am

Re: Re: Someone please help me understand this!!!!
How is Lobbying different from Bribery?
Only 1 simple difference. Lobbying happens in the open using cheques, bribery happens in alleyways using brown paper envelopes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 7 Jan 2011 @ 10:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering how often we hear people assume that correlation of file sharing stats to record label revenue means file sharing is the cause of the labels problems, shouldn't they also claim that the more the RIAA spends on lobbying, the worse the labels do as well? Perhaps the answer for the record labels is to get the RIAA to stop lobbying.
Perhaps I'm missing the point, or perhaps having an English/American translation issue....
I took Mike to be sarcastic and mean that since the correlation is just as strong between the lobbying budget and descreased sales and piracy and sales they may as well blame the one as the other as neither are the real problem of crappy business models. But you guys seem to be having such fun arguing about it perhaps I'm wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 7 Jan 2011 @ 11:16am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Someone please help me understand this!!!!
Bribery by the middle class is impossible...

Can we get mod points for TechDirt? Because this needs to be read by everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 11:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
At this point, I don't think the music industry sees a new business model that has anywhere near as much money involved. It is also incredibly stupid to think that a business should be shut down only because of rampant thievery. It really seems stupid to end up in this place, and to have the government tolerate it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: awwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor little mikee
"Ok, you got me. I have corresponded with Tim in the past and I'd be SHOCKED if I found out that him and Mike are the same guy."

Same here chatted with, and emailed Tim. I may have spoken to him at one point, to much telcom in my life in the last year to be certain.

"I thought everyone here except angrydude (who has been gone for a while), me and Michial were Mike's alts."

Neat thing. If Mike is creating all us imaginary friends then he is also creating our web sites, answering our e-mails, and has Nina Paley locked up in a basement somewhere so he can respond to her emails. :) Or maybe Mike is Nina and is all those picture of her are of mike in drag ...

if so, Mike you have nice nockers ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 12:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." - Robert A. Heinlein, Life-Line, 1939
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 7 Jan 2011 @ 12:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At this point, I don't think the music industry sees a new business model that has anywhere near as much money involved. It is also incredibly stupid to think that a business should be shut down only because of rampant thievery. It really seems stupid to end up in this place, and to have the government tolerate it.
A/ No "rampant thievery" is taking place. Unless there. has been a massive outbreak of shoplifting I'm unaware of.
B/ The idea is to make money. The amount of profit in any given venture fluctuates in response to the market demands. Instead of railing against the tide, use it for generating electricity or something.
C/ It seems more stupid still to have the goverment artificially prop up an industry. That's called protectionism and has done more harm than good every single time it's been tried anywhere so no matter why it's bound to fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
herodotus (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 1:05pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"At this point, I don't think the music industry sees a new business model that has anywhere near as much money involved. It is also incredibly stupid to think that a business should be shut down only because of rampant thievery. It really seems stupid to end up in this place, and to have the government tolerate it."

OK, let us grant, for the sake of argument, that copyright infringement and 'thievery' are synonymous.

Let us also grant that this thievery is indeed rampant.

Let us grant, further, that it is the government's job to stop this thievery.

The question, then, is: 'How?'

Look at The 1977 NYC blackout. Over 3,000 people were arrested in less than 24 hours, and yet over 1,500 stores were damaged by looting and over 1,000 major fires had to be put out.

The police on that day had an impossible job. So, too, would anyone who actually wanted to implement a 'zero tolerance' approach to file sharing. There simply isn't enough manpower to stop it, or even to cut it by 10%. Hell, they can barely slow the rate of growth, which could only be called a victory by someone in desperation.

Now, if this were real looting and thievery we were talking about, then, sure, send in the national guard. But we are talking about copying and sharing digital files. No one dies or gets physically injured by this newer form of looting. Innocent bystanders aren't affected the way they are with real looting. This simply isn't scary enough to merit the extreme measures that would be necessary to actually do something about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 7 Jan 2011 @ 1:39pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I have to chime in with the other two... there's no 'theft' going on here. We've discussed and proven (to my satisfaction... and others') that copyright infringement does not equal theft.

That said, I do see what you mean: why should the industry have to change because of someone else's actions? A valid question, but one with an easy answer: because they have no choice. Think of the horse-carriage industry, the pre-printing press copiers... anyone who has ever been put out by something else changing the landscape. The industry has to adapt to this new environment or perish.

As far as the government tolerating it... why should they do anything about it? It's not the government's place to enforce or protect any business model. Now we have in the past allowed them (and even asked them) to put laws in place to give them that power, but I don't think they should have it.

This all comes back to the free-market ideal we hold so dear... the market itself will dictate the terms of the game. It's wrong for the government to step in and force the market to allow or disallow anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:23pm

Re: Re: Someone please help me understand this!!!!
"How is Lobbying different from Bribery?
Because lobbying involves lawyers and lawyers are the ones who make the distinction."

Just like how when lawyers ask for money to make a problem go away it's called a "pre-settlement offer", when anyone else does this it's called extortion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 6:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Zero tolerance on file sharing isn't anyones goal. In the same manner that mix tapes and whatnot were tolerated in the past, I am sure that everyone in the business would be more than happy to return to those sorts of levels.

The real goal is to discourage those people who are casual downloaders, in the same manner that drug enforcement isn't just to get rid of the big players, but also to discourage people from risking being in a drug house, etc. It is one of the reason California's pot rules are so dangerous, because they make the illegal seem casual.

While I do not have numbers that I will quote, I know that reports put up on here before show that significant amounts of piracy occur with a fairly small group of people. Companies like AT&T and Comcast, when discussing heavy bandwidth users, said something like 5% of the people use much of the bandwidth. The numbers are not huge. You may never change those people.

The real targets (as you can see in court) are people like Jammie Thomas, a fairly casual file sharer who didn't know it was wrong - or at least that it wasn't that wrong. Changing those peoples' minds is what will tip the balance on file sharing in the long run.

My feeling is that it is a little close than many people think. File sharing was sort of the ultimate long tail experience. Everyone going back and getting all the tv shows and music from their past that they didn't have, downloading stuff just because they could. Over time, those people have been satisfied and their desire to download isn't there anymore. They might go looking for the new song from whoever, but for the most part, their P2P client is off and they aren't using up their bandwidth on it anymore.

More so that people are moving to mobile platforms, and those platforms are just not supporting P2P in the same manner. Few people are going to want to run their battery down or eat up their bandwidth peering something. These are the sorts of people who may not even turn a desktop on at home anymore. Huge shift coming!

In the end, it isn't about zero tolerance. It's about not letting crime get so out of hand that the internet turns into one large bad neighborhood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 7 Jan 2011 @ 7:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The real goal is to discourage those people who are casual downloaders, in the same manner that drug enforcement isn't just to get rid of the big players, but also to discourage people from risking being in a drug house, etc. It is one of the reason California's pot rules are so dangerous, because they make the illegal seem casual.
Oooo subtle! LOVE the way you casually do the "file sharing = drugs" thing that's SUCH a good comparison and not at all pejorative.

I suppose while we're on crappy analogies there is at least ONE similarity between the "war on drugs" and the "war on piracy"... they are both equally futile.
The "drug war" has been going on for longer and.. well.. any success at all? amount of drugs going down? Amount of your population you have locked up from drug offenses going down? Amountof users going down at all?
Hmm if you limit it to that specific thing maybe not such a bad analogy after all.
My feeling is that it is a little close than many people think. File sharing was sort of the ultimate long tail experience. Everyone going back and getting all the tv shows and music from their past that they didn't have, downloading stuff just because they could. Over time, those people have been satisfied and their desire to download isn't there anymore. They might go looking for the new song from whoever, but for the most part, their P2P client is off and they aren't using up their bandwidth on it anymore.
And since we're inexplicably talking about drugs.. I'll have a couple of what you're smoking because fantasy like that doesn't happen without SERIOUS medication! Do you have any evidence at all to back up such wild statements beyond desperate hope? Do you perhaps work for the record industry because that might explain why their business model has little relation to reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 8:34pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The war on drugs differs greatly because there is an extreme profit motivation. You don't see too many file downloaders with gold grills driving their new 'Slade from all the cash they made off of piracy (TPB owners excluded). You cannot even begin to compare the two on any level except the way certain things are done.

Do you remember when it use to be one guy on the street corner selling drugs? Now it's one guy meeting you, another guy who takes your cash, a third guy that shows you where to go, and a fourth guy actually giving you the dope. All of this to try to avoid law enforcement.

In piracy, you have the same thing. Torrents rather than direct downloads, P2P instead of direct downloads, VPNs, encryption, packet bashing... it all comes to the same thing.

The only difference is that there isn't enough money in piracy (except for a very few at the top) to make it worth doing when the heat is on. There is no actual addiction driving people to do it.

In the end, piracy is entirely a social phenomena, and something that can and will change over time. The corner on piracy was turned in late 2009 or early 2010, depending on who you ask, and it is in a slow and steady decline.

A few more Jammie Thomas cases, and the tide will change even faster.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iveseenitall, 7 Jan 2011 @ 11:29pm

Disaster. Make it come faster.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jan 2011 @ 4:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"In the end, piracy is entirely a social phenomena, and something that can and will change over time. The corner on piracy was turned in late 2009 or early 2010, depending on who you ask, and it is in a slow and steady decline.

A few more Jammie Thomas cases, and the tide will change even faster."

To this I can simply say "Wow!". Do you honestly believe that? Keep telling yourself that if it honestly makes you feel better.

In reality, methods are changing to less detectable methods. While I do agree in part with this...

"File sharing was sort of the ultimate long tail experience. Everyone going back and getting all the tv shows and music from their past that they didn't have, downloading stuff just because they could."

... I would also equate that with the boom in CD sales in the 90's and the decline in the last decade.

The recording industry deserves no tears or government protection for being utterly greedy and stupid. They, in their greed of trying to get everyone to repurchase again in yet a new format, severely shot themselves in the foot, unwittingly, by going digital. TV & movie studios included.

As for the Jammie Thomas comment, the only tide that is changing is the notion that file-sharers will actually be penalized the obscene amounts that the copyright holders want. Judges are waking up to the fact that that the DMCA was written pre-Napster and was not intended to be used against "casual file-sharers" but against profiting counterfeiters and that obscene, lifetime crippling, judgments against those who sought no profit are unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not an electronic Rodent, 8 Jan 2011 @ 5:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Impressive. You managed to go from comparing file sharing to drugs in a fairly general way
The real goal is to discourage those people who are casual downloaders, in the same manner that drug enforcement isn't just to get rid of the big players, but also to discourage people from risking being in a drug house, etc.
To telling me the two have little relationship
You cannot even begin to compare the two on any level except the way certain things are done.
and this when it was I who used a very specific (and facetious) example of your analogy not mine. Or does the analogy work only as long as no-one uses it to show something you don't like?

You really don't have a point do you? Just floundering around and wishing.
I also notice you picked on your own analogy ignoring in the process the point it made about the futility such a fight represents and also ignored the suggestion that you provide evidence to support your wild assertations that are against common wisdom and observation.

If "piracy" is dying a natural death as you suggest then why exactly do the media companies still bri.. er.. "lobby" government into enacting ever more draconian laws that turn their paying customers into criminals?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2011 @ 2:48pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't see too many file downloaders with gold grills driving their new 'Slade from all the cash they made off of piracy (TPB owners excluded).

Racist much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gabriel Tane (profile), 10 Jan 2011 @ 5:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The real targets (as you can see in court) are people like Jammie Thomas, a fairly casual file sharer who didn't know it was wrong - or at least that it wasn't that wrong. Changing those peoples' minds is what will tip the balance on file sharing in the long run."
So you say the targets are the fans who don't realize they're doing anything wrong? The people who aren't trying to make an illegal buck off of this? Those are the people that the RIAA and MPAA are targeting? Please tell me you're not part of the RIAA's or MPAA's public relations.

And, by the way, if you're trying to paint a picture of the kindly parents trying to gently correct a child's wrong... maybe "target" isn't the best word to use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jose_X, 10 Jan 2011 @ 9:05am

Re: Underestimatiom
Or money/aid/influence provided by those whom the RIAA influences or who otherwise take their side, especially if they might not get their way. [The leverage and threat is real and can easily be missed in a count of dollars (not needed to be) spent.]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sam sin, 10 Jan 2011 @ 10:21am

RIAA (and others) would have been better spending their money on improving their business model and adapting to the needs of their customers in the 21st century! as for the politicians that accept these 'lobbying' payments, they should be voted out of office asap!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Groove Tiger (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:49pm

Re: Someone please help me understand this!!!!
Bribery consists of giving out money.

Lobbying consists of giving out fancy dinners and expensive holidays.
[ link to this | view in thread ]