Scobleizer - Latest Comments in The RIAA is right

Re: The RIAA is right

Sciamachy — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:57:50 -0000

Actually the RIAA are getting people to think more about how they license their content, and what content people will buy based on what license terms apply. I've started looking for non-RIAA affiliated bands to get on my iPod; I'm downloading iTunes Plus tracks rather than DRMed stuff, and just lately I discovered a site that while at the moment there's not a lot there, pretty soon I reckon it'll be a big thing. CASHMusic.org is a site set up by Donita Sparks (ex-L7) and so far features music from Kristin Hersh (ex-Throwing Muses). Donita's expected to publish some of her own stuff there shortly. Basically they're releasing content under a Creative Commons license with the idea that people visiting the site will be able to download, listen to, re-mix, mash-up, cover, re-word, re-arrange, pretty much do what they want with it, as long as any derived content is itself published under the same license. The two tracks Kristin has published there have already spawned 2 dozen derived works, some good, some not-so-good. It's definitely worth a look.

Re: The RIAA is right

Scott — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:15:09 -0000

Anyone been to a music store lately? Exactly. Just passing by it in the mall, you can smell the death of an industry coming shortly.

Re: The RIAA is right

Regular Reader — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:03:45 -0000

I've quite buying music, essentially quit lisenting to music except the few thousand Cd's I acuired over the years, and quit going to concerts.

Think about Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon. I bought it at least twice on 8-track, at least three times on album, at least once on cassette, at three three times on CD, and now they want to buy buy it again on I-Tunes. No thanks, I'll do without. Pass the wine.....

Re: The RIAA is right

Wayne — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 03:55:17 -0000

Never underestimate the amount of bandwidth in a FedEX truck!

Re: The RIAA is right

LaVeda H. Mason — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:04:59 -0000

Here's another response to the RIAA (satire, as well):

http://www.newstarget.com/0...

This comment is copyrighted. Remembering any part of my comment is a violation, and any violators will be Tasered, and made to listen to genuine [your least favorite] music {g}!!

Re: The RIAA is right

Terry Heaton — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:49:23 -0000

Thank you, Shelley and Jerry, for helping set the record straight here. It's why I always try and read the comments, something the traditional press doesn't generally offer.

I do want to add that your use of this matter to blast "citizens media" is not in keeping with your general interest in facts, for the Washington Post played a rather big role in this, too.

At least here, I have the opportunity to read your input, and that is something we all appreciate — perhaps more than you realize.

Re: The RIAA is right

Matt — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:40:20 -0000

Regardless of the fact that the main aim of the lawsuits is illegal file sharing, the RIAA is claiming that the personal digital copies of your own legitimate CDs are illegal. Even if the RIAA never sues anyone for making such copies, they're essentially claiming they can sue anyone whenever they want for making such copies, which is completely ridiculous.

Re: The RIAA is right

Robert Scoble — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:36:53 -0000

Chris: like who? Dvorak?

Re: The RIAA is right

Christopher Coulter — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:35:48 -0000

Leave the sarcasm to the professionals... ;)

Re: The RIAA is right

Tosh — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:25:53 -0000

So this story did turn out to be BS.
I'm glad to see Robert, engadget, and the rest backtracking. The original "take" made no sense anyway, given that it would essentiall deem iPods illegal (the vast majority of music on iPods is CD-rips, not iTMS purchased songs), which should've made it obvious that nobody was sued for merely ripping their own CD.

Re: The RIAA is right

Jerry — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:43:04 -0000

@33. Certainly interesting, but Mr.Beckerman, by his own admission is theorizing that the "and shared folder" language was added after the first draft. So, all this is is Mr. Beckerman's opinion. What we do have as fact is the actual briefing, which clearly states the RIAA charges that the files were unauthorized be cause the intent was to share them.

Even if Mr. Beckerman's OPINION is correct, and the attorneys representing the RIAA are stupid enough to tyr tom make an additional argument regarding copying music, the judge in this case, on this specific issue, would most certainly apply stare decisis. because the Supreme Court has already ruled on the specific issue of "copying music for personal use". I rather doubt any lower court would rule against a previous SC decision on this specific matter.

This issue in this case is the illegal sharing of the files, not the fact that they were copied. If the latter is what the RIAA is also arguing, they've already lost the case because the RIAA themselves state it is perfectly "legal" to copy music for PERSONAL use.

So, Mr. Beckerman's opinion, while certainly interesting, is moot. And we are again back to some in the blogosphere leaping before looking. This is the problem with "citizen journalism". Bloggers have no editors to pressure them to do fact checking or research.

Re: The RIAA is right

Paul Joyce — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 22:05:48 -0000

Yes, Engadet backtracked (as they should have) about the basis of the original lawsuit, but that doesn't mean that Robert's post isn't spot on or that the RIAA is not making an additional argument in Howell that ripping is not allowed. This is in contradiction to their position in Congressional testimony and in oral arguments in the Grokster case. Ray Beckerman did a detailed analysis when the supplemental brief was first filed that is worth reading:

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/12/riaa-files-supplemental-brief-in.html

Re: The RIAA is right

Jerry — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:58:41 -0000

@29 Well, I guess the adage "Don't believe everything you read" applies to the blogging world, too. Too bad most bloggers don't apply it. Most are more interested in getting linked to than getting facts straight.

Re: The RIAA is right

Robert Scoble — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:40:47 -0000

Jerry: I'll admit it. On this post I was going off of what I saw on TechMeme. Now I see a ton of those bloggers backtracking (like Engadget).

Re: The RIAA is right

Jerry — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 15:30:20 -0000

Thanks for the voice of reason, Shelley. So much for the accuracy and reliability of "citizen journalism". And people complain about the accuracy of the MSM? Sheesh. But will Scoble or any of these bloggers admit to not knowing the facts before posting? Unlikely. Just another "drive by shooting" from Scoble in order to get links and attention.

Re: The RIAA is right

Shelley Powers — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:51:57 -0000

Jerry:

"Have you actually read the briefing, or are you just basing your sarcasm on information you skimmed from other blogs? Why not read the actual briefing then make your argument? The brouhaha is being taking out of context. And while I’m no defender of the RIAA, their position is that the defendant ripped CD’s to “the mp3 format” and stored them on his computer (specifically his shared Kazaa folder) with the intent to distribute. You need to view this case in its proper context."

The summary judgment and the follow-up brief all specifically state that the law suit is based on the distribution of the files, not the ripping of the files from CD. Howell initially submitted a defense that the music was legally purchased and he ripped to the computer for personal use. At that point some mysterious entity then moved these files to his Kazaa directory without him knowing of the fact. However, he could provide no proof of such entity.

It was the movement into the Kazaa directory and hence making the items available for distribution that triggered the suit.

MiB are not going to be jumping out at you as you walk down the street, listening to your iPod. Well, they won't because of the music you're listening to.

Facts, people. I know facts aren't fun, but can't we try focusing on the facts? At least, from time to time?

Re: The RIAA is right

Louis — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 13:01:59 -0000

It seems pretty obvious to me from these comments that none have read the actual briefing. It doesn't say the RIAA wants to prevent is from copying music for your PERSONAL use. The case involves copying music then SHARING it with the world. No different than me buying Robert's book, taking it to Kinko's, making hundreds of copies andhanding it out on the street corner.

Re: The RIAA is right

HeavyLight — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:37:42 -0000

I think the link in Doc's post ought to be to http://www.linuxjournal.com....
And it's well worth the read!

(Is 'newest first' comment listing a particularly Linux thing?)
;-)

Re: The RIAA is right

ceciley — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:22:35 -0000

know what http://play.clubpenguin.com... find out! After that go to http://ceciley.wordpress.com/ PLEASE!!!!!!

Re: The RIAA is right

Doc Searls — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:36:10 -0000

VRM is about two key things: 1) Independence, and 2) Engagement.

We don't get independence from suppliers. It's something we get from ourselves, and that enables us to deal with *any* interested supplier on our terms — and not just theirs. Therefore VRM is not something that suppliers give us. So, while Radiohead did the right thing by letting the market determine what its music is worth, its relationship system is still a silo'd one. Meaning it only works with Radiohead. We need a system that allows us to pay any artist whatever we feel their music is worth to us. Independently.

Which means we need terms of engagement that live on the buyers' side of the marketplace. That's what I was suggesting a few months back, for example, with A Public Market for Public Music.

The new music business must be one that enables non-coercive "willing buyer/willing seller" mechanisms that are universal rather than silo'd separately by each supplier, each with their own terms of engagement. That's what we have today with the zillion different CRM systems that inhabit the world — all of which control "relationships" with buyers entirely from the seller's side. Without VRM on the buyer's side, the terms of engagement will still be set by the seller.

Re: The RIAA is right

Caustic Dave — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:18:37 -0000

All the more reason to go back to that stash of 8-track tapes we have stashed in our garages. Long live Foghat! :-)

Re: The RIAA is right

Charles Edward Frith — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:00:15 -0000

Unrelated Robert but it looks like your blog is blocked from here in China. I'm doing a few digital backflips to get access.

Also I think Qik is not available outside the U.S.

Happy new year.

Re: The RIAA is right

Tek — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 08:28:20 -0000

Thanks to the RIAA for reminding me why I started a blog against a software company trying to charge legitimate users to use it since, well, they might be pirates:

http://techfettis.wordpress...

The RIAA and MPAA are getting so greedy about the mere thought of any lost revenue what so ever that they are starting to flail wildly out of control. Will they ever learn how to properly conduct their business with the changing times or are they just going to keep going until they have nothing left?

Re: The RIAA is right

DAG — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 04:42:08 -0000

Aside from all of the heat & flashes of light, the RIAA member companies seem to be in deep denial about how the very nature of their business has changed. The disruptive technologies that have brought us to this point are genies out of the bottle and aren't going to go back easily, if at all.

Every one of these companies has changed hands in recent years, saddled with debt calculated against projected earnings based upon the 'good old days' when they got fat selling baby boomers their record collections all over again on CD and their video collections on DVD. I have news for you people, whatever the law says or is stretched to say- the gig is up.

Maybe the shareholders of these public companies should sue the executives of the MPAA/RIAA for failing to perform due diligence as to the financial aspects of their mergers/buy-outs/take-overs. Executives and Directors have an obligation to make decisions based upon accurate and realistic data and analysis. It's not the consumer's fault that their pie in the sky projections are flat wrong.

Maybe when they start developing musicians instead of rappers the market will change. Not my problem.

Re: The RIAA is right

Karen — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 04:31:05 -0000

I think owners of CDs should be able to rip them (for their own use), but I am oh so tired of this tired "Britney Spears" joke.

A few years ago, I listened to a lecture by Lawrence Lessig, and he made the exact same Britney Spears joke, as a way of side-stepping whether people should be allowed to "share" CD rips. It was irritating, because here he is, presenting his issues in a thoughtful manner, then when the big elephant in the room is dealt with, he dismisses it with a lame joke, and never dealt with that particular issue again in his talk.