Questions for the RIAA.
I hate these guys, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation provides some questions to ask them, should you meet them in an elevator or on the bus.
# The RIAA has sued more than 20,000 music fans for file sharing, yet file sharing continues to rapidly increase both online and offline. When will you stop suing music fans?
# The RIAA has sued over 20,000 music fans for file sharing, who have on average paid a $3,750 settlement. That's over $75,000,000. Has any money collected from your lawsuits gone to pay actual artists? Where's all that money going?
# The RIAA has sued over 20,000 music fans for file sharing. Recently, an RIAA representative reportedly suggested that "students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford [P2P lawsuit] settlements." Do you stand by this advice? Is this really good advice for our children's futures?
16 comments:
Of course, all of this kinda ignores one thing.
When you file share copyrighted material, you are performing an illegal act.
I'm sure kids have dropped out of college to pay for all sorts of criminal acts. I'm sure that the fines for all sorts of criminal acts don't go to recording artists. And I'm sure that crime's still on the rise despite people suing left and right over anything they can.
One of the few topics that shocho and I disagree on, in the ironically opposite viewpoints of most paternal relationships. :)
That's the one part I don't quite get in all your ranting about the RIAA, Chuck.
If I could, in about 10 minutes using a friend's cards, copy a complete set of BSG CCG (or LotR cards while you were working at Decipher) that looked and functioned just as well as the original cards, would you be OK with that?
I still think the only reason illegal file sharing is such a big "thing" is because it's easy and affordable. You can't make perfect copies of cards, books, comics, or even DVDs. But a file on a computer? No problem.
It's not about intellectual property with the RIAA. I can make a cassette copy of a song and give it to you and that's okay. They're just using their clout to destroy the music industry as a whole because they can.
Treating innocent individuals like criminals doesn't stop criminals from crime (also see TSA).
Some things that are illegal shouldn't be. It's not about breaking the law, it's about what should be illegal.
I met people who played with copies of cards from games I designed. They were buying real versions of those cards because after sampling the game, they liked it.
I buy more CDs now than ever before because I can easily sample the songs on them.
The crackdown on file sharing doesn't help the artists. It doesn't help the consumer. All it does is make money for the RIAA.
Art should be shared.
I agree the law and lawsuits are pretty dumb but I'm not going to feel sympathy for the people who are caught, at least not at this point. It isn't a secret that file sharing music is ruled illegal and if you do it you can be subject to a lawsuit. I know speeding is illegal and it can be argued that police need to spend more time doing things other than giving out speeding tickets. Does that make it the police departments fault that I got caught speeding and I must pay a fine? I would probably bitch about it but it would be my own fault.
That's not what I asked. The proxies they make of your games don't completely substitute for the real thing. They can't take those to a tournament, sell them online, etc.
My question was: If people could make completely accurate and fully legal (in a game sense) copies of your cards, would you stand behind that? Because, unless I'm mistaken, the mp3 that I download legally from a web site is no different from one I can download illegally from a pirate site. It's an exact copy and is just as usable as the "legal" version.
And again, people only go on about this for music because it's easy to do. If there was a device that could copy, say, Harry Potter books with the touch of a button, JK Rowling would be (and should be) suing people's pants off.
(And you're also scrupulous enough to buy an album if you download a couple songs from it and like it. A lot of people aren't.)
I don't disagree that the RIAA should give some of that money to the actual artists. But until you're willing to take a hit in the pocketbook from people making and passing counterfeits of cards from games you've made, I really can't buy your arguments.
More people will buy my games if they can sample them. My sales won't go down, they'll go up.
Games (or CDs or songs) are not bananas. They never will be. They're not meant to be eaten once, they're meant to be shared.
The RIAA wants music to be one-use, one-user, one-machine. If they could sell you a song with one play, they would. That's not right.
I'm not saying they'll sample your games. I'm saying they'll copy all your cards and never pay you a single cent for them. Yeah, a lot of people won't do that, but some will, just as I'm sure there are some people out there who have hard drives full of music they've never paid for and never have any intention of paying for.
(Not to mention that, IRL, people don't counterfeit TCG cards so they can learn how to play. They counterfeit the ones that are worth money and have little to no intent of learning how to play. If you want to prosecute those guys, I imagine you also would have to go after the little guys, because a judge isn't going to know the difference.)
So how do you tell who's sampling and who's stealing? Same with hijackers: How do you tell who's clipping toenails and who's attacking pilots? The government's answer seems to be increasingly: Treat everyone like criminal. We're "protecting" you, not taking away your civil liberties. I like my civil liberties. And art was made to be shared.
Something else to remember is that the majority of people RIAA attacks are offering the music up for sharing, not just downloading. Sorry Shocho, but it IS stealing.
Now, I hate RIAA for an entirely different reason. For a few years, they turned a blind eye toward radio stations broadcasting on the Internet. Then, in (I think) 2002 they suddenly sprang up and announced RETROACTIVE fees for every song a station streamed going back 18 months. This action would absolutely bankrupt just about any AAA station that streamed a full FM music signal. Most stations got out of it because it was of questionable legality. Regardless, they're a bunch of fuckers.
One more thing Shocho, on the issue of your games. Should I have not brought it to the legal department's attention when that online site was allowing free .hack//ENEMY TCG play on their website? I don't think that would have helped our sales.
Alright, let me ask you guys a question: Should we have made downloadable PDF starter decks for new games like .hack//ENEMY and BGCCG? Isn't that all a player needs and they'll never buy another card?
This is just making it easier for the player to sample the game. If they like the experience, they'll buy the cards.
Free samples are good. Sampling encourages sales.
And one more time: I know it's illegal. I'm saying that it shouldn't be illegal.
At the same time, why pass a law that is inherently unenforceable? Sampling music is great for promoting sales, and most companies allow you to do so. The radio, in itself, is that sort of thing.
But to say that people, en masse, are downloading tracks in order to sample an album before they go out and buy it is ludicrous. Lots of people make that comment, say they do it, or whatever, but come on. Allow someone to steal a loaf of bread with the illusion that they'll never get in trouble for it, and they'll go right on stealing loaves of bread.
Whether you're sampling or not, it is illegal to download tracks in that manner, regardless of whether or not it might be making the RIAA more profit in the long term.
Besides, if the RIAA is such money-grubbing power-mongers, then why would they be trying to halt a practice which increases their revenue, both points that the "digital rights" movement makes?
I can "steal that loaf of bread" by giving you a cassette tape of my CD, and the RIAA doesn't care a bit. This is a power struggle by greedy megacorporations who want music to be a disposable, one-use item like... a loaf of bread. They are mean and I hate them.
Ah, but that's not true. The commercial release of the cassette recorder WAS fought quite viciously by the music industry for exactly these reasons. The difference is that RIAA has the ability to track who's making those copies now (via tracking of downloads via prodivders like Qwest) whereas they couldn't track making and trading cassette tapes.
As for the PDFs, the Company made the decision to do that so if it did cost sales, it's on them. The majority of the music industry isn't allowing the sampling. If it's their content, it's their call. As a consumer, we don't have the right to say "I should be able to download your album and enjoy it without paying a cent for it". That's what you're asking for. Regardless of the sampling effect on sales, that's still the crux of the argument.
I'm asking to hear some of the album before I buy it. Radio stations used to play lots of different songs, which allowed me to do that. Now I have six buttons on my car radio and they all play the same crap, because they're also owned my megalithic soulless monopolies.
Should they prevent me from copying a CD to my MP3 player? They want to do that. iTunes already limits how many machines you can put a song on. That's turning fair users into criminals.
Again I say I know it's their call and their content and the courts back them up, but I'm saying they're wrong. Art was meant to be shared.
That's more a case of technology outpacing legislation, which it has had a tendency of doing lately.
Anyway, radio singles are intended to give you a sample of the album before buying. Giving someone a sample of the whole thing, and then asking them to pay for it later seems kind of naive on the record companies' behalf.
Hey, I'm not saying those bastards aren't making more money than any entity should reasonably have, I'm just saying that the arguments have holes.
And I have a topicality violation on the word "for," as you are not actually questioning the RIAA, but, in fact, questioning your readers.
Post a Comment