RIAA is right, maybe
Aug 11 '00
This review is a response to lovdbyGod7s's review and a myriad of other less factually accurate and logically unsound reviews about RIAA, Metallica, Dr. Dre and other artists versus Napster.
I have taken the liberty of preserving lovdbyGod7's unedited review as it appeared Friday August 11, 2000 on 11:07 a.m. Pacific Standard Time. One can find it at http://www.geocities.com/dchoy/riaa.html . One can also find it at http://sirmontego.epinions.com/musc-review-6721-1130A747-39937293-prod1
I also left a comment with the following text: "I'm sorry about the low rating, but I found either factual errors, flaws of argument, or a poor analogy in almost every paragraph of this review. If you would like for me to address them please e-mail me, but I'm afraid you'll retaliate.
--SirMontego, look for me on battle.net
p.s. if you find your mistakes and fix them please e-mail me so I can change my rating."
In response to this, lovdbyGod7 sent me an e-mail requesting me to address the issues in question. This is the address.
I will begin at the top and work my way down. The first paragraph shall be labeled "1" the second, "2" and so on.
1 - CDs DO cost less $20
Looking at various on-line retailers such as Amazon.com, Buy.com, and CdNow.com, and brick-and-mortar retailers such as Tower Records, Sam Goody, and Borders, one will easily find that the vast majority of retailers price their CDs below $20. While many non-sale CDs cost 17.99 or 18.99, many top 40 album sell at or below $14.99. Albums of over $20 do exist, but most of them contain either multiple CDs or significant extras. Unequivocally, his quote of "For twelve songs" clearly distinguishes the type of CD--the non-multiple CD variety.
2 - The Napster Network DOES Store the Files
This is an argument that I do not necessarily agree with, but should be addressed because of the extreme ignorance with the issue. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) 17 U.S.C. § 512(a) reads: "for infringement of copyright by reason of the {service} provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections."
Basically, this means that five specific conditions must be met to immunize an Internet Service Provider (Napster) from prosecution. RIAA alleges that the fourth condition "no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections;"
Mp3newswire.net puts it plainly by saying "no copy of the copyrighted material made by the service provider is maintained on their system or network"
Napster claims that they "do not make a copy of the material during transmissions nor do they store files on their system." RIAA refutes this claim saying, " . . . every person's computer who is a Napster user is part of the 'System'."
No judge has dismissed RIAA's claim in this instance.
3 - Banning Users was the Correct Action
Napster's copyright policy reads "As a condition to your account with Napster, you agree that you will not use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way. Napster will terminate the accounts of users who are repeat infringers of the copyrights, or other intellectual property rights, of others."
Metallica identified exactly 335,435 users (not 300,000) who allegedly "shared" their songs in violation of copyright laws. Now take note that NetPD recorded these users, not Metallica. This was an independent agency hired by Metallica to find infingers. Similarly, Dr. Dre gave Napster his list of 239,612 usernames who he alleges have violated copyright laws.
Additionally about 30,000 users have appealed their ban from Napster.
These banned users are not "Napster's People." Just the same as people selling kiddie porn over eBay are not eBay's people, they have violated Federal law, although they may be "using and promoting" the service.
Napster was originally made as way for Shawn Fanning to share his music with his friends. Never in his original programming did he intend it to violate copyright laws.
Money is an entirely separate issue. As Lars Ulrich, drummer for Metallica says, it is about having control of his art.
4 - Get the Language Straight!
RIAA is suing on behalf of its members--NOT for EVERY copyrighted song, just the songs of its members. Additionally they are suing $100,000 for each title, not for each download.
This isn't a legalese enigma. Think about it, if I downloaded one song, could RIAA sue $200,000 for that ONE download? How could they claim that much damage from a single user? It's $100,000 for each song title.
4 - RIAA is suing Napster, not the Mp3 Technology
According to the RIAA web-page "The suit is against Napster, the company, not MP3 technology." and "As for MP3 technology, RIAA only has a problem with the illegal uses of the format to distribute copyrighted recordings without the permission of the artist or record company." and "No one is trying to stop technology -- all the RIAA and its members are trying to do is to put a stop to a new high-tech type of theft. Keeping someone from trying to use your ATM card doesn't mean you are trying to stop the use of ATMs."
One may find it morally acceptable to steal from those have stolen, but the law looks at it differently. RIAA's monopoly pricing is an entirely different issue. If the school bully steals your lunch money every day for a month, it does not give you permission to rob his house.
5 - Technology can lose
Back to my kiddie porn example: the internet is an excellent place to sell kiddie porn. It makes it convenient, anonymous, and efficient, unfortunately selling kiddie porn is illegal. The fact that technology makes it easier does not make it legal.
6 - We do not Change Laws to Create Innocence
If 20 million people break the law, we do not change the law. We enforce it better. Thousands of children under the age of 21 consume alcohol in America, yet few lawmakers advocate lowering the drinking age. Millions of people drive over the speed limit, yet how many bills have requested an increase in the speed limit? Heck, if we made beating your wife legal, we would have less criminals.
Additionally, the fact that Napster has 20 million users does not automatically make them copyright infringers. According to my own Napigator findings, only about 50,000 users are on the Napster network at any given moment. I also question how many users of the 20 million regularly use Napster.
11 - Technology Loses Again
"Widgets" do exist that allow people to run their vehicles at a lower cost per mile. The EPA bans these because they create more pollution. For example, I could tweak my car to spit out dirty polluting exhaust that would make it run more efficient for me, but the EPA says I cannot. The technology exists, the courts see why it is bad, the EPA can see why it's bad, I understand, but I just can't figure out why lovdbyGod7 can't.
i Comments - One Words Explains it All
Look-up the word "Vaporware."
--SirMontego, look for me on battle.net
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
SirMontego
|
 - Top 500 |
|
Location: America!
Reviews written: 87
Trusted by: 230 members
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.