MP3s must become the "library books" of music

[UBERVIEW]

The best outcome we can hope for would be for Congress to pass legislation legalizing the trading of MP3s. Although it appears unlikely to happen tomorrow, it might someday if there is a rallying cry that can educate and unite the P2P community and legislators.

In the past, music lovers have been sorely abused by the entertainment industry. Without going into a lot of detail, not only has this industry charged obscene amounts for albums (CDs), but there is some talk that it has conspired to control and manipulate the supply of music (check out this site...

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/

click on "the facts")

...and technology upgrades in such a way that users are forced to pay multiple times for the privilege of listening to the same song (vinyl to 8-track, then audio cassettes, DAT, CDs and someday blue lasers). Even CD’s aren’t permanent storage if you can’t get a CD player twenty years from now. MP3s on the other hand, are.

The quality offered by MP3s is somewhat below that of your average WAV file. Because of this, a comparison can be made between MP3s and library books, which are daily loaned out to millions of citizens. If I want a brand spanking new book, with a crisp new cover and freshly pressed pages, I can get it from Amazon. If I'm willing to put up with tattered pages and some fading ink, I can go down to the library and get this copyrighted material for free (or at least less at Half Price Books). If I'm willing to accept sub-par sound, I can store and backup MP3s forever, something which must scare the music industry.

So somebody come up with a catchphrase that will embarrass the RIAA and unify the 60 million P2P users.

[begoodbebad]

It's not more legislation that's required. It all exists already, look at the public library system for books. That exists because there was a powerful belief by the educated parts of society that education and knowledge should be available to all. The authors of books accept very tiny token copyright payments from libraries because it's the cultural norm and they mostly share that ethos. They also know that they are still going to sell a lot of books (which of course are not so easily and conveniently copied as digital media). Some people are happy to borrow a book for a while and return it, others want or need to keep a copy. What the RIAA should be doing is finding the extra that makes owership more attractive than having a downloaded copy. If they can apply their considerable energy to this then they have nothing more to fear. They can allow people to download legally, maybe for a minimal fee, meanwhile still collecting profit from the people who like or need to buy and own.

[Respect Rights]

Um, actually libraries are allowed to do what they do because they own authorized copies of copyrighted works. They do not make or give out unauthorized copies of copyrighted works, as people do on Kazaa, etc.

The library is no different from a bookstore. A library just lends its books instead of selling them.

There must be some kind of little DING DING DING! sound that goes off in people's heads when they stumble on to this idea -- "Hey ... this file-sharing thing is just like the public library!" Because people will announce it, every time, without fail, as if they've just discovered the Meaning Of Life.

That is, until somebody like me comes along to explain for the millionth time that, no, file-sharing is nothing like the public library. File-sharing is copyright infringement because it creates and distributes new, unlicensed copies. The library does not.

It's really very simple. Sorry, your Intriguing New Revelation is really just a much-battered old fallacy.

[UBERVIEW]

First of all, there IS a comparison to be made. Maybe not a strong comparison, but one nonetheless. More important than a strict technical equation is whether or not it is a comparison that the public and congress will buy.

As begoodbebad pointed out, libraries obtain their copies at minimal cost, paid for by government for the benefit of the people. And to emphasise what he said, the problem could be alleviated by a minimal charge per MP3, instead of packaging fill material and pushing a $15 CD on us. Read what Courtney Love had to say about the quality of MP3s. Note what she had to say about the RIAA as well.

[aqlo]

I'm still sticking by the radio as the most valid model for what p2p is doing: free music, not always a very good quality or exactly when you want it, to be encouraged by any company who wants their artists to grab the public attention. Imagine if the Colonel had called up the radio stations and told them to "cease and desist" playing Elvis records without his permission. Imagine if some sharp new pro-p2p artist turned around and refused to allow the Clear Channel oligarchy to use her works in any way.

For the library to be a valid model we would have to really be "trading", once you got it from me I couldn't have it anymore, just like if "stealing" were a valid model then once I "stole" one of Britney's songs she would have to be able to show that she didn't have it anymore and would be without it until i returned it.

By the way, the local library here has tons of albums and cd's they lend out just like books, so the library model is working fine it just doesn't apply here. A better model for your "Stuff Should Be Free" goal might be fair use for educational purposes. Perhaps we are all just studying these songs and other bytes for the purpose of increasing our knowledge of music and technology?

[FreakinWeasel]

Originally posted by aqlo
By the way, the local library here has tons of albums and cd's they lend out just like books, so the library model is working fine it just doesn't apply here. A better model for your "Stuff Should Be Free" goal might be fair use for educational purposes. Perhaps we are all just studying these songs and other bytes for the purpose of increasing our knowledge of music and technology?

So what we need is a P2P app that is also a online music school and we all get to be teachers to each other. "now class, I want you to download 10 songs of your choice tonight and write a 3 word report on their quality". :devil

[PowerMan57two]

I doubt it will happen that they will pass it to make it legal swapping. After I think about it, i really doubt it will happen.

[begoodbebad]

impressive how "respect rights" reads what he wants to read and not what is actually written on the page.
What I'm suggesting in my post is that the problem of widespread distribution of copyrighted works has already been addressed, but yes the world has changed so the model is not transferrable but it provides some ideas, at least to people with thought processes and the ability to read, think, listen, consider, propose etc.
Quite clearly in my post I referred to a "downloaded copy" so clearly I am aware of the difference with printed matter and digital files and I also state that books "are not so easily and conveniently copied as digital media".
So which bit of this does Respect Rights not find legible?
The comparison is just that - a comparison, i.e there are differences as well as similarities. Clever stuff huh mr Respect Rights? You dumb prick.
And I used it to draw attention to the fact that what the RIAA could be doing is giving their product features that makes it attractive enough to buy. With library books of course you have to take them back even if you really really want to keep them. Or if you liked it that much you can go to the book store and buy a copy. (Yes books are copies too). Well if a CD had enough extra features or enabled some other bonus benefit then maybe a d/l copy would not be enough to satisfy everyone and some people would choose a cheap/free minimal download and others would buy the product. As I said its a comparison. it's an idea. It isn't set in stone and I am merely making some suggestions. I didn't just write the communist manifesto or baghavad gita or something.
So Mr Respect Rights:
1:Learn to read
2: Learn to reason
3: Stick to battering your own fallacy but please don't do it in public.

[TC75580]

begoodbebad:

Respect Rights is now nonexistant as a member (in case you didn't notice). you're thoughts are well-said, but you might as well tell it to your monitor (it probably has more intelligence than this Banned fellow, anywho).

[UBERVIEW]

I take it Respect Rights bumper sticker would be:

RIAA: Trust the Trust

[FileHoover]

Originally posted by aqlo
I'm still sticking by the radio as the most valid model for what p2p is doing: free music, not always a very good quality or exactly when you want it, to be encouraged by any company who wants their artists to grab the public attention. Imagine if the Colonel had called up the radio stations and told them to "cease and desist" playing Elvis records without his permission. Imagine if some sharp new pro-p2p artist turned around and refused to allow the Clear Channel oligarchy to use her works in any way.

For the library to be a valid model we would have to really be "trading", once you got it from me I couldn't have it anymore, just like if "stealing" were a valid model then once I "stole" one of Britney's songs she would have to be able to show that she didn't have it anymore and would be without it until i returned it.

By the way, the local library here has tons of albums and cd's they lend out just like books, so the library model is working fine it just doesn't apply here. A better model for your "Stuff Should Be Free" goal might be fair use for educational purposes. Perhaps we are all just studying these songs and other bytes for the purpose of increasing our knowledge of music and technology?
Radio Stations pay for their right to "perform" the music. Anytime a copyrighted work is performed for more than one person, you owe performance royalties to ASCAP or BMI.

About 10 years ago Disney threatened to sue a kindergarten school because they played a Disney tape to a whole class of students without paying performance royalties. Hahahaha. That went over REAL smoothly with the general public.

They have agents that go around to restaraunts, stores etc and if you are playing a tape for example in your restaraunt, they make you sign up or threaten you with a lawsuit.

P2P MIGHT be made legitimate on that basis, that you must pay performance royalties on every copy downloaded from your computer.