We Got Power

[Anonymous Proxy]

As a rule I don't care for cruel humour. Talk show host monologues bother me. I get tired of cruel jokes directed at celebrities.

Here's a funny thing though. I like Britney Spears jokes. She called her fans thieves, and in my opinion, because of that, she deserves everything she gets.

When Dr Dre first came out, I used to always hear how tough he was. Then Dr Dre joined Britney's gang in calling filesharers thieves, and all I'd like to say to Dr Dre and his whole stable is, "I got your stuff Dr Dre. nya-nya, nya, nya-nya."

I've never been a big Metalica fan, but sometimes I'll burn a CD for a buddy, and I'll throw in a metallica song. On the CD index I'll label it "Some crappy song by Metallica, because I ran out of real music". When the subject of Metallica, and their music comes up, I always make sure to mention the time I saw Lars on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and how he performed so badly he almost looked retarded. Then I say, "How can you take the lyrics of the band he represented seriously".

I was thinking about those three, and how I feel towards them. It got me to pondering, what if every filesharer out there felt the same way I did about them. There are 60 million filesharers. We could shut them down, and shut them up. We got power.

I remember when the news came out the RIAA had filed over 200 lawsuits against individual filesharers. A kind of Chicken-little mentality began to invade P2P messageboards. "You are doomed" RIAA enthusiasts would tell us. "Filesharing is dead.".

I was reading about TCPA at the time, and how industry was going to integrate computer software with the hardware, in order to make it damn near unhackable, then start auditing and managing the stuff on user's personal computers.

I was scared too. I was thinking maybe the doomsayers are correct. Maybe filesharing and personal freedom in general is dead. It's all just a matter of time.

Then the RIAA sued Brianna, the 12 year old honors student, living in the projects and everything changed. I saw the public backlash, and I got my guts back. Even the musicians the RIAA claim to be working for started dissing the organization.

Now I was thinking it's only a matter of time before the RIAA blackens their reptutation so bad, all power they may have had will disintegrate.

When the 60 million individual voices of filesharers unite as one voice on a subject it's a scary thing. Eventually this fact is even going to beat it's way through the thick heads of politicians. We got power. We got power, we don't even know about yet.

Kid's who started filesharing with Napster are now old enough to vote, and here's an incontrovertible fact. If filesharers were ever to unite together as one unit, for one instant in time, we could vote in the next President of the United States.

[jonnymnemonic]

THEY have power too. True, the UNKNOWN artists have no power, but the popular ones have lots of power. In a sense, their power is the biggest of all.

For example, let's say 60 million people vote to make all intellectual property free. Great, so now all the J.K. Rowling fans (tens of millions? hundreds of millions?) know they'll get her next book for free, no need to pay a dime. Except...she could simply chose not to write that next book. Or release it if it's already written. And even if the 60 million people passed a law saying that artists HAD to continue to create, whether they want to or not, whether they can make a living from it or not - how would that be enforced?

What was it Paul Atreides said in Dune? "The people who can destroy a thing, they control it." The artists have that power, which is the ultimate control. At least the artists who produce stuff that the public wants to have access to.

Just think if they unionize, like the Major League Baseball players, and start setting minimum rates for live shows that ALL artists have to abide by (like the minimum salaries for baseball players). Notice how tickets to baseball games have skyrocketed since that union came to exist? Notice how player salaries have skyrocketed too? The power of the *artists* hasn't even been tapped yet. Collectively they are HUGELY powerful. We're just (financially) fortunate they *haven't* acted collectively...yet.

[cheapprick]

Originally posted by Anonymous Proxy
When the subject of Metallica, and their music comes up, I always make sure to mention the time I saw Lars on Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and how he performed so badly he almost looked retarded. Then I say, "How can you take the lyrics of the band he represented seriously".

LOL, yeah that was great. He can be fortunate he's already a struggling millionaire.

[Pebbles100]

Originally posted by Anonymous Proxy
Here's a funny thing though. I like Britney Spears jokes. She called her fans thieves, and in my opinion, because of that, she deserves everything she gets.

Ahh, yes - Brittney. *sigh* The girl lipsang at the NFL pre game show, while everyone else really did sing. Guess she's not coordinated enough to do both :)The world would be a much better place if she would just go away. Like Johnny said, maybe she'll get so mad at her fans and just quit. :mellow

[que-em]

Originally posted by Pebbles100
Ahh, yes - Brittney. *sigh* The girl lipsang at the NFL pre game show, while everyone else really did sing. Guess she's not coordinated enough to do both :)The world would be a much better place if she would just go away - far away. Like Johnny said, maybe she'll get so mad at her fans and just quit.

You can't blame her for not lip singing (syncing). If you heard her performance at the MTV awards you'll know what I'm talking. Sounded like they had a dying alley cat in the room.

[Anonymous Proxy]

THEY have power too. True, the UNKNOWN artists have no power, but the popular ones have lots of power. In a sense, their power is the biggest of all.

You're absolutely right Johnny. I would never want to piss the arists off so bad that they were willing to organize against their own fans.

That's the difference between me and the Music Industry though. They have been aggressevely attacking their own fans lately to the point, it's only a matter of time before the dog starts to bite.

Or maybe I understand you incorrectly. Are you saying musicians are so angry 12 year olds are downloading their music for free, they could fight back, so we better watch out.

[jonnymnemonic]

If I even had a point (and I don't remember, that was two cups of coffee ago), then it was probably something like: don't be so smug about the power that 60 million votes provides when you can't legislate the actual production of creative works, only their distribution. Or something like that. But like I said, that was two cups of coffee in the past which, to an old man like me, is a long time. ;)

[shawners]

That twelve year old needs to inform Jay Leno, David letterman, Good morning show and others and let her case be heard. Not as many knows about the lawsuit but it could be a big fire if we are to spread gasoline on it. BUrning the riaa wildlife is another way of making them extinct. Im not the one who will pull the trigger on the riaa, I am just helping supply the ammo and cock the gun.

[Anonymous Proxy]

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic
don't be so smug about the power that 60 million votes provides when you can't legislate the actual production of creative works, only their distribution.

Yeah, but Jonny, wouldn't it be nice to be in a position someday where we can allow ourselves the luxury of being smug.

I'm reading so many posts these days where I'm being told the RIAA is the power. They're going to win the war. I should just line up and pay my 20 bucks, and bend over the desk.

Suppose the filesharing community actually exercised it's power? Suppose it began to support artists that supported it? Suppose it supported politicians that supported it? Suppose it did stuff like organize an alternative to the music industry, one that actually used 21st century technology to help artists make a living, rather than fall under the boot of an industry that wants to behave as if the technology doesn't exist?

And suppose the music industry had to restructure itself to a sane 21st century model as a result of our actions?

Could you support the kind of smugness we would be entitled to?

[crackerjacker]

nice read, i didnt read all the posts though.
but people really do have power, and not just by using filesharing programs to distribute and share files.
there are many ways to use the power to beat the riaa at there own games.
boycott.

and yes artists do have a say but to an extent, for example if an artists signs with a record company they are in fact signing a contract. this contract with the record industry puts limits on the artists rights.

the whole point was for artists to be protected . The fact remain tthough that artists need to be protected against the riaa.

weird thing is the best way to empower one self is to seek out knowledge etc.
but it seems a no holds barred situation where the only way to rectify a situation is where people take a stand.

I know for a fact I been fed up with the riaa's tactics blaming p2p for the demise of cd sales. I reckon I just do what I always been doing, by staying the hell away from the riaa and not buy cds.

Instead u can still support the artists by humbley going to the artists concerts, tours, and buying there hats, or other stuff. That way you support them.
I must say that copyright needs to be protective, but it must be a two way street. There is to much I would like to say on that, but it would to extensive so I will be straight to the point.

P2p filesharing will still be here, no matter what. But I honestly i wont even bother with the riaa or there artists.
the riaa has giving their own artists a bad name. so in other words artists have to make a choice.

a word of advice honor your contract if your an artist, then go into business for youself, and represent yourself, or form an association that would protect your rights, as well as the consumers.
boycott-riaa.com peace
share if u care, but also support those artists u love
only way to live by. *buy, by, etc* peace out

[jonnymnemonic]

Well, it all really comes down to freedoms in the end. Does the artist have the freedom to set a price on his product (and expect to get that price if the consumer gets that product)? Nobody has EVER said you have to spend $20 on anything. If you don't like the fact that cars cost way too much (well, in my opinion anyway), you don't have to buy one. Ever. Right?

Or do we strip that freedom from the artists and take it for ourselves, such that WE decide what price to put on what they make? Someone has to have the freedom to make those decisions, obviously. The only real question is who. In a capitalistic society, it is the producers who decide price, and the consumers who decide whether to buy at that price or not. Both have their own essential freedom in that scenario - the producers to set price, the consumers to choose whether or not to buy at that price.

I see nothing inherently wrong with an artist being able to set his price for his music at $100 a song, or Toyota to raise the price for a Corolla to $150,000. What's wrong with that? However ridiculously people wish to price things, I retain the freedom not to buy if I so choose. If I think $100 a song is ridiculously high, or if I think $20 a CD is ridiculously high, nothing prevents me from simply not buying it, as with any other product.

Yet, if the public can usurp the freedom of the artist (copyright holder, creator, whatever) to price his work himself, by setting the price FOR him, that is a problem. I'm not saying artists CAN'T give their music away for free, for promotional reasons (or kindness, or whatever reason they wish), but shouldn't they have the freedom to choose whether that is what they wish to do, or shall we instead take that freedom from them and arbitrarily assign it to ourselves?

Clearly, that violates the spirit of capitalism. If all things worked that way, then everything would be free. But there would also be nothing (or close to nothing) because no one would produce anything. It is when capitalism breaks down, as it is here, that governments and lawyers step in to restore lost freedoms. And they will succeed too. At worst, what will happen is that taxes will pay for everything. That's a loss to OUR freedom as consumers in a sense: we WILL pay for things that way, whether we wish to do so or not, because the money will simply be removed from our paychecks before they reach us.

Balancing the freedoms of the artists with the freedoms we normally have as consumers is in this case probably going to require government involvement. I can't even begin to tell you how much I hate that idea, but I don't really see many choices, other than simply tossing the basic premises of capitalism out the window and moving toward a more socialistic society. And I hate THAT idea even more, because by and large capitalism works pretty damn well.

What is inherently wrong with not buying what you perceive to be too expensive? (With the caveat that if you don't buy it, you also don't get it.)

[Anonymous Proxy]

That's an interesting point Jonny, but are you sure you posted it to the right thread?

I'm going to try to steer things back on topic, by making another point.

Have you noticed how things have changed in the way the mainstream media is starting to treat the filesharing question since the Brianna Debacle?

Used to be, you would get a three line squib telling the public how filesharers were stealing music. Now media outlets as large as the NY Times are dedicating multi-page articles to the intricacies of the arguement.

I think this means the real battle has finally begun.

It's only a matter of time before you see the filesharer's arguement presented on Oprah.

The natural progression will see groups begin to form the filesharing community into one cohesive fighting unit.

[tMoD]

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic
Well, it all really comes down to freedoms in the end. Does the artist have the freedom to set a price on his product (and expect to get that price if the consumer gets that product)? Nobody has EVER said you have to spend $20 on anything. If you don't like the fact that cars cost way too much (well, in my opinion anyway), you don't have to buy one. Ever. Right?

Or do we strip that freedom from the artists and take it for ourselves, such that WE decide what price to put on what they make? Someone has to have the freedom to make those decisions, obviously. The only real question is who. In a capitalistic society, it is the producers who decide price, and the consumers who decide whether to buy at that price or not. Both have their own essential freedom in that scenario - the producers to set price, the consumers to choose whether or not to buy at that price.

I see nothing inherently wrong with an artist being able to set his price for his music at $100 a song, or Toyota to raise the price for a Corolla to $150,000. What's wrong with that? However ridiculously people wish to price things, I retain the freedom not to buy if I so choose. If I think $100 a song is ridiculously high, or if I think $20 a CD is ridiculously high, nothing prevents me from simply not buying it, as with any other product.

Yet, if the public can usurp the freedom of the artist (copyright holder, creator, whatever) to price his work himself, by setting the price FOR him, that is a problem. I'm not saying artists CAN'T give their music away for free, for promotional reasons (or kindness, or whatever reason they wish), but shouldn't they have the freedom to choose whether that is what they wish to do, or shall we instead take that freedom from them and arbitrarily assign it to ourselves?

Clearly, that violates the spirit of capitalism. If all things worked that way, then everything would be free. But there would also be nothing (or close to nothing) because no one would produce anything. It is when capitalism breaks down, as it is here, that governments and lawyers step in to restore lost freedoms. And they will succeed too. At worst, what will happen is that taxes will pay for everything. That's a loss to OUR freedom as consumers in a sense: we WILL pay for things that way, whether we wish to do so or not, because the money will simply be removed from our paychecks before they reach us.

Balancing the freedoms of the artists with the freedoms we normally have as consumers is in this case probably going to require government involvement. I can't even begin to tell you how much I hate that idea, but I don't really see many choices, other than simply tossing the basic premises of capitalism out the window and moving toward a more socialistic society. And I hate THAT idea even more, because by and large capitalism works pretty damn well.

What is inherently wrong with not buying what you perceive to be too expensive? (With the caveat that if you don't buy it, you also don't get it.)

The idea goes both ways. Consumers can set the prices and if the artists don't like the price they receive for their work they can stop producing, like you suggested, and go into another line of work (no one's forcing them to be artists) then consumers starving for some culture might well be willing to relent and let artists make a decent living creating culture. I am not advocating this by the way; I am just showing how it can be argued both ways. I think a compromise should be reached whereby artists (and people offering intermediary services) can make a decent living and consumers are not overcharged. I have never been about getting everything free forever. What I want to see are some radical changes in the recording industry so that artists and consumers are no longer being so completely screwed by the industry.

[Malicious Intent]

Originally posted by Anonymous Proxy


It's only a matter of time before you see the filesharer's arguement presented on Oprah.


I thought that Oprah dealt with domestic issues? Although that would be good:
"My teenage son is out of control - He steals music from the internet" hmmm, catchy.

[shawners]

i disagree. It's called supply and demand, if the demand is high, the price will be high, If the supply is high, its because the demand is so low. If you dont buy it, or get so many to stop buying it, it will eventually lower the price, i notice more cd's under ten dollars from new artist coming out, and some are even 8.99 or two for twenty. They can set the price as high as they want, but their idiots. If a cars price is too high you can always buy a used one, or steal it. Same with Cd's. In fact their is soo many artist out their and the way their cd's are pretty much in same price range which suspects of price fixing, no one to beat out or to sale more of. Recording companies work together. Notice how their releases are in conjunction with each other in releasing the album to not hurt other sales.