Piracy and the RIAA: Intellectual Property vs. the Free Domain of the Internet.

Piracy and the RIAA: Intellectual Property vs. the Free Domain of the Internet.



16 year old Shane Comegys had just picked up the classic dream car, a 1970’s Ford Mustang. With one of the hottest rides in town, things looked bright for Shane, that is until he was slammed with a massive suit by the Recording Industry Association of America. The RIAA informed Shane that he was being sued for downloading near 2,000 songs by RIAA represented artists. He was given an ultimatum; either pay a $4,250 settlement or go to court facing a minimum payoff of $750 per song, a staggering 1.4 million. With only a part time job, Shane was forced to make a heartbreaking decision; he had to sell his Mustang. For a meager $2,500, his dream ride was sold before he even had a chance to drive it (http://jalopnik.com/5667666/how-the-riaa-took-my-vintage-mustang). Shane’s story is not dissimilar to those of hundreds of other lovers of music who use peer to peer file sharing programs to download music. The RIAA has threatened to sue some 300,000 of their own customers. The primary target of the RIAA’s fleet of cut-throat lawyers are college aged students, one of the most important target audiences for recording artists and their labels.

The Hunt For Pirates.

These suits begin as what are called pre-lawsuit letters. Basically, the RIAA has their legal department send letters out to individuals they accuse of “stealing” music. The letters threaten the accused consumer with civil lawsuit unless they pay a settlement for their “crimes.” Settlement demands range anywhere from the average $750 per song to a heart stopping $9000 per song! Considering that the RIAA lawsuits are typically leveled against people accused of sharing 500 or more copy written material, settlements range from an average $3,000 to over $200,000! With songs typically going for $0.99 on iTunes or Rhapsody, the RIAA is making huge profits off of these lawsuits! In fact, it is estimated that one average settlement with the RIAA costs them $200 in expenses, with $2,800 in profit left over. That seems beyond excessive considering the cost off a legal download from iTunes or Rhapsody costs a meager $0.99. The age range of the “pirates” that the RIAA leveled charges against ranges from age 10 to age 83 (http://filesharefreak.com/2008/02/15/riaa-trivia-fun-facts). However, the primary targets of the efforts of the RIAA are college age students and the universities they attend. The RIAA has recently increased pressure on schools to hand over students IP addresses and personal information in order to serve those accused of p2p file sharing notices of copyright infringement. These students are then given two options, pay us now or pay us later in court.

One such case, LaFace(a RIAA owned label) v. Doe 1-5 provides shocking perspective into the bullying and harassment tactics used by the RIAA and the emotional effects they have on the families of falsely accused thieves. The father of ,Brittney Kruger, aka Doe 5, a junior at Northern Michigan University, writes his account of the nightmare he and his family endured because of the efforts of the RIAA. He describes how the shock of the $8,000 settlement cost drove his daughter to tears and forced his family into a terrifying corner. Already in debt from Brittney’s college costs and the costs of raising a family, he goes on to address the cold and impersonal tactics that the RIAA’s collections agency harassed him and his family, going as far as to investigate his young sons and wife. The full account of his ordeal can be found here (http://www.p2pnet.net/story/19613). What I find most disturbing about this whole ordeal concerns the involvement of Northern Michigan University in surrendering one of their own students to the hounds of the RIAA legal department. They are just one of many schools that have been feeling the pressure to surrender the names and information of “pirates.”

Intellectual "Property".

Though the RIAA claims to have ownership of the music their artists create, can one truly “own” music? Is it possible to put a price tag on something that only exists to the customer when they hear it? Does an mp3 file contain all of the time and money spent to create it? According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, music falls under the realm of copyright. Under a copyright, an artist has moral and legal rights to protect and collect revenue from the artistic work they have created. An artist in a recording contract sells the rights to their music in order to have access to a larger budget, promotion, and distribution of music. However, the artist does not necessarily reap the full benefits from the sale of their product. The ones coming out on top of this arrangement are the record labels and the corporations that run them. While there are many examples of recording artists fighting against piracy (most famously Metallica and their vocal outrage at Napster, a former file sharing platform) many artists embrace piracy as a new way for their music to reach a broader audience. Many major artists, such as Jason Mraz, rapper Chuck D, and the band Heart have officially spoken out in support of p2p networks as a way for them to reach previously un-thought of audiences (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61254-2005Feb28.html).

In reality, musicians on both major and independent labels make more money from live performances and the sale of merchandise than from royalties. Exposure through p2p sharing helps these artists gain a wider fan base, and generate more concert ticket sales. This helps venues receive more income and put on more shows, thus allowing more up and coming artists to perform and gain exposure to fans. More and more artists are speaking out on this polarizing issue in favor of file sharing because they realize the potential of this new way to reach new audiences.

It is my belief that p2p sharing networks are the vessels of a new way of exchanging ideas and concepts. A network of people connected world-round exchanging ideas in the form of music and film highlights the new egalitarian way of thinking that comes with the age of the internet. In these time when practically anyone can access countless forms of entertainment and information, we need to progress from conventional means of protecting these ideas to one that realizes that suing the pants off of consumers of entertainment is not the way. It is my belief that the recording industry sees the potential for bands to become successful without a major label budget. With the popularity of social networking and file sharing, a musician or filmmaker can share their ideas at virtually no cost to them and control every stage of the process of releasing their music. Ticket sales for concerts have been on a steady rise. Artists feel less impact from the loss of CD sales than the labels do, and with new recording technology, it is relatively easy for amateur musicians and filmmakers to create, edit, and produce works of art. The RIAA really needs to examine this new social movement and find a way to work with it in order to accomplish what their real goal SHOULD be, the release of musical works. Until then, I will say that no good Pirate would quit looting and pillaging, even when up against the wrath of the armada, and this music pirate refuses to surrender to the land-lubin’ RIAA!

For more information about Intellectual Property, check out--- www.wipo.com

For information about the pro-Piracy political party, check out--- http://pirate-party.us/news.php