What does the fact that the artists contracted with an organization have to do with intellectual property rights?
Either the artists have the rights of property or they don't. If the do, they also have the rights to form contracts around those rights.
Or, is your argument simply that RIAA is a big evil cartel that must be destroyed and so ignoring their rights is ok?
(Incidentally, claiming RIAA is a monopoly or takes monopolistic actions has NOTHING to do with whether they have intellectual property rights. Argue to break up the monopoly, don't argue that it's ok to steal from them).
My argument was two fold. Others played the "you are robbing from a poor artists trying to be successful" card. No one called them on it, so I played the "evil monopoly" card. The other point I am trying to make is lawful =/= moral argument. Few people here are arguing this woman broke the law, rather the morality of the law. First I need to clarify what I mean:
My political beliefs are not insignificant from the majority here. I too have read "Atlas Shrugged" (and paid for the copy I might add), and have no problem with self interest. I purposely use the term self interest, because I believe "greed" is something more. Greed is the willingness to rob others to possess wealth. It is basically what many are accusing others here of being, "You don't want to pay for music like you should" type of talk. Then in another post you say it is perfectly acceptable for people to be greedy, and even go so far to say it is the only way man has evolved as a society. I see another interesting contradiction. To further follow the "greed is ok" argument, why should someone pay for music when they can be a cheapskate and get it for free?
I agree that self interest is perfectly natural. I didn't pursue a degree in Engineering so I can work for "Engineers without Borders." I did it to make money, and I enjoy it. This, however, does not make me greedy. I do not rob others for my wealth (this downloading issue aside).
I actually have no problem with monopolies in general. The problem I have with the RIAA is not simply that they are a monopoly, it is a moral problem. I am sure that most of what they do is legal, they have enough money to buy enough lawmakers to make it legal. This is where I have a problem.
The RIAA was created to establish a standard for record (vinyl) production. From my understanding, this means Label X & Y's records will both play on a standard player manufactured by Company Z. This applies to tapes, CD, etc. The problem is, their function is becoming increasing irrelevant. As people move to all digital, the RIAA's original function is no longer applicable. There are several free program available to convert between the scores of music file types (the most popular being MP3 and WAV). A industry standard is not needed so long as all songs can be converted.
So instead of allowing competition to enter the free market, or changing their business practices, the RIAA tried to block as much change as they could. This is where I have a problem. Monopolies that grow too big to compete in a changing market should adapt or die. Instead, the RIAA seems content to sue people, and buy politicians to change the law. Sure, they started with other companies that had deeper pockets. Since the other companies had the capital to defend themselves, they decided to do a shot gun pattern into people who couldn't. To be generous they would charge a mere few thousand dollars per settlement. Now they have a website where you can pay with a credit card, this way they don't have to pay lawyer fees.
Furthermore, they purposely set their prices to be whatever they wanted. Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not price fixing? If it is, it is illegal. Generally speaking in America, you can't go to court with your hands dirty. If the RIAA is conducting illegal business, they have no legal argument against someone else.
Just because downloading their music is not legal, does not make it immoral. Historically there are several laws that have been ruled immoral/illegal in the future. The question is whether IP laws as applied to music are moral or not. Personally, I only give credit to the artist who wrote the song. Once upon a time, there was a huge capital investment in marketing music. Now MTV doesnt even play music videos. I would argue that the services the RIAA offers are obsolete for the following reasons:
No music videos on MTV, VH1.
Radio stations are content to all play the same tire crap over and over.
The internet has proven itself to be a better advertisment for musicians.
The other point I was making was as follows. Given the ambiguous nature of IP laws, I think it is fair to say we have almost all violated one or two at some point in time. I used several avatars as an example, simply because it was the most obvious one. So before everyone cheers the punishment of the woman in the OP, we need to look at ourselves. If we let the owners of the avatars some people used (and may have violated IP laws) some of you guys could end up facing a multi-thousand dollar lawsuit. Also, what if you guys had to pay $80,000 for everytime you sang "Happy Birthday" to your children? The ambiguous nature of these laws will only lead to more arbitrary punishment. The RIAA has no interest in making a fair law, and has/is actively trying to make the law as strict and vague as possible. More importantly, the RIAA has no BUSINESS making any law.
Remember, when there are enough laws, everyone is a criminal. Also if accusers are allowed to determine value of their damages, we end up with 1.65 trillion dollar lawsuits (see the link in my original post). Also if you would read the other link in my original post, there is at least one study that determined the effect of music downloads to be statistically irrelevant to music sales. This is not an argument to moralize, simply an argument that the punishment does not fit the crime in the OP.
As I said before, if I am way off base here, please correct me. This is just how I see the issue. Maybe I am blinded by my own greed, and possibly even self-righteousness (something I have never been accused of, to my face at least)
I will freely admit that I do emphasize with the artists on this issue, I know the people who produced the music deserve a cut as well. The funny thing is, I dont really download music. Most of my collection came from making backups of several friends music on an external HD. I know it is just as bad, just saying..
