Information InFiltration. Mediactive techultural artism and much much more!

front page???E.A.Dobbsreview-a-rama

secret room upstairsFilterItYourselfwhatever
[- Jesse Jordan vs the RIAA
whatever
By Johnvon Seggern, Section whatever...
Posted on Wed Jun 11th, 2003 at 07:54:25 PM EURODISCORDIA TIME
RIAA Wrath Hits Teen

On April 3, 19-year-old Jesse Jordan received a call that changed his life.

The freshman at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., learned he was being sued by one of the most powerful trade groups in the United States, the Recording Industry Association of America...


This story is making the rounds of the Internet right now, and has been the #1 story on blogdex since this morning. Poor Jesse Jordan set up a general-purpose peer-to-peer file-sharing engine on campus and after being threatened with a massive lawsuit by the RIAA, he has settled out of court and will be paying them his entire life savings: $12,000. I'm sure this seems wrong to many people -- but why?


 

[ --------------------------------------------- ]

I think it's because many of us intuit that a dramatically faster freer flow of information such as the Internet makes possible is a good thing generally, leading to innovation and general human advancement and betterment. In fact, a relatively free Internet might be the greatest tool for the propagation of knowledge ever invented (although such things are difficult to measure).

To those of us who share this view to any extent, trying to punish those who are using the network for precisely the purpose for which it was designed (the propagation and sharing of knowledge and information) seems willfully perverse and (if successful) will only lead to crippling the Net and making it much less useful than it might be otherwise. As a musician myself, I wholeheartedly agree with those who argue that creators need to get paid, but it seems like it is well-past time for a thorough overhaul of the way that gets accomplished. Perhaps even our ideas of intellectual property more generally need to be reconceptualized in light of the radical acceleration of the flow of ideas and information which digital technology has brought.

[ --------------------------------------------- ]



Sort:
Display:
Jesse Jordan vs the RIAA | 6 comments
[new] rethinking intellectual property vs. tantrums (Avg. Score: 3.00 / Raters: 3) (#2)
by jgraham on Fri Jun 20th, 2003 at 06:36:43 AM EURODISCORDIA TIME
(User Info)

As a musician myself, I wholeheartedly agree with those who argue that creators need to get paid, but it seems like it is well-past time for a thorough overhaul of the way that gets accomplished. Perhaps even our ideas of intellectual property more generally need to be reconceptualized in light of the radical acceleration of the flow of ideas and information which digital technology has brought.

yep, that's the ticket alright... while Apple and others have grasped the obvious: turn online music trading into a business model, the RIAA prefers the Neanderthal tantrum approach. Of course, the RIAA and MPAA never tire of repeating history - it's fairly well known by now that they've tried to fight every new technology that's later made them money, including audio cassettes, VCR's etc... In this case, of course, they're expanding their tantrum to a generaly technology that could facilitate online music trading.

So here's a reminder for ya - guess who provided the biggest leg up that facilitated online music trading? Yep - the RIAA. That's right folks, the record industry crammed the CD down our throats back when people were still buying vinyl. As described here:

Most experts agree quality had less to do with the abandonment of vinyl than did economics. People stopped being sold vinyl. The record industry discouraged record stores from selling vinyl by putting a no-return policy on it. A no-return policy meant retailers could not sell back stock they could not move. This made decisions on stocking shelves more complicated, and the CD, which did have a return policy, all the more appealing. This no-return policy even included defective units. So, a retailer that received a warped record was forced to either sit on it or sell it at a cutout price just to get it out of the store. With few stores left selling vinyl, the general public was forced to buy CDs. The record companies had successfully made up consumers' minds for them.

So we got to buying CD's, and then pretty soon we started digitizing them into our computers... think we'd be doing that with LP's?

So boys n girls, the moral of the story is, sue the RIAA for their life savings: those damn CD's they came up with are all about stealing, plain n simple...



[new] how many people get it? (Avg. Score: 3.00 / Raters: 1) (#1)
by amy on Sat Jun 14th, 2003 at 09:42:31 AM EURODISCORDIA TIME
(User Info) http://plagiarist.org

this seems like a slapp suit to me... (i wonder if this can be defined as "public participation" under new york's anti-slapp legislation?

still, as the RIAA well knows, having laws to protect people from bullying is one thing; their being in a position to take advantage of the laws is another. if the ABC news story is even roughly accurate, the RIAA has simply used intimidation tactics to make jordan buckle under in an out of court settlement - in a situation where they probably wouldn't have had a prayer in court. jordan can't afford to be wrong, and the RIAA know it. in many cases, public embarrassment of the bully in question is an effective defense. but the RIAA has such a monopoly on the music industry, they don't care HOW evil the public think they are.

the RIAA is a trust, and should be broken up. probably the current DOJ isn't going to do that. it may take awhile for things to change in that direction.

but - what's really disturbing here is that jordan's project really ISN'T about swapping music files. it's a general purpose search utility, a better mousetrap - not the type of thing a person would be on guard about releasing, even in the post-napster hysterical climate.

but, the RIAA can get away with calling it stealing because not enough people can understand the difference. there's a general apathy about censorship among the non-tech population - even activists - when it comes to censorship imposed upon technology. we see causes from stuff like this to fighting government Internet surveillance taken up by the EFF and techies, but somehow, it doesn't seem to sink in as important outside of tech specific groups. Perhaps the issues seem too technical? Perhaps they don't seem important outside the "virtual" world?

Maybe the obvious thing the tech community sees isn't so obvious outside it: that being told what you can and can't say and do with your computer is the same as being told what you can and can't say with your pen or your mouth.

Thoughts?
# begin amy's sig
-- Discordia is nice.
# end amy's sig







 
[new] thenewriaa.com (Avg. Score: none / Raters: 0) (#6)
by Anonymous Stranger on Tue Dec 16th, 2003 at 02:42:01 AM EURODISCORDIA TIME

Take a look - very funny stuff...



 
[new] Intellectual Property Rights and Good Intentions (Avg. Score: none / Raters: 0) (#5)
by PaulChenoweth (oldmaster@college.com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2003 at 04:52:22 PM EURODISCORDIA TIME
(User Info) http://forum.belmont.edu/dragonstale/

There is a relatively constant buzz around Nashville and Belmont University's Mike Curb School of Entertainment and Music Business regarding intellectual property rights as they pertain to the recording industry. Certainly, the Internet has opened up a new world of issues and hopefully genuine opportunities in the distribution of music and intellectual properties. There are serious questions being raised about the long accepted creative and production process that gets a song from a songwriter to an end user... to say the least, there are A&R, creative services, labels, management companies, mastering companies, distribution companies, and even the performance rights organizations who are potentially facing radical changes in business models. A technically savy artist (or one with technically savy associates) can write, record, promote, and sell/distribute songs electronically and by-pass much of the traditional process and yet still retain the copyright protection guaranteed in the US constitution (yes, there are infrastructure issues that could be prohibitively expensive). For the industry, that is a frightening realization... just imagine that artists could actually feel a sense of 'control' over their crafted works instead of being controlled by multiple layers of management and a plethora of accountants and lawyers.

Certainly, file sharing or pirating of an artist's work is possible even if distribution is regulated by the artist. If the issue is truly about the 'money'... under a more ideal model, an end user might pay 25 cents (or less) via an electronic service for a song to burn on their PC with the confidence that they are supporting the artist (not an idustry), that their payment is fair and equitable, and that the transaction is legal according to unbundled copyright laws. If I could get what I wanted at that price level and NOT fear some legal attack by law enforcement from copyright infringement...I would probably buy MUCH more music than I have ever purchased at a traditional retail outlet. Considering the market for music worldwide, artists could potentially receive more income than ever possible... and the consumer regains control over what is popular and what is not. In the meantime, it is easy to download copyrighted material...that does NOT make it ethically or legally right. Do not expect the music industry to roll over and play dead, we as consumers (and voters) helped create this monster... it will be interesting to see whether or not the industry has the wherewithal to re-invent itself... or if consumer/voters can actually organize a substantial lobby for change. IMHO, P:)
<CFsig>
Ask me about "Chasing the Dragon's Tale - Generational Technology Gaps", I'm looking for collaborators.
</CFsig>


 
[new] Sharing, buying and copying (Avg. Score: none / Raters: 0) (#4)
by SamLiban on Fri Jun 20th, 2003 at 11:52:20 AM EURODISCORDIA TIME
(User Info)

Where does one start, when the truth seems so obvious?
The sharing of music does not hinder the regular consumption (sales) of music!
During the early time of Napster and other p2p-models - before the hype made the RIAA notice and BMG buy Napster - the record industry sold more records than ever before.
Additionally, the applications made it possible to test new 'paths' of music, e.g. somebody with no knowledge about Jazz could surf and download different pieces and by this get to know artists, she/he would have otherwise never noticed - and guess what: Many have then bought the records!

On the other hand - the music industry is a slave-machine - we are penetrated with boy-groups, girl-groups, "bimbos", remakes, re-remakes and re-reremakes - and if that was not enough - many so called musicians are not more than actors, better employed actors - remember Milli Vanilli (at least here in Germany, it was a perceived as a slap in the face of the consumers, when it was revealed, that another group was doing the singing and Milli Vanilli only danced and moved lips...).
Have you ever thought about the ways the companies produce records - thats what they do - they produce. Therefore, it seems logical, that (since in our times people thinking of themselves as capitalists only envision short time periods - see the consequences of the "Share Holder Value" on the stocks) the industry turned from helping artists produce their individual art, to producing employees and using the same methods over and over again, minimizing the costs and (through the CD and other ways) maximizing the profit.
With the introduction of the CD the industry lost what ever was there - concerning its reputation.
I can only speak for Germany (where I live), but the prices for an album exploded from about 10-15$ to 20-25$. Since we all had computers at that time and the CD was a tool we used - we understood, that the CD cannot cost the record company more than us - thats less than 1$ - so where do those 19-24$ go? Why should anyone buy a car from a merchant, that obviously tricked you the last time you went there? Why do we have so many small but great labels (especially in "old Europe"), who sell music from artists again and are successfull doing so?
The truth is simple - and I will try to make it sound american:) - :
Dog your consumer and your consumer will dog you! Treat your consumer with respect and you will be respected.
The success of Apple proves it!

Take care and Hail Discordia!

sam



 
Jesse Jordan vs the RIAA | 6 comments
Menu

[- how to post and vote
[- faq (discordia q&a)
[- faq en español
[- search
[- send feedback

[- sick of english?
[- multi-lingual babelfilter

Login
[- Username
[- Password


Make new account >>

Stories, articles, images and comments are owned by the Author. The Rest © 2003 The Discordants under the Gnu Public License

submit story | create account | faq | search