28th December 2002:
RIAA Bullies
by P.Fezza

The RIAA have recently launched a new attack on the latest and most popular of file sharing programs, 'KaZaa'. Allied with ..... the RIAA have announced they are determined to bring the program to a halt. Their first method of approach is through the courts - this method has seen them destroy such communities as Napster and Audiogalaxy, where mp3s could be freely downloaded from other users - In each case the RIAA won hands down. The future sure looks gloomy for KaZaa.

NSN has undertaken an investigation into the validity of the RIAA's (Recording Industry Association of America) claims while also considering other parties that could be charged for similar acts of piracy or the facilitation of.

Napster and Audiogalaxy were shut down not as a result of breaking copyright laws but for allowing their users to do so. A normal internet user could download a whole album in a matter of minutes, completely free (providing they are on a reasonably fast connection); to protect against such fraudulent activities both programs introduced filters which were implemented to prevent users from downloading copyrighted materials - however many found ways past the protection and as a result the program was put down.

Thus a summary of infringements made by filesharing programs:
1. Allowed users to obtain (essentially for free) copyrighted material.
2. This COULD then be copied onto CDs and sold AND/OR used for personal use.
3. Despite providing the ability to hear new artists and a wider range of music, COULD prevent users from buying an album or single and as a result causing a loss to the record industry.

These infringements caused for the program to be shut down. In recognition of this fact, surely other companies that have provided much similar means for piracy and the obtaining of copyrighted material for free should undergo similar punishment.

1. The VHS. Almost EVERY family home has a vhs player which also serves as a VHS Recorder, providing the ability to record copyrighted material straight form the TV (1). EVERY family who has such a VHS player must have done this at least once, 'to see something they would have otherwise missed' or 'to watch again at a later time,' (2) much like downloading an mp3 that 'you wouldn't be able to obtain elsewhere' or 'to hear over and over again'. This recording of programmes and movies from TV must dramatically reduce the chance that the viewer will buy the video or dvd - if it has even been released in the country. This causes a loss for the companies that produce them (3).

There are also a percentage of people that link up two video players to allow them to directly copy a video in order to sell at a market for a much cheaper price (2). A warning about such videos can often be seen in the form of a clip at the beginning of many movies, preceding the trailers. Companies who create VHS Recorders have since added software/hardware to try and prevent people from carrying out such acts, much like the filters on filesharing programs. BUT people are still able to get around such 'anti-piracy' protection and the piracy through VHS continues. Yet despite this no one has taken the VHS Companies to court, no one has asked that the VHS recorders be 'put down'. Surely this is the same as the case with filesharing. It is bad to discriminate.

2. The Cassette Tape. Much like the VHS Recorder, in most family homes, at least one stereo has a cassette player with the function 'record'. Stereo's often come with many other functions such as to play CDs, Records and even auxiliary inputs for devices like TVs. The company that produces these stereos then allows users to record from either of these functions onto a tape, and some even allow high speed dubbing (aka a speedy duplication of another tape) - all this provided by the company that made the stereo. Simple instructions for duplication:

a) Insert a blank recordable tape (available from any good retailer / supermarket) into the tape slot.
b) Insert a borrowed CD into the CD deck and start it playing / turn on the radio / play a record / play an alternative tape
c) Set the tape to record while the other function is playing.
d) At the end of the first side of tape, turn over and repeat.
- HEY PRESTO - A copied CD/TAPE of copyrighted material or copyrighted material from the radio (1). And if these instructions are too complicated for you, be sure to read your stereo's manual, within will be all the instructions you will require. Here concludes our 'How to make a pirate' feature.

With a tape like this, who needs to buy the official version? Especially as that would prove to be a waste of money. (3)
A normal teen may also be having money problems and may not be able to afford the desired CD or TAPE, should this deny the teenager the right to listen to the music? Such situations may also lead to thoughts such as the following: 'In fact I am a little short of cash at the moment, I could sell another copy of this to a friend.'(2).

The manufacturers of such equipment have not even provided protection against this kind of piracy. They have done one thing less than the filesharing companies, yet they have not been taken to court, they have not been shut down and they have not had an all out war declared against them.

3. Other forms which hold similar capabilities are DVDs, CDs, Beta Max (old) and Minidisks.

Other factors that should be taken into consideration are the companies that create the blank products, they are not breaking a law but they are facilitating the piracy of products. The radio and tv stations, these alone provide a HUGE wealth of material that can be easily copied for free - the combined amount of different entertainment from these two, over the past three years is far greater than any filesharing program could ever provide and it is all for free. Why are they not closed or shut down, or limited, or had filters added?

In today's society, to discriminate is wrong. One must accomodate for all. Why should this case be different? If one is shut down, all must be shut down. If one is closed, all must be closed. All carry the same infringements. But why do the RIAA not go up against such huge multi-national manufacturing companies who make large amounts of money, much more than the average KaZaa or Audiogalaxy?

NSN has compiled a possible list of reasons:
1. Huge companies have the funds to provide for the best possible defence in court, giving them a strong chance of 'not losing'.
2. Huge companies have the funds to bribe the RIAA and its senior members.
3. The cost of the lawsuit would be very large.
4. The royalty system (read below).
5 . The resulting destruction of such items (should a win for the RIAA occur) would not be in the public's best of interests, could damage the economy and would cause a great loss of support for the RIAA. If such devices were to be destroyed people would no longer have a means of recording or copying non-copyrighted material for themselves - much like people would not be able to share non-copyrighted material (i.e. their band's mp3s) over the internet should filesharing programs be abolished.

To quote the RIAA:
'It’s illegal! The unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted music is JUST AS ILLEGAL AS SHOPLIFTING A CD. Burning CD’s from peer-to-peer networks like KaZaA, Morpheus or Gnutella is against the law. The rules are very simple. Unless you own the copyright, it’s not yours to distribute. '
- UNLESS YOU OWN THE COPYRIGHT, IT'S NOT YOURS TO DISTRIBUTE. This makes it clear that the above forms of reproduction are all illegal. Then why are the RIAA only focusing their efforts in one direction?

'When digital recording devices such as the DAT and Minidisc became available to the public, consumers had for the first time the means to make very high quality recordings of the music in their collections, and to make copies of those copies with virtually no decrease in sound quality. To compensate for the fact that some level of piracy would result, and to provide the manufacturers and consumers immunity from a contributory copyright infringement liability suit, the AHRA required manufacturers of digital recording devices and media (such as DAT tapes) to: (1) register with the Copyright Office; (2) pay a statutory royalty (to the copyright holder or artist) on each device and piece of media sold; and (3) implement serial copy management technology which prevents the copying of copies.'
1. To copy a copy use a jack to jack cable / digital optic cable and two music systems. Voila. Simple. Aye Aye Captain, you be the pirate.
2. What about devices available before the digital era?
3. Piracy is illegal and a royalty, although providing compensation (dealt out to artists relative to their record sales), is not a solution. These royalties come from each minidisc, etc... bought, not each song or album recorded onto them. Surely a royalty system could be set up to compensate artists through filesharing programs. Whenever a program is downloaded, a contribution (to compensate) could be made. The cost of downloading the program should then become roughly equivalent to that of a pack of minidiscs. In the case of minidiscs it is the amount of things that can be recorded onto them that dictates how much piracy can take place. With respect to filesharing it is the user's internet connection that dictates this, a connection that is rightfully paid for, thus the cost of downloading the program should be reasonable and shouldn't fluctuate, it should also be a one time only fee.

[The royalties bands receive through the sales of such devices as minidiscs and DAT tapes are based on their record sales. Thus the money they receive is directly based on how popular they are rather than the band's artistic integrity. The idea behind this is that the more popular a band is the more likely it is to be copied.]

On the subject of mp3s and children's access:
'Every generation throws a hero up the pop charts, every generation rebels. Your parents didn’t like or understand The Who or Jimi Hendrix; you don’t like or understand much of your children’s music. This is natural, but what is the answer? What can a parent do, where can a parent turn? Parents can turn to the experts. Parents can turn to each other. One thing is clear; a turn to censorship is a wrong turn. ' - is it censorship if the piece is just 'made unavailable'? If the RIAA removed file sharing programs, surely that removes the ability to get a hold of some rare live tracks or non-copyrighted material from unsigned bands... surely this is censorship. Oh and the RIAA forgot to mention, every Parent can turn to God.

Original Idea of Copyright:
'The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries . . .' But these days hasn't copyright simply come down to one issue? Money.

' Q. Does uploading music on the Internet hurt anybody? Isn’t it promotion for the artist?
A. When you post digital music files on the Internet for anyone to take and keep, it’s not promotion but distribution. '
Surely this is the same as playing a song on a radio? It is so easy to take and keep a song that has been aired.

'Q. If I just download sound recordings, is it still a copyright violation?
A. Yes. It is a violation if you upload or download full-length sound recordings without permission of the copyright owners. You should assume other people's works are copyrighted and can't be copied unless you know otherwise.' BULLSHIT, If I drew a picture and gave it to someone they should not assume it is copyrighted.