About a year ago I linked you to an awesome article about crimes that incur lesser fines than music piracy. The list included kidnapping and arson.
Apparently we can now add environmental devastation as well.
Have a nice day.
Showing posts with label piracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label piracy. Show all posts
Monday, June 14, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
My rambling thoughts on the piracy thing, part 2
Imagine the following hypothetical scenario.
A frail woman in her 90s slowly makes her way down a crowded city street. Suddenly a fifteen-year-old boy comes up from behind her, grabs her purse, and runs.
Take a mental snapshot of the scene. Got it? Great. Let's continue.
The kid rounds a corner, purse tucked under his arm. He's spotted by three police officers. Noticing the purse, which likely does not belong to him, they pursue. Eventually they corner him, grab him, and determine that he is unarmed.
Then they beat him within an inch of his life.
When you took your mental snapshot, you probably didn't like this kid at all. He was just some punk with no regard for the law or his victim. But what if the first time you heard about this, the papers were reporting how he lingered in a coma for two days, and how he may never walk again?
Because the punishment he received was so excessive, you might feel a little sorry for him. He was just a kid! He made one mistake, and now he'll be paying for it for the rest of his life!
Do you see where I'm going with this?
I got some intelligent, beautifully articulated comments on last week's piracy poll. The contributors didn't agree with each other about everything, but on one point there was consensus: fining somebody $25 thousand for illegally downloading 30 songs is ludicrous.
The RIAA may yet win its case—it's won similar settlements in the past—but it has lost the battle for hearts and minds. Now the people inclined toward piracy have the perfect rationalization. They're not depriving artists of income, they're sticking it to the man! And the people who believe piracy is wrong still view RIAA targets as victims. The thinking shifts from "We shouldn't take music without paying the artist" to "Good grief, it's not that bad."
If the RIAA truly wants us to understand that piracy is harmful, they need to make the punishments fit the crimes. Otherwise nobody is going to take them seriously.
A frail woman in her 90s slowly makes her way down a crowded city street. Suddenly a fifteen-year-old boy comes up from behind her, grabs her purse, and runs.
Take a mental snapshot of the scene. Got it? Great. Let's continue.
The kid rounds a corner, purse tucked under his arm. He's spotted by three police officers. Noticing the purse, which likely does not belong to him, they pursue. Eventually they corner him, grab him, and determine that he is unarmed.
Then they beat him within an inch of his life.
When you took your mental snapshot, you probably didn't like this kid at all. He was just some punk with no regard for the law or his victim. But what if the first time you heard about this, the papers were reporting how he lingered in a coma for two days, and how he may never walk again?
Because the punishment he received was so excessive, you might feel a little sorry for him. He was just a kid! He made one mistake, and now he'll be paying for it for the rest of his life!
Do you see where I'm going with this?
I got some intelligent, beautifully articulated comments on last week's piracy poll. The contributors didn't agree with each other about everything, but on one point there was consensus: fining somebody $25 thousand for illegally downloading 30 songs is ludicrous.
The RIAA may yet win its case—it's won similar settlements in the past—but it has lost the battle for hearts and minds. Now the people inclined toward piracy have the perfect rationalization. They're not depriving artists of income, they're sticking it to the man! And the people who believe piracy is wrong still view RIAA targets as victims. The thinking shifts from "We shouldn't take music without paying the artist" to "Good grief, it's not that bad."
If the RIAA truly wants us to understand that piracy is harmful, they need to make the punishments fit the crimes. Otherwise nobody is going to take them seriously.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
My rambling thoughts on the piracy thing, part 1
I first heard about Napster through a friend in 1999. He went on and on about how great it was, and how I absolutely had to try it.
I never bothered. Two words: dial-up.
But I understood why it was cool. You could find all kinds of songs that didn't exist in stores. You could turn other people on to your favorite bands, and they could turn you on to theirs. A total love-in. Dig it.
So when Napster's legal troubles began around a year later, they took me by surprise. The idea that their site enabled people to do anything illegal hadn't crossed my mind. The users were just music lovers, sharing music that they owned.
I never thought of it as stealing.
I'm a pretty honest, law-abiding person. I've never shoplifted. I don't cheat on my taxes. I tip my servers. If a friend told me that she shoplifted, or cheated on her taxes, or stiffed her servers, I would express my disapproval.
And despite all that—despite being a musician who has music for sale—I still can't get all that worked up about people who download music without paying for it.
For one thing, it's not exactly stealing. If you come to a Cinder Bridge gig and lift one of our CDs, then we don't have a copy of that CD anymore and no one else can buy it from us. That's theft. But if you get a bootleg copy off the Internet, we haven't actually lost anything.
Well, we may have lost the income we would have received had you paid for the album. But that assumes you would have paid for the album if you couldn't get it for free. Maybe you would have decided not to.
That doesn't make it right, necessarily. And it certainly doesn't justify a two thousand-song music library consisting entirely of pirated downloads. It just makes it ... different from theft.
This is a complex issue. I don't pretend to have all the answers. On the other hand, I've formed some pretty strong opinions about the RIAA, which believes it does have all the answers.
More on that in our next installment.
I never bothered. Two words: dial-up.
But I understood why it was cool. You could find all kinds of songs that didn't exist in stores. You could turn other people on to your favorite bands, and they could turn you on to theirs. A total love-in. Dig it.
So when Napster's legal troubles began around a year later, they took me by surprise. The idea that their site enabled people to do anything illegal hadn't crossed my mind. The users were just music lovers, sharing music that they owned.
I never thought of it as stealing.
* * *
I'm a pretty honest, law-abiding person. I've never shoplifted. I don't cheat on my taxes. I tip my servers. If a friend told me that she shoplifted, or cheated on her taxes, or stiffed her servers, I would express my disapproval.
And despite all that—despite being a musician who has music for sale—I still can't get all that worked up about people who download music without paying for it.
For one thing, it's not exactly stealing. If you come to a Cinder Bridge gig and lift one of our CDs, then we don't have a copy of that CD anymore and no one else can buy it from us. That's theft. But if you get a bootleg copy off the Internet, we haven't actually lost anything.
Well, we may have lost the income we would have received had you paid for the album. But that assumes you would have paid for the album if you couldn't get it for free. Maybe you would have decided not to.
That doesn't make it right, necessarily. And it certainly doesn't justify a two thousand-song music library consisting entirely of pirated downloads. It just makes it ... different from theft.
This is a complex issue. I don't pretend to have all the answers. On the other hand, I've formed some pretty strong opinions about the RIAA, which believes it does have all the answers.
More on that in our next installment.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Piracy poll
Jammie Thomas-Rassett is back in the news.
Who is Jammie Thomas-Rassett, you ask? She's a woman whom the RIAA has accused of illegally downloading 30 songs. Various verdicts have demanded that she pay $222 thousand, $1.92 million, and most recently, $54 thousand. The RIAA offered to settle for $25 thou. Thomas-Rassett's response: nuh uh.
What think you:
Who is Jammie Thomas-Rassett, you ask? She's a woman whom the RIAA has accused of illegally downloading 30 songs. Various verdicts have demanded that she pay $222 thousand, $1.92 million, and most recently, $54 thousand. The RIAA offered to settle for $25 thou. Thomas-Rassett's response: nuh uh.
"It is a shame that Ms. Thomas-Rasset continues to deny any responsibility for her actions rather than accept a reasonable settlement offer and put this case behind her," [RIAA spokeswoman Cara] Duckworth said. "Given this, we will begin preparing for a new trial."Full story on PC World.
What think you:
- Is it ALWAYS wrong to download music without paying for it?
- At what point should the RIAA go after offenders? (After one illegal download? After the person downloads a certain number of songs? After the person distributes it? After the person resells it?)
- What's a reasonable punishment for someone who downloads 30 songs, then makes them available for other people to download?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Piracy: A little perspective
If you follow the news about music piracy and the RIAA's valiant attempts to eradicate it, you've probably heard about a couple well-publicized cases. Most notable is Jammie Thomas, who owes $2 million in fines for downloading 24 songs.
To put the crime and punishment in perspective, Gapers Block has compiled a list of seven crimes that will incur smaller fines than music piracy. The list includes arson and kidnapping.
Seriously, read the whole article. It's good. I'll wait.
Not everyone is sympathetic to the plight of Jammie Thomas. Theft is theft, don't do the crime if you can't do the time, etc. All I can say is, when you fine someone $2 million for downloading 24 songs, it's no longer punitive damages. It's a business model.
To put the crime and punishment in perspective, Gapers Block has compiled a list of seven crimes that will incur smaller fines than music piracy. The list includes arson and kidnapping.
Seriously, read the whole article. It's good. I'll wait.
Not everyone is sympathetic to the plight of Jammie Thomas. Theft is theft, don't do the crime if you can't do the time, etc. All I can say is, when you fine someone $2 million for downloading 24 songs, it's no longer punitive damages. It's a business model.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)