Digital Rights Managment

My personal thoughts and opinions towards music piracy are somewhat ambiguous. Do I own any form of stolen music? Absolutely! Do I illegally download countless songs and albums? No! Most of the music I obtain is either through a CD I purchased, or a CD that a friend purchased that has been burned onto my computer, or through purchasing songs off of iTunes. My friends and I also obtain a lot of songs through sending each other iTunes files via email. Obviously this is still illegal, but at the end of the day either I or the person I know is paying for it. However, I will say that although I do think that entertainers make an exhorbant amount of money should not be complaining about a lack of profit, I do think that at the end of the day they provided a service and they should be compensated for it. The music industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and someone has to be getting paid.

The problem is, many of these downloads are only compatible with software owned by the distributor. For example, iTunes has songs with DMR protection and these songs are only compatible with Apple products. Once I buy the song I should be able to put it on whatever device I want. In addition, has anyone ever noticed how SOME songs on iTunes are now $1.29 as opposed to the $.99 they were before? That is because the songs that are $1.29 have the DRM protection in it. My problem with this is, many individuals say that if the rights of the creators are not protected there will not be any money to produce new material. However, only some songs have this DMR protection, so is what they are telling me is that only some artists are worth of having their creativity protected?

As stated earlier I do not think it is right to continuously download music and albums without paying any money for it, however, I don’t see the harm in file sharing as long as one of the individuals actually purchased the music. The problem occurs when the music industry tries to break music piracy down to something that is morally wrong, when in actuality, there are companies that are capitalizing on DMR and only protecting the artistic creations of certain artists, and through doing this they are forcing us to buy only their products.

-Andrea

"Economic Shortfalls" of the Music Industry

An article found in The Lantern, a student run newspaper talks about the effects of music piracy and its huge impact on the music industry. It talks about this from an economical point of view a does not address any moral issues or social concerns surrounding the debate. It explicitly talks about the individuals working in the music industry, excluding artists. They are referring to the individuals who work 9 to 5 jobs and how their positions have been eliminated due to the lack of revenue and inability to produce new and upcoming music. The article can be found at:

http://www.thelantern.com/opinion/music-piracy-not-end-of-music-industry-1.1167356

On one point the article talks about a British student whose iPod was confiscated and it was believed to have over 800 illegally downloaded songs on it. Following this statement the author states, “Regardless of the accuracy of those numbers…” That statement alone makes me question any quantitative evidence referenced throughout the article. However, after this statement there are no other forms of quantitative evidence found throughout the article. In an argument with a predominately economic framework, wouldn’t it be appropriate to use numbers?

Regardless much of the article is spent focusing on the inability of recording artists to produce new music because of the increase in illegal downloading and music/file sharing. I think it is important to look at a couple of different factors. The first being how the economy has changed. With our country in the midst of an economic downfall the demand for music and entertainment is not as high as it used to be. Especially with increase online resources encouraging interactivity such as YouTube and Pandora Radio etc. Also, it is important to look at how the music industry is changing. The popularity of shows such as American Idol has stars gaining popularity in a variety of ways, through reality television, YouTube videos, and social networking sites. Why would any new artist pay to have their record professionally recorded, when they can upload themselves on YouTube or try out for American Idol with the hopes of being discovered at virtually no cost. Personally I do not believe the economic shortfalls of the music industry are a direct effect of music piracy, and the lack of quantitative facts this author has to support this claim is enough for me to continue not to believe it.

-Andrea

Walk The Plank Sir Barnes

In article 8 Logical Rebuttals of Anti-Piracy Arguments, author William Barnes makes an attempt to rebuttal points RIAA layers have made in court regarding piracy. First coming across the article I knew I would be in for a treat- unfortunately I was sadly disappointed. The arguments made by Barnes had the ability to be strong and compelling- taking RIAA’s words and turning them on their back- but just like the music industries fight against music piracy- the argument fell a little short. I would like to bring about the 4 weakest arguments Barnes presents – and maybe give him a little advice as to how they could be made stronger:

Here are the rebuttals made:

1. It’s not that expensive to just pay for it

Plain and simple- this one is a lie. Which I think we have all come to know through CD prices and Online downloading capitalizing on newly released singles. There are tons and tons of statistics and argument that could back this one up. Barns justifies the ridiculousness of this claim by stating that if you spend $500 yearly or more on music- which in his opinion “could make the difference between sleeping in a bed and sleeping on someone’s couch”, you should be allowed to steal music. I am sorry- but weak sauce. This particular point has so many great statistics on the rising price of music, and how the music industry is exploiting our buying power by profiting big time from CD prices they have made ridiculously high because- well….they can.

2. Music piracy causes huge amounts of economic damage

Here Barnes is basically giving us stats to agree with the RIAA. He points out how music piracy causes $12.5 billion in losses every year, and a job loss per annum of 71,060. He follows this depressing statistic by General Motors and Chrysler estimated 40,000 job losses- trying to argue by comparison. It’s plain and simple- he’s arguing against his case- not for it.

3. It’s so much easier to use a pay service

I completely disagree with this one- but not with Barnes rebuttal. I believe it is just as easy to download illegally as it is legally- sure it takes a couple more steps- but the process is a sinch once you figure it out. Barnes argues against this one by showing a UK report that stated the average teenager in the UK has 800 pirated songs on his or her digital music player of choice. Come on Barnes- we all know that teenagers are the most tech savvy generation there is. The evidence is in-sufficient – and could have been made better by a study using older generations- or no study at all! I think all that is needed here is the fact that so many people successfully illegally download- if it was really that hard- no one would do it!

4. Pirated music is lower quality

Again- I don’t agree. But- then again I don’t agree with Barnes explanation. He states that if the quality of music is indeed lower- that “pirates” learn the lay of the land and become acquainted with digital music terminology in order to select higher grade songs. Although he presents the presence of high grade music - he does the RIAA justice by acknowledging the fact that low quality music does exist. This argument could have been made stronger by comparisons- what qualities affect quality and what similarities are

-Lizzy B.

Avast ye swabs! Repel thee invaders!

So I was shooting around the good ol' "series of tubez" when I found myself at the RIAA website.  At first glance I couldn't help but notice how pleasant the whole site seemed.  The format ironically reminded me of a file-sharing website I regularly find myself at... despite it's annoyingly slow download speeds.  Maybe this was all a sign.  Regardless, I looked around for a little bit when I noticed that they had a page on their site devoted to students doing reports.  I couldn't believe how convenient it all seemed to be... because hey... I'm a student doing a report.
 
It wasn't but two seconds later that I realized their "For Students Doing Reports" page was nothing more than a regular websites faq page.  And that raised a brow.  Why the hell couldn't they just call it a faqs page like a normal site?  Was their viewer base comprised of so many youth -- who just also all happen to be working on reports like myself -- that they thought it better to specialize their faqs page to just... students doing reports?  Needless to say I was interested.

And then in some sinister and mocking fashion they drop this load on you:

"Thanks for being interested in the music industry and our positions on various issues. We get many requests from students and others for information for papers and other research needs. We’re happy to help and share our perspective. Unfortunately, we can’t always answer every question. So below is a list of commonly asked questions and hopefully insightful answers. Please take a look. We hope you find it useful and informative. Good luck!"

Two things.
1 - Why can't you always answer every question? I totally understand if people are asking really ambiguous questions that require extremely long, winded responses, but are you expecting me to ignore the fact that like any other group with a cause there are some questions you would rather not have asked?
2 - What are you wishing us good luck for?  Maybe it was the way I was reading it, but that good luck reads a little sarcastic to me.  Almost like they know that I am not going to find anything they have to say useful or informative.

I should have taken their word for it because I didn't find their "For Students Doing Reports" page useful... at all.  In fact I learned more about illegal downloading from a wiki page than I did straight from the source.

I suppose on some level I expected the RIAA to have some insight and knowledge on the issue that most lacked.  I hoped they would be able to shine a light on some views that I failed to see.  Perhaps calling it a "For Students Doing Reports" page was all some subliminal ploy to share the truth about illegal downloading to students in a fashion such that they could nip this problem right in the butt: in the schools via childrens current event projects.  Maybe they would even be able to persuade me to stop illegally downloading music.  Unfortunately for them... I am going to go download some jock jams. Right. Now.

-James