music

Just as an aside, before I launch into this diatribe: I don’t download music, films or TV illegally without paying, because I do believe it’s unethical. However, considering the case of Joel Tenenbaum, I do happen to think that the RIAA and the record labels are being far more unethical.

For those unfamiliar with the case, Mr. Tenenbaum was sued by the MAFIAA in the United States for downloading sharing thirty songs on Kazaa (when it was still a largely illegal service, and not the lame, crippled subscription service that’s been announced recently). Now, as I said, I consider sharing music illegally to be unethical, so how much would I fine him? Certainly no more than a thousand dollars – after all, it was for personal use, and he was making no profit, so in this case, I might not be compelled to fine him at all.

However, in America, the DMCA (or Digital Millennium Copyright Act) states that the fines for producing illegal copies of a song—regardless of whether or not they’re shared for a profit—are a minimum of $750, going up to $30,000 or $150,000 per song.

Whichever way you look at it, that is incredibly unjust, especially when you consider that any damages won’t go towards the artistes whose work was shared: instead, it goes straight into the pockets of the execs of the record companies.

Also, one must consider that if there was less incentive to pirate music, people wouldn’t do it. In my opinion, the 79 and 69p downloads you can get from iTunes and Amazon are a relatively good deal: but they’re still horrendously expensive. “Subscription” services don’t count, because you don’t own the music as it’s crippled by DRM. Perhaps if every music service was DRM-free, and there weren’t those silly geographical restrictions that stop certain songs being sold in different parts of the world, there’d be less incentive for piracy.

The same goes for movies. Perhaps if people didn’t have to sit through that fucking “you wouldn’t steal a car… that’s why you wouldn’t steal a movie” advert every time they watched a movie, there’d be less incentive to illegally download the next movie they want to watch. (I also question the wisdom of showing this before the movie – on a medium which the viewer has already paid for. I mean, people who download the movie illegally aren’t going to see it, are they?)

As I’ve said, I don’t download music illegally. But the DMCA is so short-sighted (and the RIAA seem to have their heads stuck so far up their own arses) that I can’t help but think that a change of law is needed. The RIAA is a prime example of why commercialised copyright and an unregulated free market has gone rotten.