RIAA, Downloading and Copyrights
—————–RIAA, Downloading and Copyrights—————-
By Professor Thomas J. Impelluso, Ph.D.
Department of Mechanical Engineering
College of Engineering
San Diego State University
In just under three years, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sued over 20,000 music fans for file sharing. Recently, they commenced an aggressive new litigation campaign to protect their interests further. But this begs the question: What, exactly, are they protecting?
As I belt out my rendition of Puccini’s “Un bel di vedremo” in the seclusion of my shower (my wife would be the first to confirm how uttertly fantastic the sound truly is), I wonder how my voice would sound if it were recorded with today’s technology.
Recording software can can split a sound’s frequencies into harmonics, elevate a pitch, add or remove accompaniment and dilate or contract the phrasing. With sufficient computational power, a recording of my own melodically challenged voice could sound as magnificent as I’d like to think it is.
However, long before recording technology became pervasive, people would pay to attend live performances. There, artists would break the infinite barrier between unity and plurality; they could communicate with the single patron and the entire audience at the same moment, and each person could hear the shared spirit of humanity. This ability couldenable the audience to feel whole. And audiences paid for tickets to experience such moments. For this is how the artist made a living - through real performances; and with their talent.
Today, recordings are digitally altered and the final product has a bare association with the person who claims to have created it. The RIAA claims they are defending these performing artists. But contemporary society no longer has Performing Artists (singers); we have Recording Artists who provide Frequency-Altered Recorded Talent (FARTs). The voice and accompaniment have been compressed, transformed and squeezed through a computational sphincter — a USB port. And the same computational technology that enables recording engineers to ‘clean up and enhance a song, also enables us, the public, to share, via the internet, such performance data — oops! sorry, I mean - music.
The very tools that the RIAA uses to commercialize art enables file sharing. How ironic. And now that RIAA is finally succeeding in shutting down traditional file sharing to protect the sound of their FARTS, new modes are emerging in which segments of a recording can be shared. The RIAA may win each battle, but they will lose the war; for each mode of sharing they stop, new modes will arise and we should ask why these movements pass so naturally. I believe the answer is that in this era of optimized digital manipulation, all FARTs sound alike. Have we become so obsessed with the term ‘copyright’ that we no longer know whether what we are copyrighting deserves such distinction?
Someone should interlace the sounds of the gastrointestinal plumbing and the screaming on American Idol and then electronically adjust the recording until a wall of sound emerges. Next, subject it to audience surveys to ascertain if it satisfies the common taste and run it through the software again, enhancing it, when necessary, with a sufficient sampling of say, “Un bel di vedremo” for the modicum of melody needed to escape the prison of the oppressive rhythm that propels most contemporary music. Repeat this process until a four bar jingle emerges. Then slap a copyright on it and sell, sell, sell. The RIAA would be ready to sue all who violate the copyright or who dare to copy and then pass on the FART. For at some point two FARTs will sound alike and the RIAA will then have to explain what, exactly, they are trying to protect in each individual FART.
Artists can successfully sell tickets to live performances, yet the RIAA consistently fails to protect digital recordings. There is a natural reason for their failure to stop music downloading. It should be obvious where the art flourishes — and THAT kind of art is not in need of protecting. For there is no art in a FART. The RIAA should stop abusing the time of our courts in their senseless battle to defend a misapplied definition of art in a hyper-capitalist society that attempts to own and profit from mediocre expressions and passings.
That’s a great article Professor! Thanks 4 sharing it.
I don’t follow the logic of the article. If all popular recorded music is the same mediocre dreck, why do the pirates and downloaders go to such lengths to distribute thousands of recordings? Why do other people pay for the recordings? And why does the recording industry even exist? Are you saying that all these folks are deluded? I’m not disagreeing with you, but I don’t understand why you care whether people are permitted to download worthless music.
So now JFB is advocating copyright infringement because music is no longer subjectively “good enough”? It is now judging that all of popular recorded music is not worthy of being called art, let alone worthy of copyright? What a pompous ass this professor is. Does he think that, once the recording companies are gone, there will be easy availability of any new recordings of opera (the only music he seems to think is, well, music) made and distributed on a any sort of scale? Very likely not of any significant quality, as that business is heavily cross subsidized by the pop music business and would not stand alone economically. Of course he’ll be able to go see live opera if he lives in a city with a good opera company, but not everyone does and some of us rely on the latest releases of the record companies to hear important new operatic recordings. If he objects to britney spears and kanye west being autotuned and digitally manipulated, then he doesn’t have to buy it or illegally download it. But “art” is of course in the eye of the beholder/listener/reader and to advocate the valueness of music really debases JFB’s positions. Would really love to hear Joel’s thoughts on this.
I die laughing. My cube mates certainly noticed. Thanks for sharing.
With copyright like that we are going to time when we’ll have to pay for every sound we hear. They guy whos selling cds on the market illegal is a thief not a guy whos sharing for FREE music with friends, and destroying someones life beacause of downloading few files IS BAD no matter when and why! Take care Joel you doing great thing.
omfg, rofl…
Thank you Prof. Impelluso!
That article was Great! I absolutely loved it! Simple, eloquent, beautifully flowing.
Your article was all Art, no fart..
I really do wish that something could be done about the current copyright laws with regards to the sharing of digital media. The RIAA has Way too much power and rights on their side. I’ve purchased music downloads from amazon and other instant download outlets, and have often wondered, “what cost exists in the mass production of such a commodity?” Seems to me that if you could put a percentage on something such as a “Profit/cost Percentage” ($profit from sale)/($cost to manufacture product.) As the mass transmission and manufacturing of data becomes more readily available and less expensive and as the RIAA uses current copyright laws and lawsuits to keep making the same money per recording, recording profits are approaching infinity mathematically. What is wrong here?
RIAA, Against The People.
I think horse badorties and facebone’s replies are spot on. You imply currently (popular) music is not of the same level of music that existed in the time that no digital enhancement technology existed, and yet you think it is a bad thing the RIAA stops this music from illegally spreading? That’s just contradictary. In fact, you should be happy with the RIAA in that case.
If you would have said the RIAA are not currently serving the artist they claim to be protecting, since these artists often only receive a marginal share of the profist my by the people that represent them, I would have agreed.
Not one of your strongest articles in my opinion.
Think about it, can you copyright ‘3′, as in the number?
No? So how can you copyright one big number? That is all digital information is - a series of numbers. Artists get paid to perform, music labels get paid by the music sales.
It’s pretty simple - the copyright companies are there to protect the profit of companies who bleed money from the artists. Would, say, the beatles have been less popular in thier day if thier music was available digitally as it is now?
Not a chance, they could still charge a fair whack for tickets to performances, they could (as radiohead did) get donations, sell merchandise, all from thier own website.
Would they need a label… No… would the suits at the copyright companies get paid…. No… That’s thier problem - the artist would be fine, it’s the people who make money off the artist, the agents, the promoters, all the people who would no longer be needed who have a problem. That’s what these companies protect so it’s about time they stopped shoving it down peoples throats that your harming the artist.
Your not, your harming thier commercial model, thier way of making money from someone else’s talent.
you over react to this fine piece of writing.
The distinction between performers and recorders exist now has it has always.
But look a t it this way a big singer on a big tour gets paid by the number of people he attracts and the number of performances he gives … I feel that’s fair.
Now a bunch of good looking guys or one good looking girl (the look is for the cover) does one recording session it is processed and mastered by sound gurus … and sits back and watches the money pile up as years go by because of this one performance?
Even if it was not tricked I don’t think there is such thing as a right to get paid over and over for a job you did once…
Now if other people make money from that piece of work you should get a share as copyright … but you should get a share of the derived benefits when there is none there is nothing to claim…
Big artists are millionnaire we can’t worry for them
small artist downloaded into fame become big I don’t think they can’t complain either.
people who now know them will go their show they will get advertisement contracts…
Really who suffers from that plague?
This from Wiki:
“MediaSentry is a United States company that provides services to the music recording, motion picture, television, and software industries for locating and identifying IP addresses that are engaged in the use of online networks to share material in a manner said organizations claim is in violation of copyright. Their most notable customers are several trade associations including the Motion Picture Association of America and International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.
The company provides several services for this purpose, such as monitoring popular forums for copyright infringement, aid in litigation, early leak detection, and the distribution of decoy files.[1] MediaSentry also monitors auction sites such as eBay for distribution of pirated software and other property.
On 13 June 2005 MediaSentry was acquired by SafeNet.[2] SafeNet sold the MediaSentry division to Artistdirect in April 2009.[3]
In late 2007 the University of Oregon, represented by Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers, refused to provide information on its students to the RIAA, questioning the tactics used by MediaSentry in one of its investigations.[4] The next year Central Michigan University accused MediaSentry of violating its students’ privacy[5] after the company ignored a ruling that it was illegally operating without a private investigator’s license.[6]
In January 2009 the RIAA canceled their usage of MediaSentry for undisclosed reasons.[7]”
Hmmm. Looks like RIAA thought twice about spying on people possible illegal.
The problem with modern copyright law has nothing to do with FARTS (your name for digitally created music).
The problem with modern copyright law and the reason why the recording industry is having such difficulty enforcing its “rights” (or, put another way, the reason why the recording industry is making so much money enforcing its rights) is this:
No musical melody or son is a “useful Art.” Now… before you music fans or musicians (I am both) take issue with me, please hear me out. I’m not saying music is not useful. I’m saying it is not in the category of art our Constitution created when it said that copyright protection must only be given to “useful Arts.”
Chances are, even if you have gone to law school, you didn’t even know that category of art existed in copyright law. Law school professors, law school books, and even the Supreme Court cases those books study often say the purpose of copyright law is to “promote Science and the Arts.” That is not, however ,what the Constitution says. It gives Congress the power only to give copyright to “useful Arts.”
The problem with this nations copyright laws is that they give copyright protection (allegedly under the patent and copyright clause of the Constitution) to any created original artistic expression that is “fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” There is no “useful” requirement in our copyright legislation, and therefore our laws are completely unconstitutional. Sadly, it is highly unlikely the Supreme Court would ever do anything about this because its judges began ignoring the “useful” requirement in the Constitution a very, very long time ago, even as long as Congress has ignored it.
However, the original Congress did not ignore the constitution. It gave no copyright protection to music, because the Framers understood the type of Art music is. Sure, they loved music just like all humans do. It wasn’t as if music could not be recorded back then (it could be, in written form). It wasn’t as if people couldn’t replicate one another’s melodies, rhythms, and sounds (they could, if they could read music). The congress decided the “useful Arts” that were useful in the sense the Constitution required were map-making and book-writing, basically. Those arts gave enough Useful rise to the progress of discovery and political change that they were Art that was worthy of protection and legalized monopolization. Therefore, those were the only arts that the first Congress (the same one that wrote the Constitution) gave protection to, essentially.
Our nations problem is that we have forgotten what the Constitution says, or at least those who judge us in this country have.
Above should instead say, “No musical melody or song is a ‘useful Art.’”,
(it says ’son’ instead of ’song’ … sorry!)
Copyright protection creates a monopoly, so it is against the free market concept. During the middle ages, the feudal lords demanded fees from anyone crossing their domains. They had strong feelings towards their entitlement rights to the land.
The same thing is going on, here. They feel entitled to their monopoly. And no one seems to notice that antitrust laws are going down the drain. They manage huge collections of copyright material; they promote it, or trash it if they want to. And they charge huge fees for the right to listen; they bundle worthless tracks with hugely popular one, and sell only the right to listen to the whole bunch of crap. Are these legal practices, under antitrust laws?
This is by far one of the neatest composed articles on this theme. I was exploring on the exact corresponding content and your post totally took me off with the way you understand this subject area. I congratulate your insight but do leave me to come back to comment further as I
I remember years ago when VHS tape recorders first came out. The movie industry had conniptions! Oh, my God, they said. This will kill the movie industry. No one will go to a movie theater ever again! Ah! We’ll go to the courts. They’ll back us up. We’ll stop these evil people that manufacture these damn machines. Wrong. The electronics manufacturer’s won out. Guess they had a more powerful lobby.
But, ah ah. We can make Tapes and sell them for an exorbitant price. And if we screw the artists’ out of most of their share, we’ll make even more money.
Then came DVD’s and now Blu Ray. Again, conniptions! Again, the electronics manufacturer’s won out. But, ah ah. We can make DVD’s and sell them for an exorbitant price. And if we screw the artists’ out of most of their share, we’ll make even more money.
The movie theaters are more popular than ever. I remember seeing 2001: A space Odyssey and Star Wars on the big screen. Tapes and DVD’s are nice on your TV, but it will never beat seeing a movie on a big screen.
Back in the 50’s and 60’s (in my youth) I and my friends participated in file sharing. Yes, you heard me right. The “sharing” was of 45 records. We didn’t do albums as much. Too costly and most times, there were only one or two songs on an album that were good. 45’s were relatively inexpensive and easy to carry (for that time). So, if one of us had a 45 that a friend wanted, we would swap ours for one of theirs.
Granted, nowhere near the volume of today’s “file sharing” but sharing still the same.
The music industry of that time didn’t care too much and it did increase sales. If I liked a particular song from a 45 I had swapped, I would go out and buy another 45 made by the same artist. By the way, there were also many “bootleg” 45 copies of the more popular songs, especially the Beatles. Things don’t change much.
I will not argue the legalities of copyright, infringement etc. This battle has been going on since Gutenberg’s’s era. The powers that be of that age wanted control of the publishing and printing of books. Within a few years of his invention, there were hundreds of printing presses through Europe cranking out books by the thousands. The common people loved the stream in information available. It increased public knowledge and enjoyment.
The powers to be of THIS age want control of the publishing and printing of music and movies. We commoners love the idea of the free flow of information. It increases our knowledge and enjoyment.
Do you see the pattern here? It has to do with control and greed.
I’m not saying that sharing is illegal or not. Or should anyone do it or not. The point is the internet is here to stay. The sharing of information over the internet is here to stay. To the music and film industries, you are not going to stop it. You will not be able to control it. Governments will not be able to control it nor stop it. Some have tried and failed. THIS IS THE DIGITAL AGE. The millions of people out there in the virtual world love the idea. Wake up and smell the coffee. Instead of fighting and suing the very people you want to sell your products to, work with them. Law makers of the U.S. get your heads out of the sand.
But it still won’t stop sharing. As fast as you try to stop it by whatever means, there are programmers and hackers out there that are extremely good at what they do. They’ll come up with a work around in no time!
I once heard that Bill Gates wanted to copyright 1’s and 0’s. Keep up the good fight Joel.
PS: I still have many of my old 45’s and LP’s. Most are in pristine condition and in their original jackets and worth a small fortune. Not for sale. I’m leaving them in my will to my children. They might pay for a new house if need be. Try doing that in future years with a digital copy.