Should the restaurant industry sue their customers for making home cooked meals?

Even if they dine-in or purchase to-go orders sometimes? Should local agriculture systems be banned for hurting food industry profits?

A 22 year old, San Antonio native, Whitney Harper (about to graduate with a degree in Business Communications from Texas Tech) has been accused of downloading 37 songs illegally, which according to the RIAA, and its lawyers, has accredited to a fine of $40,000 in total, based on the number of songs. (San Antonio Express News article)

Purchasing these songs on iTunes may be $37 plus tax. Yet not for Harper, who downloaded these songs “illegally” using Kazaa. An entirely insecure p2p sharing program which allows for viruses, trojans, and spyware. These secret programs can be used for data mining personal information such as credit cards, social security, and other confidential data (unrelated to music downloads).

Whitney Harper, who graduated from Alamo Heights High School, was a typical young teen. Who at the age of 14 or 17, like any naive kid you may know (or have in your own family), downloaded many of their favorite tracks using peer-to-peer software, such as Napster, Kazaa, or Soulseek. This way they could experience music in an innovative, easy, and convenient format. A great way to sample music before going out and purchasing an undesired album. For parents, this means saving a trip to the store or having to shell out some of that hard earned money from work.

How does the RIAA track individuals who download illegal music? The way they do this is by encrypting their own spyware on their songs, distributing under an anonymous name, and then tracking personal and confidential information on a user’s computer when downloaded, violating the sanctity of personal liberty within a person’s own domain. The RIAA fishes using live bait.

Yet the damage which it will accrue for Whitney, thanks to the current court ruling having a negative impact on her ability to find a job, may well exceed $40,000 and cost her a loss of $80,000 a year if not more, for most of her remaining adult life.

For a penalty, I think it’s a ridiculously outrageous fee. The whole “downloading illegal music is hurting the music industry” is a total sham, various reports show the RIAA making up to $100 million annually to over $25 billion total just from lawsuits thanks to scare tactics. Which for the most part are settled before even reaching a court decision, meaning most of the cases have not even been proved in court.

Also, the RIAA clearly doesn’t differentiate from black marketers who sell pirated cds for profit and those individuals who download music for personal use with no profit whatsoever. Yet both attain the same degree of punishment.

“The notion that an infringer who does not make a profit should automatically be entitled to better treatment than an infringer who does make a profit is found nowhere in the law,” the Recording Industry Association of America said.

Suing individual noncommercial music downloaders for a loss of RIAA profit, which they say is “theft”, is like major book publishers fining Google users for a loss of book profits. Consumers should be not be responsible for abdicating the loss of profits in a free market. In addition to this, a study reveals that illegal music downloaders, maybe not surprisingly, are also the most likely to purchase music.

If the RIAA’s targeting their own customers. Who’s next on the RIAA’s hit list? Musicians?
Moby and Radiohead already show their disdain for the RIAA and say that it should be disbanded.

P2P software has allowed for innovation in the arts world wide by allowing the free flow of data from countries around the world. Many musicians would not have had this exposure in a lifetime by other means. Contributing to a fan base greater than by any former bounds.

Have I personally downloaded illegal music in the past? Perhaps. Like everyone else. Yet at the same time I became aware of music I may never have heard otherwise, opening up the doorway to new genres and artists. Lately this is accomplished  with music streaming sites such as Pandora, Last.fm, Blip.fm, YouTube, Myspace, and other similar sites allowing for free music listening. Thanks to the Creative Commons licensing, more and more music is available for download by the artists themselves.

Exponential Records and friends’ new album, “Kadohadacho“, slated for release March 16th at SXSW, is a shining example of music distribution which effectively promotes the musicians without hindering performance. This form of marketing works because it involves community. The listener’s are more likely to purchase tickets, attend shows, and get involved with their artists. Contributing monetary value by other means. Community building is the new economy of the music industry.

There were periods in history when stories were told orally through song and rhythm. Had copyright laws applied, we may have never heard the likes of the Bible, the Illiad, and other legendary works that have surfaced throughout time and sold countless millions in other formats.

Free music listening doesn’t deter sales either, they increase sales. If a musician is good, then listeners will dually give them their credit by purchasing albums online or in the store. If a musician is not as good, or a greedy label isn’t getting their cut, then by no means should a consumer have to pay for a loss in profit. Hence the term “free” in a free market. Free music downloads and sharing is “free” marketing and promotions. In essence, the RIAA should be the one paying us. Consider the ethics. What theft is there from listening to music, other than personal liberation and expression? It would be unconstitutional to take away that liberty.
—

-rjc

“Song downloads may cost S.A. woman $40,000″
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Downloaded_songs_could_cost_SA_woman_40000.html

“Home Cooking is Killing The Restaurant Industry”:
http://freakbits.com/home-cooking-is-killing-the-restaurant-industry-0222

“RIAA Profits Outweigh Domestic Violence”:
http://echodemic.blogspot.com/2009/06/riaa-where-profits-outweigh-domestic.html

“RIAA Stands Firm On High Damages For File-Sharing”:
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=122172

“Study: pirates biggest music buyers. Labels: yeah, right”:
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars

“The RIAA Needs to be Disbanded”
http://torrentfreak.com/moby-the-riaa-needs-to-be-disbanded-090620/