FILE SHARING - THE MPAA, THE RIAA, AND YOU
© Copyright 2003 Video Gamer X Publications
(Yeah that means I own everything and I will sue you with my team of lawyers if you steal this and trade it with your friends, you must pay me $19.95 for every copy that you distribute to your friends or my double secret police will come and issue you a subpeona and otherwise pee on your sofa.)

Around the time Napster was popular, in 2000, I wrote an article detailing the emergence of massive file sharing networks and the implications upon the internet society and the recording and motion picture industry. At that time the MPAA wasn't involved with deterring or persuing file sharers because the whole MP3 issue had cropped up rather recently and it was believed that flims were too difficult and unlikely to be transferred. In the original article I wrote, "Napster is only a precursor foreshadowning for things to come in the near future. The Motion Picture industry will soon experience the consumer shockwave of retaliation against the same old regime of 19.95 - 24.95 for a virtually worthless VHS of the latest released blockbuster. In the next few years DVD-RAM drives, as well as DVD-R's will become widely available and affordable. Broadband access capabilities will allow users to transfer data at 100 times that of today's Dail up allowing for downloading of Digital Movies online. " And now those words have come to be true in many ways, however the combined audiovisual entertainment industry has mounted a legally questionable and underhanded effort to assault innocent consumers with lawsuits in light of the surge in digital file sharing.

In the years since Napster the battle has grown incrementally more hostile as those who see a coming end to their monopoly on an industry. Try as it might, Napster attempted to stay online as long as possible, and finally succumbed to a hornet's nest of litigation and court battles for a company that had made no profit at all. Napster was then later shut down, and bought by a legitimate recording company. I doubt that Shawn Fanning would have invisioned that his simple creation for trading music between fans online would cause so much controversy when he first distributed Napster.

As prophetically obvious as my previous article on this topic was back in 2000, in fact, when Napster went down, people just moved to other versions of the same idea and there became a plethora of new kinds of software to trade, now not only music, but movies, software, images, and any file of any type that one person may own and allow another person to have for free. Use of Morpheus, LimeWire, BearShare, WinMX, KaZaA, KaZaA Lite, Gnutella, FileShare, Grokster, etc exploded. The trouble with Napster was that the service itself was acting as middle man between users, and thus the RIAA could pin its contentions and profit loss on someone to sue. However the new File Sharing programs allowed for no middleman at all, and simply allowed for one person to connect to another person and vice verca. Anyone using this software was given the ability to grant access by other users to portions of their hard drives that may contian any kind of data including photos, text, software, software drivers, movie files, music files, or video games.

The idea of File Sharing is nothing new and goes all the way back to the earliest days of the internet in the form of FTP, or File Transfer Protocol and P2P, or Peer to Peer Networks. In fact this is the standard for transferring data from one computer to another computer online. File Sharing has been perfectly legal and legitimate since day one and still is, there are no laws that say you can't upload a file to a server, or download a file from said server. It is also no where stated in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or other decree of law that it is not legal to distribute a file or data packet between two users.

The RIAA and the lawyers suing people who share MP3 files online are basically calling this act. Piracy. Now don't get me wrong here, but isn't the definition of a copyright pirate a person who duplicates movie, software, or music discs, creates fake covers to look like the legitimate thing and SELLS these items under the guise of them being legitimate for a substantial profit? Notice that the key contention here is the fact that the hypothetical pirate is selling these items for personal gain not giving them away freely or at a personal expense. Now, in the case of File Sharing programs you are neither selling or obtaining any profit of any kind by sharing something you like with other people who like it. I find that the stipulations and the contingents being applied by these lawyers and the RIAA and MPAA are in fact erroneous and are in violation of my rights as an owner of the property and consumer. If I own something such as a music CD that I paid money for, and I choose to let my friend borrow it and listen to it, under the same laws and rules that are being applied to File Sharing my friend and I could be sued for listening and "sharing" that music because my friend didn't pay a store, the record label, or the artist to listen to that music. What the hell kind of nonsense ethics is this?

As a consumer I have the right to do whatever means necessary to maintain the integrity of the product I purchased legally. If for instance I buy a DVD film or a Music CD and that disc incurs a serious scratch it can be rendered unplayable. It is unfair and offensive to me as a consumer to have to pay for the same thing twice, so logically under fair use I should be able to copy it onto my hard drive or another disc for safe keeping in case the original becomes irrevocably damaged. Now following the same suit, suppose that I maintain a library and an archive of this data on my own hard drive in my computer, there is no law that says I'm not allowed to let someone else look at or take things from my hard drive. If I bought and paid for a computer that means I own it, including the hard drive and the data that sits on it stored magnetically. That being the case, if I allow a friend within my house or a family member to access data over a Local Area Network to use files from my hard drive, I have chosen to do this, and this is entirely legal. Furthermore, if I should choose to share the data on my Hard Drive over a Wide Area Network, then I choose to do so, taking into consideration the risks to my own property to hackers and viruses, as well as the cost I must incur to gain access to the internet, and have every right to do so. There are no laws on the books that say I am not allowed to give someone free gifts. What I don't have the right to do, is use the same duplicated files, such as movies, music, and software, and SELL these items or charge a kind of download fee to obtain a profit for myself. Why? because this would be a violation of the copyright, however sharing or giving away something THAT I ALREADY PAID FOR AND NOW OWN, is not a violation of copyright law. Now suppose I download a file from someone who is giving it away freely to me, I essentially paid $0.00 for it, and thus I share that same file for the cost of $0.00. No funds have changed hands, and no one's copyright has been violated, furthermore, someone DID ORIGIALLY PAY FOR the master copy from which the file originated. So no one has stolen anything from anyone else despite all the whining and complaining that is made by the industry and the artists who are their puppets.

Are people arrested or sued for copying TV shows and giving the VCR tape to their friend? No. Are people arrested or sued for photocopying an article in a magazine and giving it to a friend? No. In fact you can do this perfectly legal at the local library! Are people being arrested and sued for playing a music disc from a stereo in a crowded house at a party because none of the people listening to the music paid for it right? No, and it will never happen. I shudder to think how many of us would be in "copyright violation jail" and sued broke if the same standards of the RIAA and MPAA were held on all copying and duplication of any kind and public distribution and performance of entertainment that they use with File Sharing.

From what would seem to be gross ignorance of technology on the part of lawmakers and the judicial system the RIAA has been able to pursue internet users who may have File Sharing Software on their computer, and allow other people to gain access to .mp3 files on their PC's Hard Drive. MP3 Files that happen to have popular music on them is what the RIAA is looking for, and the firm hired to do the downloading download the files from unsuspecting users. Following the letter of the law that the RIAA touts so resonnantly they themselves by sniffing out people to sue are enguaging in the activity that they claim is stealing. If File Sharing is "stealing" according to the RIAA, then they "stole" the files off of someone's Hard Drive to begin with and incriminated themselves in the very activity they are condemning, and as any judge knows, in a lawsuit both parties must have "clean hands," and in this case holding the same standard to the RIAA makes them have "unclean hands" and liable to dismissal of all of their lawsuits.

Another glaring legal issue that I haven't heard addressed is that if you plan to sue someone who you, the law firm working for the RIAA, alledgedly obtained the file from, how do you possibly know that the person who pays for the internet service and is utilizing a specific IP address on the ISP's server, is the same perpetrator who you "stole" the file from to begin with? In any Local Area Network, I could bring my Laptop and plug right into someone's router and be online virtually instantly with a library of 10,000 music files, I could download a pile of MP3 files, the RIAA could download MP3's off of my Laptop, then the innocent owner of the LAN and the one who pays the ISP bill would get a nice subpeona from the RIAA's lawyers. What kind of shit is that? As well, many large ISP use dynamic changing IP's so an IP they downloaded MP3 files from a month prior could belong to an entirely different subscriber a month later. I can't imagine that something like this is even remotely provable in a court of law or for that matter enforcable? And what's more, with the coming surge of Wireless Hot Spots and Networks, and the explosion of Laptop use and WiFi 802.11b/e cards, how in the hell can you possibly tell who it was that is offering music downloads? With this information in mind, If the RIAA attempted to sue, any lawyer worth his salt could use these facts to mount an airtight defense. The judge would laugh at the RIAA's lawyers for wasting their time persuing ghosts and an empty case. My advice to people sued by the RIAA: DON'T SETTLE WITH THEM! Show your lawyer the paragraph above, and watch how fast the RIAA leaves you alone and turns tail in the other direction afraid of a countersuit for defamation of character and legal fees. The only way the RIAA can win this battle is due to people's ignorance of technology and fear of the word "lawsuit."

Both the RIAA and the MPAA claim that morally and ethically File Sharing is wrong and entirely equivalent to stealing, and people who make music or the artists that make music lose money. This pile of rhetoric makes me cringe and the fact that they can get away with shoving it down the public's throat is a travesty. As much as they like to stand on alleged moral high ground, they in fact have enguaged in an immoral monopolistic price fixing regime since the begining of vinyl. Most musical artists including bands, soloists, instrumentalists, didn't get to be known by CD production, rather they become promoted through going on tour or via the Radio, both of which are mediums where both the artists and the Record Label makes money and profit. The artist receives the LEAST compensation for a CD or Album, in fact only a small fraction of the price you pay for it on the shelf at a retailer. The Record Label takes the lion's share of profit from the disc, leaving only scraps for almost all artists except very popular ones who negotiate a better deal because of their stature as a very profitable entertainment product. Those who say that buying the CD supports the band or artist are in fact promoting the wrong thing. If you really like the band so much and want them to receive the most compensation for the work you appreciate so much, GO TO THEIR CONCERT! As you can imagine a large chunk of that $75.00 Nosebleed seat ticket price goes to the artist, singer, or band. At the concert buy all their band merchandise, and they will receive the most advantage and profit from your support. However purchasing their CD only makes the Record Label and the executives who own it richer.

In regard to films, again more often than not, the people who worked on the movie are already paid before the film is debuted in theaters, and if it is successful some of the lead actors and the director may receive some small royalty percentage from this. When you go to the movies and see a film on the big screen the Production Company and everyone involved makes a lot of money, and if it's a blockbuster they make a ton of money, many millions and millions of dollars in box-office profit. As well vast profits are gained from DVD sales due to the large margins obtained by Hollywood Movie Studios on these. The price they charge the store is often fixed and just barely below what you pay as a consumer for it. The store that sells a DVD makes very little, however the Studio makes huge profit off of it. If you're favorite popular actor or actress is in a certain movie, don't worry, he probably got his multimilion dollar salary for that film regardless of if you buy the DVD or the Action Figure or not. Those commercials by the MPAA saying "if you download, how am I supposed to pay for college, or pay for my glasses" etc, are out and out hogwash and manipulative of people ignorant of how the whole process works. Even if movies are available for download over file sharing networks, many people are still willing to go see it on the Big Screen, and the studio, the actors, the support personell, and the movie theater, will always be able to make plenty of profit. Many people like DVD's for the extra features and the commentary anyway, and more afluent consumers may still buy these, but by no means should that garbage about downloading making people lose their jobs ever escape from Hollywood as having any truth to it all. It's just propaganda designed as "profit protection," and using consumers conscience as a tool to keep the share holders and the boards of directors happy with nice fat dividends and bonuses.

The music recording industry has used strongarm tactics to manipulate artists into avoiding independant labels and suppressing independants by forcing retailers into acceptance of only approved labels and artists in lieu of not being allowed to sell any RIAA controlled properties. As much as the RIAA would have you think otherwise the cost in production and manufacture of a CD is very minimal, and now with the advancement in technology, neighborhood producers and local independant studios are cropping up in every city. Any studio technician with a room, a regular computer, Pro Tools or CakeWalk software, Microphones, Speakers, Amplifiers, some MIDI Interfacing equipment, and a Bulk CD Burner, can produce a moderate quantity of a very decent sounding set of tracks indestinguisable from something produced by a national record label. I have personally witnessed the creation of indie CD's and in all honesty can vouch for the quality of a CD that cost the band who had it made around $1000, and if one of the band members has a computer with a CD-RW and a Printer he can make as many copies as he can sell and bring them along to their concert for fans of the band to buy should they want to. That same band if it wasn't for the RIAA's price fixing rules could go out and sell it's CD and make a large profit from it, however if they had their CD produced and distributed though the national record label they would see virtually pennies on each unit sale if they were even lucky enough to sign a contract with the label. Significantly more often than not talent is turned away because the Record Label thinks that it isn't the "in thing" or what they think will result in huge unit sales.

The RIAA and MPAA have recruited various industry experts to go to schools from Elementary to High School, in an attempt to brainwash youth into believeing that "Sharing=Stealing." Their efforts include bribing children and teachers with rewards for getting the message out to fellow students and parents that downloading free information from the internet is actually stealing and sharing music or movies (regardless if you paid for the CD/DVD or not) freely with your friends is immoral and as illegal as shiplifting from a store. Isn't it dictatorship regimes that do things like this? Wasn't it people like Hitler and Saddam Hussien who attempted to brainwash youth into believing something and trying to circumvent individual rights and free will? ... Wow!

As it were, perhaps the most obvious and famous of monopolistic corporations, Microsoft, has made an alliance with the entertainment industry in an effort to stamp out file sharing and fade out the MP3 format entirely. Proof of this occurs in Microsoft's latest version of Windows Media Player 9. From personal experience, I downloaded WMP9 to replace an earlier version on my PC, assuming that there would be more features and benefits to this software, however Micro$oft went ahead and removed the ability to convert CD music from a disc to the MP3 format, and instead provides a weblink within the options menu to "Find out about MP3 Conversion" and this brings you to a page where you must NOW PAY FOR a once FREE feature of the previous version of the software! I was outraged to say the least. Isn't the idea of an Upgrade to ADD features to the software NOT TAKE THEM AWAY! M$ uses the excuse that you can still save the files onto your Hard Drive as Windows Media Audio, however this proprietary format doesn't play in all MP3 players, and is another example of M$'s continued effort to flood the public with it's flavor of doing things, i.e. a file format they they own the rights to and can manipulate for their own profitable gain. So I stopped using WMP9 thanks to M$, and I now use Apple's iTunes (on a Windows based PC for crying out loud!), which still allows you to save CD Music into the MP3 format. Another example of something that got under my skin, was when I attempted to transfer some video files that M$ had sent to a family member on a Free DVD-ROM (Which also included the WMP9 Upgrade, ugh!), and I attempted to transfer these short Indie BMW Films to my computer's hard drive (I have plenty of space and hate having find discs that are probably lost under a pile of papers) and play them, and it started trying to download some "License" to play the file, when it couldn't connect or find the proper license it refused to play the file! I basically said, "screw you!" I've been using PC's since the 80's and never once have they gone as far as preventing you from copying or archiving a file. I am seriously offended Microsoft. The greed has to stop somewhere, how much profit is enough, and how much is TOO MUCH.

The Recording industry, in conjunction with Microsoft as well as others like MusicMatch, and RealNetworks, and a newly resurrected Napster, have been trying to flood the public with what they claim are "legit" downloading services, where you pay a fee comparable to the fees paid in retail establishments for music. I'm perfectly fine with people paying for and downloading something if they are willing to do so, but once I have PAID FOR IT, I now OWN IT. That means if I want to give it away to a friend online or a relative that lives across the country that maybe can't afford to purchase an album or anyone I should so choose, since I paid for it, I have every right to give it away. However the catch is, these services and the file formats they use are NOT MP3, rather a kind of encrypted license file that may only copy a couple times, or will not play on another person's computer that doesn't have the license key, etc. That's a low blow, and not fair to consumers and again a violation of our ownership rights. My suggestion, if you don't plan on sharing your music, and you are willing to buy music in this format, you can, however if you like sharing your music with your family and friends, do not ever download these services. There is a very solid chance that those music files you download in the new and proprietary formats promoted by some company today will become unplayable in the future when a more advanced format is adopted and the old format that that particular company was promoting is totally obsolete. You will have basically wasted your money on something that has become useless. Due to the popularity of JPEG, MPEG, MP3 and WAVE file formats which have been in use for a long time now will remain as a standard for images, video, and audio respectively for many years to come entirely due to how widely used and popular they are. They have proven entirely adequate and capable for what they have done for computer users since they first appeared and any company that tries to create their own format specifically should be suspect at best.

You, as a consumer and an American, DO NOT HAVE TO just accept this. The RIAA and the MPAA don't own your life and they have no right to infringe on our rights. The best way to treat a totalitarian corporation is to take away their source of life, that being profits. From Napster until now the public has spoken and a degree of backlash has occurred resulting in a continued downward trend in CD sales for the recoring industry. However the almost mafia-like tactics the RIAA is using to undermine the freedoms of people and even its own artists needs to be put to an end, and they should be brought to task for their actions. Contact your local, state, and national politicians and express your disappointment with the Entertainment Industry, speak out and get people together. The best thing you could do is to gather a petition of thousands of signatures to have an amendment to your state's constitution added to the ballot making it impossible for anyone to sue or arrest you for sharing your own personal data you have saved on your Hard Drive with another person, except in extreme cases such as child pornography or terrorist plots. People who share files and do not pirate entertainment products for personal gain are not criminals and the law needs to indicate this or oppressive corporations and industrial groups will use a flaw in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to infringe on individual privacy and freedoms and serves as an inroad for the government and corporate lobby to further inhibit the free development of technology and democratic use of the internet.

BACK TO VIDEO GAMER X___BACK TO THE CROSSROADS