Comments on: Sorry, but I’m not in jail

By: Dimetrius

Dimetrius — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 22:04:31 +0000

My name is Dimetrius. I was a member of the iPodMeister-team until some time ago. I want to congratulate everybody to the earnest, principled, and spirited debate about the legal aspects of the iPodMeister exchange of used CDs for a new iPod. Instead of taking one side I just want to provide some inside perspective from somebody who actually worked on the iPodMeister team.
The digitizing is just a side-aspect of the iPodMeister story. For long periods of time iPodMeister didn’t offer digitizing. There was no digitizing! Most customers don’t opt for digitizing. The CD collection of the author of the article in your paper is rather unusual because of the size and scope of the collection. When I was working there most of the customers brought between 200 and 300 CDs and didn’t want any file conversion. The only people that wanted their CDs digitized were usually classic- or jazz aficionados, often because they had out-of-print titles.
Let me give you a little bit of background: iPodMeister is not a huge corporate entity but a small and always changing group of foreign college- and graduate students. The idea is to take old CDs that are collecting dust in the basements and attics of this country and to make them accessible in other parts of the world where people are still listening to CDs because they don’t have the money for an iPod. The team members of iPodMeister are all from different countries and go back there once or twice a year. The idea was to take CDs that nobody is listening to in the United States anymore and to find for them a new home among the people of less fortunate regions in the world (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Eastern Europe, to name a few).
The company never did any advertising when I was there. We got our customers through word of mouth and through occasional posts on the “Burning Man” mailing list or the blackboard of Food Co-ops. The journalists who wrote about iPodMeister were never contacted by us but heard about us from a family member or friend. The guy from “Newsweek” heard about iPodMeister from his sister who had hooked up with us in New York before moving away. She wanted to clean house and get rid off her CDs. It was about house cleaning instead of copyright infringement.
When I was at iPodMeister, we worked out of a garage without windows or heat in the industrial section of Williamsburg, Brooklyn. The garage was divided into three stages for three different rock bands and we also did some iPodMeister work part-time. The guy quoted in the article did volunteer work with victims of political persecution three days a week and iPodMeister was a part-time add-on job to make a couple of hundred bucks a month. No second Napster here, sorry.
I don’t want to take away from your principled, spirited legal discourse. One could easily argue that it doesn’t matter who breaks the law if the law is actually broken – a large cooperation or a small group of students from poor countries. But I just want you to refocus: digitizing is a side-aspect of the iPodMeister exchange of used CDs for new iPods. The real story is a recycling story and the transport of used CDs that bring pennies in the United States to countries where people still listen to CDs.
When I was at iPodMeister we occasionally got people who wanted to “trade” or “swap” digital files. We always declined. We also deleted all files that were digitized immediately after sending them to the customer. If somebody wants to get his hands on a digital version of a current Top-40 hit there are much easier ways to do that then to buy the album, then send it to iPodMeister as part of a collection, and waiting to get it back on DVD. Almost all of the CDs I digitized were five to fifteen years old, in dusty and cracked cases, and often from labels that had gone out of business or CDs that were out-of-print.
Again, my compliments to everybody for their well thought-through input and passionate participation in this discussion!
Dimetrius

By: Anonymous Coward

Anonymous Coward — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:55:31 +0000

Not illegal, ethical is up for debate. Though I think I can safely say that ethics should never be used as an argument while defending the RIAA.

By: stein

stein — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:33:53 +0000

Randy-

I am also disappointed in your original article and your follow-up. It would appear that somehow you did not even think about the obvious potential legal implications when writing your original article. Then, when these were immediately pointed out by a legion of readers, your response was to get defensive and to treat people who were raising legitimate issues as being nitpickers or overly aggressive do-gooders.

You could have come back and said “You raise good questions.” Instead you try to cover up something that is decidely unethical and probably illegal (even if no one is going to take the time to prosecute) by saying that it is a “gray area.” I think that you know that it is not as gray as you would like it to appear. And, if you do not, you should.

You should have thought about these issues upfront.

Instead of being a journalist, you just say that Newsweek and the New York Times have previously written articles on this company. So what? How many other unethical companies have been covered positively by other media before someone else finally writes the truth?

I fully agree with bnelson333, including the part about not caring about your readers, especially the ones who actually subscribe to your paper rather than just reading online.

By: bemused

bemused — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:40:16 +0000

Ah, this is what happens when a discussion lurches between legal issues and ethicaal issues. It degrades to name-calling and a humorous display of blog muscles.

Since we’ve gotten an opinion from just about everyone BUT an actual copyright holder, here is a link to an interview (Randy - sorry for boosting the competition, but it’s a copyrighted article!) in The Washington Times with Aimee Mann where she talks about how the artist gets squeezed by the label system, then ripped off by piracy.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/01/aimee-manns-prognosis-for-music-industry-deathly/

If we don’t start shining some light into all this ‘gray area’ there won’t be any music to buy or steal…

By: Nord

Nord — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:51:50 +0000

wow. Pandora has nothing on you Randy.

By: musicola

musicola — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:28:38 +0000

Ombudsman - Ooookay. You are quite the hoot to the people I know who have read this article. I suppose you think your comments are clever (heck, I even got a chuckle out of them), but I am trying to have a civil debate. Actually I never tried to be a professional musician or sell any music. But I respect those that are and those that try to make a living at it. And you have made no logical points.
I like Randy’s columns and heck, he is just a person like everybody else. We don’t need to crucify him. But that doesn’t mean we need to agree with his conclusions or his actions.

By: bnelson333

bnelson333 — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:05:26 +0000

Randy, I think you’re missing the point of why your article caused such a stir.

I don’t think most people care about what you do with your own CDs, and probably don’t want to see you go to jail over this.

But you crossed the line by publishing an article on a mainstream media website, condoning the use of a potentially illegal service, without even mentioning the potential legal issues, among other things.

Now that you’ve properly researched the matter, I still don’t like it, because you’re hinging it all on the legal gray area, and the fact that the RIAA has bigger problems to deal with.

That’s like going on the StarTribune and telling everyone it’s OK to drive 10 MPH over the posted speed limit because the police are too busy with other issues.

And iPodMeister is basically saying that since they haven’t had any problems in four years, it must be OK? I’m sure Tom Petters was thinking the same thing…

Lastly, how dare you paint your readers as uninformed idiots, just for questioning what you should have properly researched and written about in your original article. You must not want to keep an audience.

By: JG8

JG8 — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:38:42 +0000

To ombudsman & Anthony Robinson: Seriously? Thank-you for proving your intellect to everyone here. Your best rebuttal is to call me an idiot multiple times. Impressive!! Maybe next time you should try to actually form a counter argument rather than hiding behind some lame attempt at mud slinging….

To Randy Salas: Have I obtained music illegally in the past? Yes, I won’t deny it. However, I realized the error of my ways year ago and deleted every song I ever obtained illegally. My entire music collection now is 100% legal. To answer your question: No, I don’t buy used cds, because I know that’s exactly what’s happening and I choose not to participate in it.

Oh…one more thing Randy. I hope for your sake that no one takes your advice. After all, they might just print out a copy of your article, give it to their secretary to type up and then sell it to another newspaper to publish under their name….but I’m sure you wouldn’t mind. You turn one copy of music into two…they turn one copy of your article into two. What could possibly be wrong about that??

By: ombudsman

ombudsman — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 05:09:50 +0000

Unethical business model??? Who the F are you musicola? Oh yeah an amateur musician who’s crappy music woulnt sell for 1 cent on the dollar. I consider Ford Chevrolet and Chrysler asking for my tax dollars to bail them out an unethical business model. Distributing songs to yourself that you paid for, only and complete idiot would define that as unethical.

Congrats, you are now in second lead of this idiot convention. Much more successful than your music career eh? If your music was any good you wouldnt be on here crying about this over your crappy aol internet connection.

And Sean your are a moron, come on dude you dont know what digital means? Loser. And comparing this to hiring a hitman, wow you take the title of village idiot.

By: musicola

musicola — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:16:17 +0000

Re: SB79’s comment — your points are thought out and logical, unlike many here. But I disagree you on the ethics of this. Regarding the law: that part of the law does not let ipodmeister off the hook. It allows making a digital copy, but not *distributing.*