
Send Them Your Money: A Campaign to Send The RIAA/MPAA Billions - staunch
http://sendthemyourmoney.com/
======
ck2
The irony here is it's a much worse federal crime to photocopy US currency.

You can get around this by making sure it's (much) smaller than the original
and only copied on one side.

<http://www.secretservice.gov/money_illustrations.shtml>

~~~
kaybe
That and you will need a copy machine that actually copies bills. Some
machines use software to block it.

(see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation>)

~~~
lisper
Help yourself to a dollar:

<http://imgur.com/uFJht>

~~~
stavrianos
You sure you can afford this? I wouldn't want to impose.

~~~
lisper
It's a privilege to sacrifice for a good cause.

------
corin_
Seeing the title, here's what I was expecting to read:

"They think illegal downloads happen because people want to steal, we think
they happen because people what better digital distribution. Send them money
[real, actual payments] so they think 'holy shit, look how much money we just
got sent, think how much more we could make by offering good digital
distribution'."

Which would be a more interesting, more thought-provoking campaign, in my
opinion - though one with obvious flaws, and I certainly wouldn't personally
endorse it.

~~~
cgray4
This is actually an idea that I've been kicking around for a couple of weeks.
My idea is slightly more complicated, but this is the gist.

I would call it a digital media consumer's union, where a person pays in a
certain amount per month and then the total is allocated to the copyright
holders proportionally to the amount that their media are consumed by the
members of the union. Consumption statistics for music are already tracked by
things like last.fm (and libre.fm), and it would not be hard to build a
tracker for things like movies, books, and possibly websites and computer
programs.

The monthly bundle of money would obviously be the carrot, and if one of the
companies getting the money decided to sue a member for copyright
infringement, then the money would be coverted into a stick in the form of a
legal defense fund.

What about free riders? There would obviously be some, but I think a lot of
people really do think that digital distribution is terrible and would pay if
given the chance.

What about trust? Whoever was doing the collecting would have to have a great
reputation and be completely transparent. It should probably be a non-profit
and regularly audited.

Would it be be sued into oblivion? IANAL, but it seems like giving people
money should not be actionable. The big guys would probably try to get the
list of members, so being paranoid about privacy seems like it would be a good
idea.

What would it do to the incentives? This is my favorite part. Instead of the
publishers attempting to lock everything up, the incentive would be for them
to make content that is as consumed as possible. That is, the publishers would
want their stuff to get out there so that people see it and give some of their
share to the publisher. Things like digital locks would become
counterproductive.

Things like flattr provide some precedent for this idea, though they obviously
don't go track down people that aren't part of the system.

I'd love to hear critiques of this idea, because if it can't work, then I can
stop thinking about it.

~~~
Shum
Flattr is great and they actually do have something along the lines of
tracking down people who aren't part of the system. You can flattr Twitter
accounts and they will create a 'pending click' for that account which will
only be processed if the person tries to collect the money.

The main problem I can see with your system is the difficulty in finding the
appropriate person or organization to pay for every single file that the union
downloads.

~~~
corin_
If it actually took off, the person(s) running it could take the sort of fee
that shops/etc would normally take (probably much less) to cover time, and
then "Dear Record Label, I have a cheque for $$$$$ broken down for the
following artists: do you want it?"

I think the biggest problem would be convincing people to do it - right now
you can get it free (or a slight fee from some download services) illegally or
paid legally... how many people are going to chose the brand new third option
of paid yet still illegal?

edit:

Perhaps a more viable idea would be to do the same thing, but rather than
having the aim as trying to win over the likes of the RIAA/etc. just try and
win over artists. The Louis CK is now pretty well known, but he had to make
that decision before finding out its success. What if anybody who downloaded
anything could go through a service that would give money to the artists,
without legally admitting to any wrongdoing?

For example, I download a Justin Bieber album, or a Ricky Gervais stand-up
DVD, go onto this site and say "here's £5 because I think the
DVD/album/whatever is cool", and that money then goes directly to the artist -
without me ever having to say that I actually downloaded it illegally, that's
just left as an assumed fact.

Of course this becomes harder on the administration side, and much harder when
it's something like a big film where you pretty much have to go through the
studio or you'd never be able to split money between everyone involved. And,
thinking about it, I guess even for individual singers/standups/etc, there's
still the issue that not everybody who makes money from a CD without being the
artist falls into the moneygrabbing category. Do sound mixers, studio techs,
etc etc etc etc not deserve a cut?

Anyway, just babbling on... would love to see someone give this a real shot,
but really no idea if it could have even the tiniest chance of success.

------
anthonyb
> They've made it very clear that they consider digital copies of physical
> property to be just as valuable as the original.

Wow, talk about missing the point.

Digital copies of movies and music are just as valuable as the originals,
particularly as CDs and DVDs become obsolete. Copies of dollar bills are
somewhat less so - you can't buy stuff with them.

If you actually want to argue against the movie and music industries, you'll
need to use real facts, not convenient, pretend ones.

~~~
tikhonj
First of all, I'm sure the actual original copy actually has more value for
collectors and the like.

The real argument is that they are just _copies_ and literally cost the
studios nothing--that is, the studios do not have to spend any money on your
downloading the film from a third party. So, by extension, you pay them in a
way that does not cost _you_ anything, by using a copy of money.

The only value a copy--distinct from the media its on and the bandwidth it
takes--is through copyright. If you do not believe in copyright, or at least
not in the system as is, (and I imagine the person who set this up does not)
then these copies _do not_ really have value. The analogy is to the smell from
a restaurant--it costs the restaurant nothing, so if somebody outside enjoys
it, they do not have to pay the restaurant anything.

~~~
anthonyb
A large number of people are still willing to pay for music. How many people
would be willing to pay you for a photocopy of a $1 bill?

I understand the argument that you and this site are trying to make, but it's
fundamentally flawed. Ultimately you're going to have to convince both
government and the music industry of whatever solution you're proposing.

------
Danieru
Here is some low fidelity ascii money:
<http://www.retrojunkie.com/asciiart/money/bills.txt>

Think of it as mp3 money.

~~~
kamjam
I need some British money.

Failing that, some Nyan Cat money!

------
tibbon
By doing this you're clearly stealing money by making digital copies of it,
devaluing money for everyone and making the maker of the money (US Mint)
bankrupt.

~~~
wiredfool
We need a snappy name for it. Lets call it Quantitative Easing 3.

(hollywood likes sequels, doesn't it?)

------
bithive123
I am concerned that sites like this do more harm than good because they
misrepresent the issue. Taking this joke to its logical conclusion, why not
instead post a shell script that makes a trillion copies of dollar_bill.jpg
and then offer to "license" it to the RIAA for a modest fee?

------
dools
Hold on - I thought this was an awesome idea right up until it was a joke.

Why don't we _actually_ give the RIAA millions of dollars?

Like, the argument from all advocates of digital freedom isn't that artists
don't need money to survive, but by making things simple and easy, people will
quite willingly part with their money.

So why not solve this "chicken and egg" issue by hurling a few eggs their way
to get the ball rolling?

Let's give them shitloads of money to _prove_ that people will willingly pay
for their product.

~~~
AngrySkillzz
The problem with that is that the RIAA/MPAA produce no products. They are
lobbying organizations for the publishers in their respective industries; they
don't have much relation to the artists at all.

If one was truly inclined to pay the artists who produced an album (or the
equivalent in a different content industry), it would be best to send it to
them directly. Then they'd realize (a la Louis CK) that the publishers are
unnecessary middlemen in the creator/consumer relationship, thus obsolescing
that entire segment of industry and the RIAA/MPAA with it.

------
literalusername
Don't bother trying to load the MPAA's contact page if you reject their
cookies. It just loops a reload. I'm not exactly surprised that they value
tracking over usability.

------
AshleysBrain
Don't a lot of copiers/scanners have technology that prevents them copying
currency? Thought there was a special dot pattern or something.

~~~
jonah
Yes. [1]

As do image editing softwares. [2]

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation> [2]
[http://www.petapixel.com/2011/08/09/heres-what-happens-
when-...](http://www.petapixel.com/2011/08/09/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-
to-edit-photos-of-money-in-photoshop/)

------
memset
This is just awful.

"They've made it very clear that they consider digital copies of physical
property to be just as valuable as the original."

What is an "original"? With food I understand. smell:food::sound:coins. Or
even smell:food::picture:money. So in this case, picture:money::torrent:??

What is the 'original'? The physical medium containing the footage original? A
live performance?

If you were to pay for the movie - just as one might pay to eat actual food -
what would you pay for? If not a copy of the movie's bits on your hard drive,
what? Or do you think nothing at all?

The original article was saying that there used to be a scarcity in the act of
watching a movie: you had to go to the theater. Now that scarcity, the problem
of "how shall I procure this entertainment" has been solved.

But movies themselves still cost money. Movies themselves are scarce! We can
watch movies as easily as we breathe air. But we cannot _make_ movies as
easily.

~~~
scelerat
Maybe the shift is that you don't make such expensive movies. Or create an
experience that is impossible to reproduce via digital distribution.

------
sukuriant
IANAL. Is it illegal to photocopy money and send it? Or, is it just illegal to
use the photocopied money?

~~~
sliverstorm
Illegal to photocopy money. Also illegal to mail cash, but if it is fake they
probably can't charge you with anything there.

~~~
ianterrell
<http://www.snopes.com/legal/postal/sendcash.asp>

~~~
sliverstorm
My mistake, thank you.

------
scoot
What are the odds that two articles at the top the front page of HN refer to
the same obscure (?? I hadn't heard it before) tale of Ōoka Tadasuke and the
stolen smell?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3694672>

~~~
dandelany
This one was inspired by the other post... It's mentioned in the footer.

~~~
scoot
Missed that. Thanks.

------
Jd
This is pointless and a complete waste of time.

------
reaktivo
Somewhat related? Is selling your physical dvd allowed in the US? A crowd
sourced Netflix would be awesome, where you can rent directly from and to
other users.

~~~
icebraining
Yes, it is allowed. It's called the First-sale doctrine, and Wikipedia tells
me it's been upheld specifically for DVDs:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-
sale_doctrine#Applicatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-
sale_doctrine#Application_to_DVDs_and_NEBG_v_Weinstein)

------
sofifonfek
Does anyone know how the japanese judge story [2] and the german trickster
Till Eulenspiegel [2] are related ? I knew the story as an adventure of Till
Eulenspiegel.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Coka_Tadasuke#Famous_cases>

[2] <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Till_Eulenspiegel>

------
kreek
To paraphrase James Taylor being a musician is a blue collar job, but at least
blue collar jobs pay minimum wage. If the attitude conveyed in this site keeps
up independent content creators are just going to say it's not worth it and
all you'll be left with is the manufactured pablum the music industry serves
up.

~~~
tomflack
That _sounds_ like it's true, but I don't think it is.

People have been making music for as long as we have recorded history, why
would that change now?

------
bborud
I'm pretty sure that scanning US currency, printing it and then sending the
result across state borders is quite possibly a federal offense so I wouldn't
exactly recommend you do this.

------
wisty
I was hoping it was something like this - you can donate $0.01 by credit card,
and they will lose out (overall) due to merchant account fees.

------
paulsutter
Hilarious and clever, but would any of us want to be paid for our mobile apps
or online services with the same currency?

------
MiWHackerNews
this violates us laws and international treaties on currency controls. It's
conspiracy to commit counterfeitng and inciting others to commit wire fraud

Remember they used to hang people over this. Newton watched with glee as coin
shavers he had caught were executed.

Mmmm move on. Not quite right.

See EUrion

~~~
warmfuzzykitten
Second that. Copying currency is counterfeiting. This demented idea will
achieve nothing but bring the Secret Service to your door with a warrant.

------
thuang513
isn't that what we are doin when people go watch all the crap movies?

------
maeon3
Very creative and thought provoking, but wrong.

A DVD version of avatar sells for say $20 and Riaa gets some percentage of
that. Joe blow downloads avatar for free from google or some other website,
ptp or sneakernet. Joe blow sends the riaa some percentage of $20 in
photocopied money. That does not provide the same utility for riaa as the
avatar.mp4 did for Joe blow.

Whether or not Joe blow's download of avatar for free is unfair against the
store that stocks the DVD, the trucker who moved it, the actors, producers and
supporting staff or the media ads that promoted it is another question. The
question comes down to how much Joe blow WOULD have paid for avatar.mp4 had
his only option been to purchase a DVD, wait and rent it, or watch it at a
friends house.

When we replace avatar with "schematics for a 3d printable car/computer/cup"
then we will have to deal with this problem of rewarding the creators of
valuable data according to how badly people want it, preserving our freedom
from censorship and preserving net neutrality. Yarr!

~~~
marshray
What if Joe Blow watches Avatar and then comes to the realization that he's
wasted 2 hours of his life?

How shall that be recovered?

~~~
nextparadigms
Should it be recovered? If you buy a product that you wish you didn't buy,
wouldn't you normally return it? I see no reason for businesses to get money
by basically tricking their customers into buying something they later find
out it's not what they expected.

~~~
joezydeco
Now we're just getting silly.

A _huge_ portion of our economy is based on buying services and not physical
goods. If every service was exactly as described and advertised we wouldn't
need Consumer Reports, Yelp, or Epinions. We'd live in utopia. And yet, here
we are.

~~~
nextparadigms
I know that the real world is not ideal or how it should be, but I'm saying
the potential for disruption/more efficient alternatives is there. Since they
seem to think that they are entitled to trick (a rather harsh word, but not
that far from the truth) their customers, that means there is an opening for
an alternative - whether that's more "honest" competition, or straight out
piracy to "test" the product beforehand.

------
tkahn6
> They've made it very clear that they consider digital copies of physical
> property to be just as valuable as the original.

What does this even mean? It appears the message of this campaign is that
digital music is devoid of monetary value.

~~~
ktizo
Copying music was once an industry that required massive capital for both the
recording and distribution, so these had monetary value as services to the
artist and consumer.

Now the artist can own their recording equipment outright and no longer has to
rent it and the distribution channel, while not free, is so cheap it is given
away in order to help sell coffee.

So, digital music is not only nearly devoid of monetary value as it is no
longer an industry in and of itself, but from a commercial perspective is the
advert for the live show and so can even be viewed as a marketing cost.

