The RIAA speaks--and it gets worse

UPDATE: You can now read the full transcript of the RIAA interview here.

The RIAA has quickly become one of the most disliked organizations in the world. Working ostensibly with the interests of the artists in mind, the organization has single-handedly instituted a policy of lawsuits and education in an attempt to curb the piracy of music.

Although this has been going on for quite some time now, I recently read a press release from the organization outlining its successes and what 2008 will look like for its College Deterrence program.

The press release tells us that the RIAA (on behalf of the music industry) has sent out "a new wave of 407 pre-litigation settlement letters to 18 universities nationwide as part of an ongoing campaign against online music theft. The letters reflect evidence of significant abuse of campus computer networks for the purpose of copyright infringement."

Once those students receive the pre-litigation settlement letters, they have the opportunity to surf over to the P2P Lawsuits Web page to settle with the RIAA before a court battle ensues.

Of course, the story doesn't quite end there.

To get a feeling for why the RIAA has implemented this strategy and has seemingly ignored the piracy cartels all over the world, choosing the soft target instead, I got in touch with the organization and asked a representative 10 questions to clear the air. This transcript will be made available tomorrow on The Digital Home.

Unfortunately, the answers given proved even more damning to an organization that is already sitting on a powder keg.

Perhaps more than anything, college students simply don't trust the RIAA and its questionable practices. As Cara Duckworth explained to me, "It was becoming clearer that despite cool new legal services and the ongoing educational efforts, too many students--some of music's biggest fans--were getting their music illegally and learning the wrong lessons about stealing and the law. Bringing lawsuits was by no means our first choice, but a necessary step we had to take."

Of course, whether or not lawsuits were not truly the first choice is debatable. In fact, judging by the lack of other alternatives offered except to say that the RIAA is "actively investing resources in the education of students of all ages on the value of music and importance of copyrights," there isn't too much evidence to suggest lawsuits isn't the organization's favorite form of deterrence.

Beyond that, the general theme of the interview with the RIAA could be characterized by a general lack of understanding and at some points, somewhat insulting.

When asked why the RIAA is going after an easy target--college students--the response made me cringe: "College students have reached a stage in life when their music habits are crystallized," Duckworth said. "And their appreciation for intellectual property has not yet reached its full development."

Sadly, this statement tells you everything you need to know about the RIAA. Does this organization actually believe that people who have the right to vote and go to war don't have the ability to make sound decisions about intellectual property? Maybe it has nothing to do with lack of development and everything to do with an extreme distaste for the recording industry.

The RIAA's discussion on students (and the general lack of understanding thereof) doesn't quite end there. Duckworth went on to explain that college students "used to be some of music's greatest fans, unfortunately that is no longer the case."

According to Duckworth, students who steal copyrighted music are not fans of music? I simply don't understand the logic. Look, I'm not here to endorse the stealing of music and I encourage everyone to buy it. But by undermining the intelligence of college students and insulting them because of their perceived "lack of development," I don't see how anything could (or will) change.

Beyond that, the real issue lies not with college students stealing music, but with huge piracy cartels overseas that have created a bit of a cottage industry out of stealing and redistributing media. Because of that, I asked Duckworth about it. After telling me that college students have become the world's largest group of pirates, Duckworth explained that the RIAA wants to "take action against the services themselves" and indicated that the organization is "working with policymakers in Washington to encourage countries whose copyright laws have not kept up with the times or who do not appropriately enforce intellectual property violations" to catch up.

Regardless, it doesn't seem to me that the RIAA is doing enough. Why are criminal enterprises that contribute a significant amount to the piracy losses that the organization is so quick to cite allowed to run amok, while grandmothers and students who pirate music are targeted? Sure, those people shouldn't be pirating music either, but shouldn't the organization go after the kingpins instead of the low-hanging fruit? I certainly think so.

Intriguingly, the RIAA believes its policy of suing violators is working, but depending on the study you read, piracy has flattened out or grown at a relatively steady, albeit slower, pace when compared with its meteoric rise just after the turn of the millennium. According to BigChampagne, a company that specializes in tracking P2P and Torrent use, May 2006 saw 9 million individuals connected on peer sharing sites, compared with 9.35 million just one year later. Beyond that, NPD found that 15 million people downloaded songs from P2P networks in 2006 and an estimated 5 billion files were added to computers--a 47 percent increase over the prior year.

As if that wasn't enough, a more recent study from NPD claims only 50 percent of Mac users paid for their music in the third quarter of 2007, compared with 16 percent of PC users. If true, are lawsuits really working?

According to Duckworth, lawsuits have made "people more aware of what is legal and illegal when it comes to downloading music." But if you ask me, the RIAA's policy of utilizing lawsuits to make people "more aware" is creating a more hostile environment that only harms the organization's standing in the court of public opinion.

Of course, Duckworth disagrees. She contends that although some may dislike the RIAA, "amongst the general public, the favorability ratings of the record industry remain as positive as ever and surpass other forms of entertainment like movie or TV studios." Of course, the question is not necessarily whether the public likes Sony BMG or EMI, the real question is whether or not people like the RIAA itself. And so far, very few do.

In the end, Duckworth says that we should be skeptical when we hear news on the RIAA. According to her, she would rather "give [us] the facts and encourage [us] not to believe everything [we] read that aggressively villainies the organization."

Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. When an objective observer looks at some of the actions taken by the RIAA over the past few years, including hiding behind the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 2003 to force Verizon to hand over private customer information, asking the court to force a 10-year old girl into a deposition over a lawsuit with her mother, and a host of others where the organization chose to attack low-hanging fruit instead of finding and charging those enterprises that have allowed piracy to become so ubiquitous in the first place, it's no wonder people dislike this organization.

In an environment where technology is changing by the minute, there are still some organizations that flounder in the past. Is piracy wrong? Yes. Should people pirate? No. But what the RIAA doesn't understand is that its policy of lawsuits only enrages people and fails to bring about change.

That said, it seems like the writing is on the wall. The RIAA will continue to employ its bullying tactics in the hopes that piracy will stop, but the recording industry will refuse to realize that what we really want as consumers is the ability to take music and do what we want with it. Beyond that, the industry will never realize that although I can copy a track I purchased and send it along to a friend, sales will continue to rise because most people are honest and are willing (and ready) to do the right thing.

I commend the RIAA for standing up to the issues I raised and answering them as forthrightly as possible. And while we may not have received the answers we would have liked, we gleaned even more knowledge of this organization than previously known.

Intriguingly, ArsTechnica reported on Friday that the recording industry has some doubts about the viability of the RIAA and at least one of the major labels--EMI--is considering pulling all of its funding by March 31, if major changes in policy and structure are not made. Regardless, there is no indication that we can expect a major shift going forward. And I, for one, am extremely saddened to hear that.

[PortVista-19095313035016904102]

Wow that P2P Lawsuits webpage is INSANE! -- "Would you like to settle a case online?" And then it's like a typical check-out process, pay by credit card, and get your receipt. How does the RIAA get away with this?

[M C]

These ongoing lawsuits are Exibit A in how the old record industry is stuck in its old ways: they've always gone for the softest targets (i.e., the ones who can't afford good lawyers) to make their legal point.

Remember in the 80s when imports were banned (based on, IIRC, a misinterpretation of import law)? Did the RIAA sue Tower Records, where you could find a wide selection of imports? No, they sued mom-and-pop stores and then made sure it made the news when they did.

[Leria]

They really shouldn't be able to get away with it, but thus far the courts have allowed them to get away with it. The civil court system is broken right now: when a case is against a person, the standards of proof are too low and when the case is against a corporation, the standards of proof are too high.

Really, were I to get one of these 'settlement letters', it would go through my shredder faster than the stuff I get from Publisher's ClearingHouse. Why? Because I do not download music illegally (I only download foreign music that isn't available in the United States for download), and I listen to American music using Yahoo Music Jukebox with a 'Music Unlimited!' subscription.

Now, I have little sympathy for people being caught downloading stuff illegally, but I know the facts here: IP address do NOT identify one person, period and done with.
They are usually recycled through people, sometimes the same people, sometimes not. That makes it almost IMPOSSIBLE to determine who is downloading music illegally or downloading anything else illegally.

[G Fitz]

Nice article. I'm looking forward to reading the transcript tomorrow.

I think one thing the RIAA still doesn't understand is that you cannot sue your customers and then keep them buying your media. College age students have got to be one of the biggest demographics in music sales. Since the invention of the cassette tape, music has been 'copy-able', yet the music industry has persisted and thrived. Admitedly, it is easier to download from a P2P site than copy a friends CD, but the majority of people like to own their 'stuff', and I think want to obtain their music legally.

[rjhiggins]

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests otherwise: The majority of college students do NOT want to obtain their music legally. And it's not for any anti-RIAA reasons -- it's just because they can.

[jjesusfreak01]

What most people dont realize is that the RIAA isnt actually looking out for artists rights, only themselves. How much of the money they make from these settlements do you think goes straight into the RIAA piggybanks, rather than the artists...its all about profit margins. The RIAA makes a little when records are sold, but alot in settlements.

[dmca95]

You are an idiot. STEALING IS STEALING. If that same student walked into a clothing store and stole a $1 scarf he/she would get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I am an artist/songwriter and make my living off of royalties. Maybe I'll start going into college student's rooms and taking some of their effects as reparations. You people are so ill-informed, uneducated, polarized, and just plainly ignorant of the facts regarding copyright law it's an abberation beyond abberations. GO READ THE COPYRIGHT LAW! Then read it again, then take a test, THEN READ IT AGAIN...THEN come back and make a statement. By the way, I wouldn't want that GOD DAMN student to buy stuff from me after he/she stole **** YOU!

[rollspc]

More lawyers producing media grabbing lawsuits enraging college students who will, in time, be the leaders making decisions that affect the RIAA. Meanwhile the record industry falls deeper into the hole where fewer and fewer consumers are buying anything from their industry. Everything affects the bottom line --actions by lawyers, producers, policy makers not just the consumer. Adding more lawyers with ever expanding lawsuits that have minimal effect only adds to the issues. EMI has the right idea -- it just needs to follow through to insure we try something different that doesn't include depositions that include 10 year olds.

[Charbax]

RIAA does not represent the artists, they represent the music coorporations. Now answer these questions:

- Are music coorporations always going to be needed now that artists can distribute their music directly to their fans?

- How much money does the artists get per song sold on iTunes, some reports show artists only get 14% of iTunes sales, thus $0.14 for each $0.99 that consumers spend on buying so called legal music online. Are those reports correct, and in which case, why should consumers feel confortable spending $0.86 or more of every dollar spent on so called legal music for intermediaries such as Apple and the record labels?

If songs were sold for $0.14 each and 100% went to the artists, then much more so called legal music would be purchased online and the artists would make much more money. And most consumers wouldn't go through the trouble of using p2p software to get the music.

- I'm for the Global Licence law. Everyone should pay around $5 in average per month in taxes, give that money to artists directly, absolutely no intermediaries are needed. Artists know what to do with that money to produce more and better music. Give the power to the artists and not to the record labels.

[Pete Bardo]

What are you, nuts? Everyone should pay $5? Let the free market take care of this. When music prices come down, more people will pay! That's how it works. If we all pay, who will decide who actually gets the money?

What about the Nine Inch Nails "Pick your price" experiment? Think it was a failure because bidders left out a share for the record companies? I don't think so.

[gurnx]

Comrade, I'm not in favor of an imposed tax. Your recommendation is desirable to power-hungry central-control ideals. I like freedom; let me choose what I want and pay what the artist and I agree to.

[midabe]

Labels, to my knowledge, are about marketing\distribution of an artist. Distributing an artist's work via online media may handle the delivery, but how do you search for new artists? You still need an aggregator like iTunes, Yahoo! Music, Napster. These services aren't going to work for free. They're either going to take a subscription fee while you pay for each song or take a cut of each song played. I like the CHOICE of paying one flat rate each month and downloading whatever I want.

This doesn't handle the all of the marketing of an artist though. You don't need a 'label' to market and I don't know how many options there are out there for an artist to choose from.

[gdmaclew]

By the way...meteors don't rise - they fall.

[B_Charles]

To be fair, artists should know that they don't make any money from selling albums. And unless they are actually writing the songs, producing the music, taking the pictures, etc., then they really shouldn't. There is so much money poured into the recording and marketing of an album that an artist is almost required to go platinum to be seen as a success. The album sales do, however, determine the billability of the artist such as how much budget they'll have for concerts and later albums, how much concert tickets will be (thus putting more money in their pockets), where they will perform, etc. So you're not neccessarily paying the artist by buying the album, you're setting the artist up to get paid elsewhere.

Think of it more like a television show. By watching a show, you increase the amount of money advertisers will pay the network. So although you are not directly paying the actors, you are giving the show more opportunities to pay the actors more money and produce a better show.

Bottom line is that if you want your favorite artists to continue putting out good albums (which is hard to do if you have no budget) and have longevity, buy the album. Big artists don't care that they make $1 per album sold. It's all about the number of albums sold so they can bring in money on the backend.

[Atagahi]

It is amazing that the music corporations haven't connected falling music sales with the RIAA's lawsuits and egregious tactics. It is pretty clear that people are voting with their pocketbooks.

I know the RIAA disgusts me and I quit buying music. I don't download it or pirate it either. I just no longer desire to fund the music industry and its arrogant enforcer. It is amazing how little one needs new music once you get away from radios and music venues.

If you are going to use mafia tactics to punish your consumers, can you really complain when the consumers decide to forego your product?

It is only a matter of time before the music corporations go out of business. Somehow I doubt society will collapse as the music corporations seem to think it will.

[shoffmueller]

I do agree with her comment, "And their appreciation for intellectual property has not yet reached its full development." There truly is no evidence that the 18-22 year olds have any sense of intellectual property, and the right to vote and go to war hardly implies otherwise. The fact that kids download music free with no sense of wrongdoing is evidence of exactly what the RIAA spokesperson is saying. Older folks seem to buy music legally, hence likely have a more developed appreciation for intelectual property.

[samadcit]

I disagree. I think that people ages 18-22 DO have a sense of intellectual property. However, growing up with Napster in this new age and seeing all the controversy following it, makes many feel like that the RIAA is overreacting and not facing the situation with an open mind. The internet has provided a new tool for the distribution of music and they should be embracing that instead of shying away from it. Yes, there have been a few attempts at this, however the problem lies with the copyright laws. Each company tried to market their own artists and didn't try to collaborate with other companies in the industry, thus only providing content from a select group. I think in the future we need to see the artists and their representatives unite under one banner to provide music over the internet from one source.

[Hollow_Mystery]

I have yet to be convinced that any factual data supports a theory of a specific age being the difference for understanding intellectual property rights. Sure in the case of a young child this argument holds true. However, the reason a 40 year old today is more willing to pay for music than a 20 year old might have more to do with the fact that the 40 year old spent at least part of their 'music buying years' in a world where electronic versions of music were not easily available. Prior to electronic file transfers, if you wanted music you had to buy a CD, Tape or Record (8-track if you want to get retro :-). This same fact does not hold true for someone who is 20 years old as of 2008. A 20 year could easily have mostly only ever known of MP3 players and electronic music files. This reason might have more to do with the apparent average disjoint (when it comes to a greater understanding of intellectual property) between current 20 and 40 year olds.

It would obviously take considerable research and analysis looking at this specific difference in attitude between those who have always known electronic music files (since their music buying years began) versus those who at least spent part of their music buying years under the old system of having to purchase a physical product (CD, tape, album). I am surprised this avenue of thought on the subject is not discussed more within the industry. Age is something you will grow out of, and if youth is the argument for lack of understanding of intellectual property rights then chances are these same youth will mature to a better understanding. However, if the lack of understanding has more to do with the environment (those youth of today who will always have known an electronic music world) then there is a much bigger problem, one that age may not correct and possibly only through better education of intellectual rights might it be resolved.

[oxtail01]

The author makes some ridiculous comparisons. The "right to vote" is the least used right by the younger generation and the author should know that joining the military is voluntary. The bottom line is no one has a "right" to steal. Let's not cloud the issue with ridiculous personal invictives. If people don't steal intellectual property than all of this would be a moot point.

[lambo29c]

The fact that one replier claims that the students in America do not vote is a completely absurd point, seeing as to how during the 2004 election only 64% (pretty abysmal turnout by the population if you ask me) of all eligible voters turned out to vote, and 19% of those votes came from teenagers or young adults. That fact is, students steal music because the artists make no money from record sales, most support the artist(s) by going to tours thus giving the artists the money they deserve.

[tbonehauer]

I disagree with the claim that 18-22 year old college students do not understand intellectual property. As a trombone performance student, I am very much aware of the importance of intellectual property policies. Since the iTunes store first became an option, I ,as well as the vast majority of my friends, have obtained all of my music through legal means. Your point that "older folks" by their music legally is simply ignorant of the facts. As other users have commented, the ability to copy music has been around since the invention of the cassette tape. As a 20 year old student, I can only barely remember the age of the cassette tape. When the CD first hit the market, most consumers did not have the ability to copy music to their computers or to burn it to another disc. They certainly were not able to transfer music over the internet. My parents' generation was the first to begin pirating music on a widespread scale. For you to contend that my generation does not respect intellectual property is grossly ignorant and disrespectful of the hard-working, intelligence-seeking youth of not only the United States but of the entire world.

Please be more careful with your contentions in the future. Understand that while there may not be evidence that shows my generation respects intellectual property, evidence does exist that shows that previous generations did not show the respect towards music and other intellectual property that you claim they have shown.

[ackmondual]

in some circles, EVERYONE buys bootlegged stuff. From the children, to the old folks. Age doesn't have much bearing on 'senses of intellectual property'.

In one article, someone from the RIAA stated he overheard a couple of people talking about how to get music for free. He was surprised to see they were senior citizens

[midabe]

It all comes down to choice and consequence. I think the knowledge is there to make good decision. But if there is not a feeling of consequence for their bad choice, why not download the free music?

I mean, given the choice of paying for something or getting it free.... Wouldn't you rather have it free? If you felt there was no consequence for getting it free then you would likely make the same choice.

If RIAA went after only 'kingpins' then this feeling would continue. A college student downloading free music could not relate to a kingpin in Nigeria getting busted for copyright infringement.

Should the RIAA go after thousand to make an example? No. I think the RIAA should recognize the changing industry. Like someone said earlier, "People ultimately want to do the right thing." College student aren't out there selling the music they download. It's for personal use. Create a pricing model that works for college students. Students often get discounts. Instead of $14.95 a month, charge them $9.95 for unlimited downloads.

[Nichol]

Unfortunately, the corporate nature of the industry intends to maximize profits, and does not serve the best interests for the artists or the public. It is not really any different than the current US health care system. Controlled solely by corporate health insurance companies, and drug vendors. Now I don't think that a 'global license law' would solve the issue because this is not a medical system and not everyone needs to have access to all music. The industry should in theory set a salary for artists on their labels. No one, I repeat no one needs millions of dollars.. it's a gross corporate capitalistic condition to need more money than is sufficient. Pen them up with a cap at like $160,000 / year. There is no reason why professional sports, celebrities, and artists should make more money than our doctors. Left over revenue should be re invested, or put into the country. The idea could pan out, but due to the nature of the corporate world and the high chance that something like that will be smeared with communism or (socialism as the us government will call it). Look what happened when the Clinton's pushed universal health care.

the only way these things will really get solved is if The People turn fear back on the government and corporations. It is they who should be afraid of the people not the other way around. That's how democracy works, that's what keeps a government in line with the peoples interest.

Fight back, hoping is not going to work and it's not going to get better if you all just sit back and wait.

[martini1179]

I agree with every single thing you said, down to the letter. Not to get political, but this business with the RIAA (a trade group owned/operated by the music corporations), the US sickcare system, the holiday "shopping season," Americans are treated like commodities. Its just a symptom of a MUCH bigger problem.

Ever wonder why, on the news for example (not including BS political stump speeches) we're much more likely to be referred to as "consumers" rather than "the American People?" Because according to the Powers That Be, we're expected to consume -- to eat, eat, eat, spend, spend, spend, spend endlessly. The corporations pay us as little as possible for our labor (look at the Hollywood writers' strike, for example), we're taxed to death (while the richest 1% [$5million a year and up] pay relatively little in taxes, percentage wise), and expected to give most of it back into the economy, since we're marketed to hundreds of times a day. And the worst part of all, the corporations and their puppets in Washington expect us to keep bending over, and therefore have no reason to loosen the chains.

I think that EVERY American should watch a documentart called The Corporation to find out how we got into this mess. Its available on Bittorrent ;)

[jharrisofkansas]

So if there are no companies and or corporations where will you work ? Maybe the Clintons will hire you.So you would let a company or government tell what you can make on something you created ? How nice of you on one hand you say they are evil then say industry should set limits.....Are you 12 or something ? Here is a good one for you...I compose music and you know what...I think I will just keep it to myself and you can compose your own.And what you suggest is communism it doesn't work....go talk to people that lived it and came to the USA and ask how they liked universal everything.

[fokwp]

There is a law that you can only copy music in accordance with a license agreement. There are two other laws: that you can only drive 55 on some roads, and that you can't walk your dog off-leash in national parks.

The first law, it has apparently been decided, will be enforced by hurting people. The other two laws, it has been decided, will be worked out with the communities that are most affected by the laws. What priority, when, and how should speeding laws be enforced, and when not? Should any of the leash laws be enforced - is so, when and how? The communities that suffer (and benefit from) the effects of enforcement are included in the process - that is, their thoughts, wishes, intuitions are brought to bear on the problem.

How about plain old shoplifting? What should the penalty be - what about a youth offender? what about someone who had no money and stole food - maybe we need to assure the availability of food for this person rather than prosecute? communities most affected by enforcement are involved in the process of enforcement (and law-making) from the get-go.

We work these things out in the communities that are affected.

Now look at digital rights management. The RIAA will sit alone and decide how to hurt who in the most effective way possible to suit only the requirements of its bosses. Lack of any commitment to the affected communities is why the RIAA is not a legitimate enforcement body, is hated, and will fail.

[lacy2]

You analogy is lacking. You are comparing statutes with contract agreements. The community has input into statutes just as you suggest. However, in contract agreements, each individual has the right to negotiate independantly. This includes accepting or rejecting any term in the agreement.

In the case, the RIAA requires you to pay a license fee. If you do not agree, you may simply refuse. Nobody is making you choose to accept the license. However, you have no right to reject the license and then choose to use their product. Furthermore, lesser penalties are sometimes given to people who steal to eat. This is because eating is necessary for survival, and courts account for this when sentences are imposed. However, very few people have died from not listening to a song covered by the RIAA.

[aka_tripleB]

I don't even care about caring about this anymore. But I will say this: steroetyping college as theives is wrong. There is nothing that says that people at college are more likely to violate copyright laws than those who get a job right after high school. It's ethically wrong and some should stop this from happening. Or are we waiting until the RIAA puts out a study saying "race x" is more likely than "race y" to steal music, but "race z" doesn't steal music?

[dmca95]

STEALING IS STEALING!!!!!!!!!!!And mabye you should go back to college."Theives"?? i before e except after c. Stereotyping is also spelled as such.

[ru155]

As far as college kids not understanding the gravity of the matter I think it's pretty clear they don't. Having graduated only a few years ago I can tell you that the p2p networks run rampant on college campuses. It's much worse than just the old "borrow the friends cd to make a copy" you've got terabytes of music and videos at your fingertips and all you have to do to get them is double-click.

Why would you ever pay when it's for free and you are on the typical college budget of $50 a month?

Your argument about the Piracy networks abroad is incredibly flawed. If you followed politics you would know that the constant debates going on with the US Trade Reps in meetings like Doha are often centered around countries like China recognizing US patents. Of course China constantly rebuffs these provisions as pirated material is an enormous industry for their country.

The RIAA didn't start with lawsuits but it certainly is finishing with them. There isn't much else they can do because p2p networks are able to pop up as soon as the next one goes down and the cycle continues. The only way they can make it is with shock value.

Of course I think the case in arizona is rediculous as they define stealing by putting your CD into your computer and adding it to your iTunes player; that's just plain dumb and negates any common ground they would have with older people who still buy music legally.

Don, you need to do some more homework before you kick up your comments about kids being able to go to war etc. because it's pretty clear that the RIAA is right about that.

[boethius70]

It's just about impossible to quantify how far away the RIAA is from grasping the digital age. They have fought MP3s tooth-and-nail for going on ten years now and thankfully even the recording industry itself is starting to discover how antiquated their business model is. The dissolution of DRM is a sign of this. Things are changing, rapidly. College students probably will never fully respect copyright law--ever--but as they grow older and go into the real world of work, many will start to understand that stealing maybe isn't the best thing to do. The basic desire for most people to do the right thing is what keeps iTunes popular. The industry should simply cease from worrying about copyright theft--it's going to happen, it's going to happen on a far larger scale than it ever has before, and, short of a nuclear holocaust, nothing is going to stop it. What they should worry about is creating great music and finding as many avenues as possible to bring that music to the consumers. The RIAA should simply be dissolved and the industry should embrace the digital age. Had it done this 10 years ago instead of fighting it so vigorously, it might not be hanging on life support right now.

[cmcmanis]

If the characterization of the RIAA's actions is accurate (and I have no reason to doubt them) and the "settle your lawsuit" web site is as bogus as indicated (and I have no reason to doubt that either) then there certainly seems enough prima facie evidence to support a RICO Act conviction. Who is the US Attorney where the RIAA is headquartered?

[danielpyle]

The RIAA is useless and always has been. As long as there has been something to copy then it has been copied. You know the people who should really be wired taped. Them. If they believe they are powerful enough let's give copies of illegal cd's to illegal aliens and then have the RIAA track them down. I think that should keep them busy enough to leave the rest of us alone for awhile.

[mbmpdx]

The industry has stagnated so badly for the past several years, and much (certainly not all) of the music just isn't that good. Just 5 years ago I was buying easily 25 or 30 CD's per year, and this past year I think it was maybe 8. I'd gladly spend way more $$$ if a wider array of talent (talent being the key word here) were marketed.

[beatmoses]

I hate the RIAA. I represent photographers, a bit like artist management. Years ago one of my photographers was commissioned to do a shoot for them for a campaign. The RIAA INSISTED that the copyright of the photographs needed to be transfered to them. Full ownership. This is NOT standard practice in the AD and photo biz. You charge depending on license and usage (and the photographer retains the copyright of the images) but they would Not pay more or settle for a timed usage option. How should anyone expect them to protect the rights of musicians? Labels maybe but not the artists.

[beatmoses]

Actually there are MANY great CDS for sale all of the time. Great new artists and Bands and not simply the American Idol type crap. Great new work, but you need to search it out. Radio hardly takes chances and unfortunately it is up to you to make the discovery.

[D.A.W.]

This is the essential problem. Good music (meaning music that appeals to people over the age of 17) is not on the radio. You have to dig around and find it yourself.

How do you find it? The packaging of a CD tells you nothing about the quality of the music. Same with iTunes. You are very unlikely to get a full refund if you listen to a CD and it sucks and you want to return it already open. you are more likely to grow wings than get a refund from iTunes. The only way to find new music without buying a large number of CD's or MP3's you don't like is either through word of mouth or illegal downloading.

[imacpwr]

The RIAA is nothing more than an association (Mafia) which
blatantly practices extortion on both artists AND their music
fans..!!! The Labels pay artists a measly 15 cents per CD
(maximum) then turn around and charge the music fans 100
times those costs to deliver to us that CD..!!!

The RIAA has become nothing more than an antiquated delivery
system of the 20th Century which like the stagecoaches of the
19th Century became extinct when faster "motorized" forms of
transportation came into being. The Internet is the "Horseless
Carriage of the 21 Century" and the RIAA needs to be put out to
pasture as soon as possible..!! We don't need the Labels to
"deliver" us music at 100 times the cost when we could
conceivably buy the music DIRECTLY from the artists at a much
lower price at the same time increasing the artist's cut dozens of
times over.

Cut out the extortionists..!!!
BUY MUSIC DIRECTLY from the Artists...!!!!!!!

[oxtail01]

Yeah, right! How many artists you think has the time or the means to effectively promote their work to the masses? Surely you must realize that there is tremendous costs involved in marketting their product.

[ChaosMotor]

I've been involved in file sharing since before Napster, and I think I've found a solution that is fair and equitable to all parties - it ensures the artists can get paid, and doesn't penalize individuals for sharing files and discovering new music. You can read more about it in this post on my site.

http://chaosmotor.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/how-to-share-fairly-the-end-of-piracy/