Comments on: For RIAA, a black eye comes with the job

Despite negative public image, record industry group has little choice but to continue lawsuits, insiders say.

[blindlemonjim]

in addendum

Another thing to consider is that the price of a CD is grossly inequal to the cost of production. You might say that part of the cost is the salaries of all involved, but the principle is that it is unjust for a record producer making millions to overcharge merchandise to a purchaser making barely enough to survive.

There's a broad economic disparity between the music industry and their minions and the public.
A mass produced CD costs pennies, regardless of the production food chain. The materials cost pennies. It's the food chain that's in question, and the people in that food chain who are making far more than is really logical in correlation with the total cost of the final product.

I am writing this because I have boycotted music for the past seven years. I refuse to pay the industry aristocracy. I don't download illegally either. I simply don't buy music. The artists are worse. Where does the industry get these people? Pedophiles, drug addicts, pornographers...all the music artists out there are the bottom of the barrel and I don't understand who is recruiting these people to make music. Britney Spears is reprehensible.
So is Paris Hilton. I could name hundreds more. I am so sick of them all that the less there is to remind me of them, the better.

It's all greed, greed exhibited by people who aren't worth a plug nickel to begin with.

If it doesn't make you sick, then reading about the RIAA certainly will. I wish the whole music industry would take the next space shuttle off the planet and leave the rest of us in peace.

[Ilgaz]

24 songs, which bands, singers?

I think net public needs to know which bands and their producers
sued her and didn't take the lawsuit back.
Not "RIAA" bad cop trick. We need names so people can boycott
those bands and companies involved.

[jaysilvafl]

Agreed but wrong approach

I agree with the author's statement that the RIAA must protect its clients and must continue to sue those who infringe on copyright. That does not mean that the standards of proof are lowered to ridiculous levels such as "file sharer IP" = "person who pays for IP". IPs are too easy to spoof or coopt for that equivalency to hold.

While suing provable copyright infringers may in some lawyers eyes be a feduciary duty of the RIAA, it is completely obvious that the goal sought by such lawsuits is not being achieved. In addition, stockholders can just as easily sue the RIAA for turning their customers against them and not achieving any results other than turning their customers against them.

What is needed is a new way of thinking about content and making sure that artists are properly compensated. If my money was going to artists and record labels that treated artists fairly I would be buying a lot of music -- as it is I haven't acquired much music over the last few years (other than the occasional CD or iTune) because I don't want to feed the beast that is RIAA and the record labels.

One final thing, when you buy your tunes on iTunes the limitation of having the song on three different PCs (or something like that) is problematic. When you reinstall the operating system -- there goes one use. When you replace the computer there goes another use. You end up buying the same music again. If you want it on a fourth computer you have to pay for it again. Now the record labels have forced the same person to buy the same copyright twice. Is that fair? No but it happens all of the time.

If record companies got rid of DRM and allowed a freer exchange of music they woul dnot make as money as they do now but they would survive. People would see the need to feed the artists. Without that the record labels will become extinct and this freer model will come to be as artists will increasingly move to their own web distribution channels and cut the labels out altogether. After all who the heck wants to be associated with the tactics of the RIAA?

[RDO CA]

golden rule

A lot of business and the RIAA in particular needs to know that if they do what is best for their customers in the long run it will be the best for them also.

[make_or_break]

Have her take a lie detector test

And be done with this.

[phillybill59]

RIAA is Clueless...

The idea that file sharing is a form of copyright infringement is irrelevant. The point is that the RIAA thinks so...and instead of spinning their wheels chasing housewives...they ought to be thinking of what to do about making it a profit venture. As posted in response in October 9th...they could have listened to the suggestions of Todd Rundgren (yes, a real artist), or taken a similar approach to rectifying the rapid proliferation of Internet use, and thusly...file sharing.

As for me...I think not!!! who among us didn't make a reel-to-reel or cassette copy of a favorite LP (yes I'm that old) to play in the car or at work, or lend to a friend???

This kind of thing led to more sales. As many older artists will tell you...nothing pleases them more than to gain a new fan many years following a particular recording. Just look at the prices of long-deleted vinyl LPs on the open markets of E-Bay, and individual dealer sites.

The world is far too politically correct...and when laws are devised...the framer must think far in advance of his/her own time when penning the text. Copyright Infringement means exactly this...PIRACY...the duplication of copies for open-market sale!!! It does not mean that you can't make a copy for personal use or something you paid for...or share it with Joe Schmo.

I can recall using the computer with a 1220 baud modem and the Internet was nothing more than a few local bulletin boards with similar software that allowed a friggin' email to cross town and back in about a 3-day period. Could we share music at that time...NO!!! Not over the computer...but the sharing was being done...business as usual!!!

For the aspiring artist...there's this...sign a better contract before giving the industry your soul. Have better foresight than your predecessors, for surely your representation (hmmm...the RIAA) ain't looking out for you!!!

[phillybill59]

RIAA and Simple Math

Try this...

An artist makes a CD (say 11 songs)...it costs "X" amount for Virgin Records to manufacture the CD, and they make it available to retailers at a MSRP of $18.00.

Net profit is $6.00 from each sale, and the lowly artist gets 10%...or 60 cents.

The same recording label opens a cheap pay-for, and decent download site...and offers a song for $1.00. They sell a million copies of that song (which is nothing these days)...and what to you know...the artist ends up with $100K in royalties...and this was just for one song...the one that people heard on the radio...not the other 10 on the CD that suck and we paid $18 for.

[phillybill59]

Duplication and Copyrights

Let's forget the RIAA for a second for they are their own ship of fools...

Duplication...file sharing...are you against it...that's okay to think that way.

BUT MAN DO WE LOVE OUR GENERIC DRUGS...
I know I do!!!
I don't know where I'd be without them!!!

See...that's why I'm for file sharing...or shall we call it duplication...nah...I like the term GENERIC...it sounds much cheaper doesn't it???

[nothingavailable]

Rabid, Irrational, A$$ Association

If they actually gave a damn about the artists I would have less to say about their insane and profoundly stupid tactic of going after end users.
But since they are simply trying to fill their pockets and the pockets of their scummy lawyers, I hope this appeal costs them millions in legal fees and they should loose, if only because they are completely unethical in every aspect of their operation.
Maybe then the Artists will wake up from dream land and form a new group that actually cares about them and their art.

Don't buy any music for 3 months, listen to your older cds'. Starve the riaa out of existence.

[Jesse Chan]

The Failure of the RIAA

What horrible PR: http://fishtrain.com/2007/10/02/the-failure-of-the-riaa/

[Allan Ziskey]

intellectual property...perfectly suited to enslave

only one answer:
I pledge not to BUY any RIAA supporting music from now until 2009. Goodbye and good riddance.


riaaradar.com

[jherman330]

its a setup

Has anyone considered that the RIAA and Jamie are on the same team?

Assume that she loses the case (her case if weak and full og holes). We will all be thinking "If a single mother of 2 who has never used the internet cant fight this thing then who can? "

That is exactly what the RIAA wants everyone to think and that is why this whole thing is a setup...

Its a little odd that a single mother of 2 fights this thing. I say the RIAA is paying her to do so because they know they will win and it will disuade everyone else from fighting the RIAA in the future.

There is too much $$$ at stake to think that a dying dinasaur of an industry will not cheat to win.

please reply with your comments.

[lingsun]

The RIAA has the right to protect their property.

The lady who went to trial was at fault. SHe should've settled out of court.

[jherman330]

how do you know

So the burden of guilt is usually on the prosecution, but now WE have pay big $$$ to proce we are innocent? That is ridiculous. Chances are that she is guilty but no one has proof that SHE and not someone posing as her shared the files.

So I own a red chevy and someone in a red chevy robbed a bank. Am I guilty unless I can prove it wasn't me in my red chevy?

wake up - the industry is dead and their business model is broken.

[spingle]

He's dead, Jim. Bury him.

Bleeding fingers clinging to the lip of a crumbling ledge. Here's how the RIAA died:
They sucker for their own PR & believe that marketing viability=talent. Not.
They believe that copyright ownership=a sacred value impervious to time. Not. Monk at the Five Spot in '63 still selling for $15? It's genius stuff, but the magic occurred in '63. You just trapped the shadows.
The fact that Mr. Edison created a physical artifact guarantees nothing. Once, in the era of Gondwanaland, you could walk from Western Australia to Peru. Try it today and you'd better be a very good swimmer.
At the end of the day, the piracy/morality/copyright questions are academic. The RIAA (and the recording industry in general) is blindly wandering about, attacking anyone who comes a-pecking at their rotting corpus. Who wouldn't? But no attempt to protect the body will result in resurrection. That would take talent--the one thing this group wouldn't recognize if it came up & kicked them in the nertz.

[kennethlawson]

No contact link on RIAA site...

They can find us, But can't contact them...
In writting the latest blog entry Saturday evening I opened the RIAA web site, I noticed there was not contact page, other them one to report theft of music, like anyones going to use it...
Please read my blog,,
"A Open Letter to the RIAAA"
.
http://kenenthlawson.blogspot.com/

[Michael Tsark]

Public Domain versus Copyright Protected Music

I apologize for being redundant but my comment here is in reference specifically towards "music" copyrights.

According the URLs http://www.pdinfo.com/copyrt.htm & http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#No_legal_restriction_on_use, under the sections: Copyright and the Public Domain; Public domain & Expiration, in so many words this is what I found out regarding the current duration for copyright laws for music:

For works registered before January 1st, 1923: Copyright protection for 75 years has expired and these works are in the public domain, that is, the work was created and first published before January 1st, 1923, or at least 95 years before January of the current year, whichever is later.

For works created after January 1st, 1978: Life of the longest surviving author plus 70 years, that is, the last surviving author died at least 70 years before January 1st of the current year; earliest possible Public Domain date is January 1st, 2048.

For works registered before January 1st, 1978: It becomes Public Domain 95 years from the date copyright was secured.

In so many words I also found this additional information at URL: http//publishing.wsu.edu/copyright/pd_duration.html under the section "Duration of Copyrights": Copyrights has changed many times since the first copyright statute which was originally at 14 years but currently it is the author or artist life plus 70 years but if the work is created by employees of a corporation or the artist or author has incorporated his art business then duration is either 95 years from the publications date or 120 years from the creation date, whichever is shorter and this applies to all work created on or after January 1st, 1978. Works created before January 1st, 1978 are subject to the law that existed at the time the work was created but also depends on whether the work was published or not. Certain formalities had to be observed such as displaying a copyright notice (circled c, name, and date) and registering the copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office but if the formalities weren't satisfied in certain prescribed times then the copyright failed and the work merged into the Public domain. This makes it complicated to determine if a work is in the Public Domain but there is a simple rule of thumb:

All published works created before 1923 are in the Public Domain.

All unpublished works created before 1883 are in the Public Domain.

Copyright scholars have created charts that make it relatively easy to determine if work is in the Public Domain and may be copied without permission and one of those charts can be found at URL:

www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm

The supplied information above applies to U.S. laws whereas different countries have their own copyright laws. It means I can modify or remix and freely distribute any previous U.S. "top hits" that were created prior to 1923 without my needing to worry about violating any copyright laws.

I find it unfortunate that society per se is so insane and so easily brainwashed into accepting whatever we're told without questioning it. The issue here is about music which in essence is nothing more than sound waves where technically music is an abstract concept which doesn't physically exist but rather is an interpretation of sound waves by each human individual and what can be construed as music to some people can also be considered as nothing more than just plain awful noise to others. Furthermore, music is just a form of "entertainment" and it is NOT something critical or vital that's needed for sustaining life. It's a sad situation when societal norms allow so-called entertainers to make a horrendous more amount of income than say police & fire personnel, nurses, dishwashers, cooks, produce truck drivers, store-keepers, street-sweepers, refuse workers, teachers, etcetera, that is, entertainers versus those who do a useful and vital service for the community whether there's a state of emergency or not. If our family species were saner then I would expect people who merely "play around for a living" such as entertainers and/or those who "play games for a living" should not be allowed to make more money than those who do real work. And the reason the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is so stinking greedy despite the wealth they already make and even despite the amount of file-sharing that's going on is because we are genetically a predatory species and therefore it's a natural inclination for the ilk likes of the RIAA to prey upon our family species as much as they can for as long as they can get away with it especially when there's still enough people willing to blindly agree with the human-made laws regarding copyrights, that is, the prevailing mentality that the law is the law which should be blindly obeyed even when a law might be outright stupid. In my opinion greedy artists should be thankful, grateful, and satisfied enough when anyone happens to be willing to enjoy being entertained by their music and if I had my way I wouldn't mind if instead the vice-versa happens where every such greedy musician pays anyone who's willing to listen to their music and if they wanted to make so-called real money then they should consider doing real work for a change instead of just "playing and more playing and having oh so much fun in life for merely playing around". Drumming is a hobby of mine but I personally would NOT and do NOT charge any fee to anyone who is willing to listen to whatever music I might happen to produce and I think such greedy artists are lazy who want to get rich and famous by simply having oh so much fun in life by "playing around for a living" and unfortunately we have enough simple-minded idiots amongst us who put such entertainers high up on a pedestal as though entertainers are supposably some sort of very important people just because they might happen to be famous celebrities. I want to laugh out loud every time another so-called celebrity who doesn't take life all that seriously and who has opted to spending the bulk of their free time in life "playing around for a living" attempts to try and act important by making some sort of so-called "political" public statement and then they expect our masses to heed their opinion but instead they often become bewildered for being publicly criticized but that's because it's difficult to take someone seriously when they spend or spent the bulk of their lives career-wise merely "playing around for a living". Truth be told, career-wise entertainers do not "work" because they're "playing" and when they falsely claim to "work hard" at their chosen profession what they truthfully mean is that they're only "playing hard" but they're not really "working", they're just ?playing?. Which also brings to mind, I won't mention a name but I'm reminded of a statement a world famous entertainer once said about always wanting to be famous so that the entertainer could talk to our world, but after the entertainer finally became world famous the entertainer admitted that the entertainer couldn't think of anything [important] to say. Duh? I rest my case. Tsark out.

[blobbles32]

Downloading music is a serious behavioural problem that needs to be corrected. Everyone knows how to change behaviour - stick and carrot. But the RIAA doesn't do carrot, it tries to use the stick but nobody listens, because they aren't offering a carrot.

What I mean is this. People will get the music they want to listen to, in the form they want to listen to it, no matter what the RIAA does. This is a given, no questions asked, no correspondence entered into. You can't play music on the radio, then say "If you want this music, you have to jump through hoops to get it and pay for jumping through hoops" (what I am talking about here is having to actually go to a store, get the music, rip the music, copy it to your MP3 player etc). You have to say "This song is cool, if you want it simply download and pay for it!".

So, RIAA should provide a carrot - give people the ability to download any song, play it on any device and let anyone they want listen to it (not copy it) - this is a carrot. And, they should charge people to get the music.

Now for this stick. RIAA should prosecute the bejesus out of any company/person that makes money from distributing their copyrighted material (including all the file sharing companies/bit torrents etc), or does it excessively with friends etc. They should also back this up with a serious advertising campaign (not the terrible adverts we currently get) that you shouldn't pirate music because it hurts the industry and the artists. They should then ask that if you have received pirated music and like what you hear, pay for it. Then RIAA should provide a mechanism for doing so.

People want to do the right thing. But if you don't allow them to do the right thing, or make them jump through hoops to do the right thing, people will simply take the path of least resistance, which is currently pirating. It seems that RIAA has forgotten that business is about taking risks - if you stop taking risks, your business will fail, much like their profits for the past few years. What was the last risk RIAA took? Embracing downloadable content should be the next one.