Comments on: Rights and wrongs in the antipiracy struggle

RIAA President Cary Sherman says the music industry's response to the theft of creative works helped rescue a business under siege.

[blsith]

How is that a friend?

Let's get something straight: Sharing with a friend is not the same as giving the digital media to them forever. You cannot say that the 10,000 people that downloaded a song, or video game, or movie from your machine are your "friend". They are at best an anonymous acquaintance, that you met up with through a 3rd party.

If I let a friend borrow a DVD, or a CD, I expect the media back, and it's only being listened to in one player at a time - if they steal the media, it's still theft.

It's amazing the number of people that wouldn't fathom breaking into Best Buy to take a disc from the shop, but will go out of their way to get that software in other illegal means and think it's okay. Someone created that piece of work, and you are using it without being paid.

How about your manager keeps your paycheck for the week at McBurger because you only get paid by the folks that actually buy stuff, and everyone is out back stealing the burgers from the truck?

Now, is a lawsuit on the consumer the best way to keep a good market? Abso-freaking-lutely not. They'd get more good-will and better sales by something simple and easy - lower the price. It's proven time and time again that a competitive price for a product will automatically reduce the amount stolen of said product.

Bet they'd make more than $220k in sales increase in 1 month if they reduced the average cost of digital downloads on of full CD's by music services by an average of $3. Single song for 99 cents, or a full album for $5-7 if you buy it now - most folks would spend the money for the album on the spot, and all they are paying for is a little bit of bandwidth and the rights to play the song.

[DesignKCK]

I always love this reasoning

First when I break into Best Buy to grab a few CD's I am actually taking something from them. I am depriving them of actual product that they have purchased for resale. With a download, I am not depriving them of anything. I am in all actually just making a clone of the original. The orginal still exists in all it's glory and they can try to sell it to whomever they want.

Don't get me wrong, I don't download music but I also don't believe for a minute that those that download would ever buy it in the first place. Most do it because 1. they can't afford it 2. they just want to hear the song 3. they own the song but find it easier to download then rip off a cd.

I respect the right of the RIAA to sue whomever they want but at the same time I can't believe they can't see that it is distancing them from the exact people they want to sell their music too. The only reason I can see they won the case against Jammie Thomas was a wrong jury instuction and a bunch of jurist that had no technical understanding of how computer and the internet works.

All I can say is I hope they enjoy their small win because just like the war on drugs or prohibition, they are fighting a lost cause. No matter what the law says, if the citizens won't respect it, what goes is it.

[skeptik]

Let's take everything you say at face value...

"Digital revenues doubled as a percentage of the market in 2006, from 8 percent in 2005 to more than 16 percent."
Of course you've repeatedly whined about declining CD sales - which you say are the fault of piracy - during that same timeframe. So, um perhaps much of this pitiful increase would be maybe from people who used to buy CDs, not P2P users?
Pitiful... did I say that? Yes! 7 million P2P users in 2003 with 38 million broadband homes vs 7.8 million P2P users today with 80 million broadband homes. So where's the beef? Potential customers increased 210% but your online sales as a percentage of the market increase only 8% from 2005 to 2006 (you don't provide like time periods so I won't quote). It would seem to me, you're just flat out losing customers overall. Against a backdrop of steadily increasing sales of digital music file players. What are they loading those players with? It would seem not your digital sales. Why not? Why isn't this new market segment exploding?
"Think about it. What would the online music world look like had we done nothing?" Think about it. What would the online music world look like if you actually did something besides sue your customers? People want digital music files. People like "free" which the p2p model provides, but people dislike the mislabeled, virus infected, potentially legal nightmare product available on P2P. Reasonably priced, DRM FREE (oh no, I said it!) product would have been a no brainer. But I dare say, if Apple hadn't pushed, you'd still be debating on whether or not to sell digital files. It took you how many years to get started (which were the same years P2P, as the only source, grew exponentially)?
Face it, you've fought tooth and nail since your very inception not to pay the artists their due and not to provide the customers with the product they want and fair prices. Add to that your insistence on erasing all fair-use rights, and your antagonistic battle with your own customers. Is it any wonder nobody cares about your woes and views you as evil? Have you ever considered changing your ways and being just a little more sensitive and friendly to the people who make you product and buy your product?
They honey attracts more flies than vinegar. Maybe you should get out of the vinegar business...

[likes2comment]

Drug test needed?

When was the last time this guy was tested for illegal drugs? Sure sounds like he has been using them.

[skeptik]

stubborn insistence

Every proclamation that comes from your organization seems to rely on a number of basic philosophies:

1. Every P2P download is a lost sale.
2. Every P2P user is a pirate/thief, not a customer.
3. DRM is a benefit to the PAYING customer, not a detriment.
4. Current business models are sufficient to allow customers to discover and identify new content to purchase without risking resources on inferior product.
5. Current product offerings are what customers want.
6. Past business practices have not been unfair to customers and content creators and therefore there is no pent up desire to reverse the tables, and no need to acknowledge or atone for any of those practices.
7. Allowing customers to interact with your product in new, innovative, unexpected ways (ex create mash-ups, post clips online, promote via you tube, etc) are BAD for your business.
8. Every new technology is BAD for you business (at least until consumers prove otherwise and force you to accept them).

I would like to put forth the proposition that until you re-evaluate these beliefs you will find little improvement in your situation.
But that?s just my opinion and I?m nothing more than a reformed pirate. (Reformed as in I don?t bother to pirate OR purchase your product any longer. For the record I am 39 with a good amount of disposable income, not some 16 yo kid stealing music in the bedroom. You had 25 years to make me a lifelong customer and you've done your damnedest to drive me away.)

Best of luck.

[dougjake]

Pathetic!

Without a doubt the most pitiful, self-serving diatribe I've ever read. This is an industry fueled by one thing, unmitigated greed. What a pleasure to watch it suffocate under the weight of it's own stupidity. I'll never buy another CD unless it's directly from the artists or from a DRM free music download site.

[sismoc]

Dear Mr Sherman: Bottled Water

Rather than filing lawsuits, think outside the box.

P2P networks could be your salvation, not your enemy.

If you think you can not compete with "free" take a good hard look at the bottled water industry.

50 years ago no one would have ever believed that people would pay $$$ for bottles of water when it pours from the tap for free!

But, the manufacturers of bottled water figured out a way to convince consumers that their product was worth paying for.

A clever marketing scheme that has paid off better than any lawsuit ever will.

So, make your product attractive, worthwhile and desirable and you might be able to avoid becoming an aging, dying dinosaur.

[skeptik]

perfect!

There it is: rather than Coke suing alternative drink makers and their customers for drinking other products, Coke simply adapted, identified what the customers were after and opened up a whole new revenue stream for themselves.
See how nicely that works out, Mr. Sherman?

[thedreaming]

To the RIAA:

The companies that you represent make crap. I don't buy crap and I'm no pirate. If your members continue to put out cookie cutter music and expect me to pay $14.95 for a cd full of crap, I'll be forced to take drastic measures.

I'll have to learn to play the triangle and no one wants that!

[Below Meigh]

Spin

The RIAA encouraged price fixing for decades! Chain stores (like Tower records) and mom & pop stores were told to keep prices fixed. When Best Buy and Walmart came around, they would under cut the chains with wholesale prices. RIAA stepped in and penalized them by threatening to reduce (or eliminate) their access to distribution and volume.
Then courts finally slammed RIAA for price fixing MAP. Too bad we never got the $5 off per CD they were told to fix. Instead, we got the news of Clinton and Lewinsky to spin away from that.

RIAA blew it and is using the taxpayer to fund its witch hunt because its previous business model is broke. Missed the boat and now using intimidation, legislation, entrapment, and political folly for its own profiteering. Shame on you RIAA. Protecting what? Greed...

[jachamp]

A reply from a former musician

Mr. Sherman,

In the mid-80's your industry tried to reinvent itself. After spending the first 30 years of the rock-n-roll industry's life running the labels like giant parties where anyone could get hired for any position.

Fast forward to 2000, your industry was sued for price-fixing and was forced to settle and yet despite the settlement, your industry continues to charge the same price it did back in 1982 when the first cd was sold.

The promise of cd technology was never fully utilized and certain "bootleg" (illegally made recordings) have always been readily available. On top of that, there are many worthy CD pirates who operate in China, Korea, Russia, Mexico, and even in New York and Los Angeles where consumers are paying money for copies of recordings.

Those are the people that you should be targeting because they are not only harming your industry, the artists, and those who create, but they are also harming consumers and those who may be terrorized by the organizations their crimes benefit.

No Mr. Sherman, your organization has always gone for the low-hanging fruit. It has time and time again targetted the ill-informed artists who sign contracts that irreperably harm them, it pays them less than 5% per record sale at a $16 price point.

Your organization has tried to hide behind the notion that artists are being harmed by file swapping when in reality, it does not hurt the artist as they make the bulk of their money from touring. Your labels have recently tried to force their way into that arena as well in order to add some form of monetary life to their dwindling resources.

Your industry has long grabbed borderline talented individuals who were good looking and said, "we can sell that" and pushed the marketing button and used arrays of computers and software to turn Ashlee Simpson's into singers on an unsuspecting public.

Meanwhile real artists like Pat Green, the DriveBy Truckers, or even Sugarland (country artists I know) made it big before signing their deals. I attended Pat Green concerts where 30,000 people showed up with their wallets opened and bought his self-recorded, self-produced, and self-distributed cd's ala Chris Ledeux back when he first started as well.

Mr. Sherman, the one thing that the Internet has been good at doing is weeding out the middleman and your industry acts as that of middleman. It is struggling to remain viable, solvent, and relevent at a time when it's just no longer needed.

The reason that your sales are slipping is because people do not need your industry anymore. We do not need you to take Paris Hilton and push her album on us, nor do we need you to take Ozzy Osbourne's daughter and run her voice through more computers than a modern Beowulf cluster in order to make it more palatable.

Now then...theft is wrong but that theft works both ways. It's wrong for your member companies to deny consumers the right to copy their own music to their digital devices, make copies for their cars, computers, or other playback mediums. It's wrong of your member companies to villify people who are incompetent computer users through lawsuits and moves that are akin to extortion.

No sir...it's time for your organization's members to adapt or go away.

[ktmotox]

Hey, I was going to say that!

"The reason that your sales are slipping is

With new technology, comes new opportunities. I'm exited about the idea of having websites that are really dedicated to music. Good music. Original, creative music. Give me ways to find new music that I'll like. Let me know where local performances are going to be and when. Give me news and stories about music and musicians. Educate me about music - history, styles, instruments, new developments, etc. Done right, our musical enjoyment experiences can be greatly enriched by technology.

Some day soon, big record labels and RIAA will be a faint memory of our old primitive musical past.

[SneezingPanda]

Totally agree

The big five are completely irrelevant and failed at anything good that could be done to the very idea of recorded music.Yet it is (not even) funny to see them putting all their power into politics.
They hunt for the artists. If someone is about to be successful, they will chase him down, if someone already made his name and has records with the independent record label, they will simply buy that label. Lila Downs, anyone?
They market someone whose talent may not be so much to everybody's taste just to make more money. And if it is a success, they will squeeze everything out of them (Leave Britney Spears alone!)
When I go shopping for the CD I never know how it's going to sound at my home. It is so common that the quality of the record is just pure crap, but you will find this out only after you've paid the price. The "new" discs like SACD or DVD-A do not make it much better. With the premium price you may end up buying the same CD masters just converted for the new media format.
Now they want to make everybody use internet the way they tell us.
I agree, this business should be much more fair, and with the current practices of the RIAA members it is a big question who is the thief here.

[jeffgtr60]

Well said sir

As a musician who came close to signing a contract with Arista in the early 80's and still play, I concur with your statement wholeheartedly. The RIAA has ripped of musicians and consumers for years. They are making yet another in a series of judgement errors by resorting to litigation against the "low hanging fruit". The RIAA and their ilk can't go away fast enough so music can flourish and the musicians can have control of their art and actually make money without winding up in debt to their record company.

jachamp you have hit the nail on the head.

[rcrusoe]

The music industry isn't "under seige"

It's dying from years of bad business decisions.

The courts aren't your salvation, your only hope is an entirely new business plan.

But it looks like you may not have enough time to implement one before the majority of your artists jump ship and go direct to the consumer.

[jachamp]

it is under siege because it's about to die

what mr. sherman is tactfully saying is that his industry is dying and the labels are woefully clueless on how to prevent it.

here's how they can prevent it...they don't. they need to adjust and get used to being extinct. they need to quit trying to hang on to archaic business models that force a middleman marketing and distributing for acts that we don't care about.

i worked in the industry. i know how they operate. i've seen how they manipulate sales figures to give an artist better publicity by making their latest pathetic offering seem like it's all the rage.

just stop. walk away and accept your fate instead of looking to the government to mandate your existence because that is the only way the recording industry can sustain itself any longer.

to expand on that...the only way the RIAA and its members are around in ten years is if Congress mandates that recording acts have to go through record labels and that consumers have to purchase releases that are only issued through these teradactyls.

which is what they are destined to be without more neocon support.

[Jesse Chan]

Proof?

This is a huge failure for the RIAA: http://fishtrain.com/2007/10/02/the-failure-of-the-riaa/

[agitatr]

Please tell me who is the bigger Thief:

So you claim that people "illegally" downloading music is hurting the artists??

So let's break it down, this is a TINY bit dated but still 100% relevant. Originally printed in the Baffler written by Steve Albini.

Link to article and quick breakdown for everyone:
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html

"These figures are representative of amounts that appear in record contracts daily. There's no need to skew the figures to make the scenario look bad, since real-life examples more than abound. Income is underlined, expenses are not."

Advance: $250,000
Manager's cut: $37,500
Legal fees: $10,000

Recording Budget: $150,000
Producer's advance: $50,000
Studio fee: $52,500
Drum, Amp, Mic and Phase "Doctors": $3,000
Recording tape: $8,000
Equipment rental: $5,000
Cartage and Transportation: $5,000
Lodgings while in studio: $10,000
Catering: $3,000
Mastering: $10,000
Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping tapes, misc expenses: $2,000

Video budget: $30,000
Cameras: $8,000
Crew: $5,000
Processing and transfers: $3,000
Offline: $2,000
Online editing: $3,000
Catering: $1,000
Stage and construction: $3,000
Copies, couriers, transportation: $2,000
Director's fee: $3,000

Album Artwork: $5,000
Promotional photo shoot and duplication: $2,000

Band fund: $15,000
New fancy professional drum kit: $5,000
New fancy professional guitars (2): $3,000
New fancy professional guitar amp rigs (2): $4,000
New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar: $1,000
New fancy rack of lights bass amp: $1,000
Rehearsal space rental: $500
Big blowout party for their friends: $500

Tour expense (5 weeks): $50,875
Bus: $25,000
Crew (3): $7,500
Food and per diems: $7,875

Fuel: $3,000
Consumable supplies: $3,500
Wardrobe: $1,000
Promotion: $3,000

Tour gross income: $50,000
Agent s cut: $7,500
Manager's cut: $7,500

Merchandising advance: $20,000
Manager's cut: $3,000
Lawyer's fee: $1,000

Publishing advance: $20,000
Manager's cut: $3,000
Lawyer's fee: $1,000

Record sales: 250,000 @ $12 = $3,000,000 gross retail revenue Royalty (13% of 90% of retail): $351,000
Less advance: $250,000
Producer's points: (3% less $50,000 advance) $40,000
Promotional budget: $25,000
Recoupable buyout from previous label: $50,000
Net royalty: (-$14,000)

Record company income:
Record wholesale price $6.50 x 250,000 = $1,625,000 gross income
Artist Royalties: $351,000
Deficit from royalties: $14,000
Manufacturing, packaging and distribution @ $2.20 per record: $550,000
Gross profit: $710,000

The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.

Record company: $710,000
Producer: $90,000
Manager: $51,000
Studio: $52,500
Previous label: $50,000
Agent: $7,500
Lawyer: $12,000
Band member net income each: $4,031.25

Mr. Sherman, I worked in the music industry long enough tpo see the regular abuses that the artists have dealt with from the people that "support" them. I also watched your industry bribe stores thousands of dollars for product placement, for artists that WE could have told you would failed no matter what the exposure/budget was for them.

Just because you throw money at it doesn't mean a pile of **** is going to turn into gold.

I for one am happy and proud that I took the initiative years ago to avoid everything that is associated with your cartel, whether it is the individual artist or the label that they are on.

VIVA LA MUSIC REVOLUCION!!! No Gods! No Masters!!

[itango]

I would have more respect for you, Mr. Sherman,

if you were truly serious about going after the pirates in Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, etc., who pirate on a massive scale, and make huge profits at your expense.

However, you appear to concentrate your efforts on people who download a few songs mainly in the EU and the US, and who may or may not have shared them with others, why? because they are "low hanging fruit", and easier to prosecute.

I do not condone piracy, and have never downloaded a song or software from the internet. All my music and movies are legally purchased. But I and people like me make backup copies of our songs/movies, and put the originals in a safe place, and we do not view this as "piracy". In my case, I have never shared my copies with anyone - I make another copy when the first copy gets scratched or destroyed. I and people like me want the right to be able to listen to music in an Ipod as we are exercising, and to have a copy of music CDs in the car to listen to, or to have 2 or 3 movies in an Ipod for when we are in a long line at the airport, or a flight is delayed.

If it were only up to you, you would have us lugging around huge suitcases full of CDs and movies, because in your view, there are no "fair use" rights for any reason. Your current tactics are earning the animosity of law abiding people, and this is something you cannot afford. You also cannot afford to make music buying and listening so full of DRM and so distasteful that consumers curtail their music buying habits, or stop buying altogether. This is not a sustainable business model.

With your revenue stream, you can afford very good advisors. I am sure you can come up with a model that punishes genuine piracy (and such piracy should be severely punished) but also allows your good customers the freedom to make backup copies of legitimately purchased music, or download a CD or DVD to an Ipod, free of DRM or lawsuit threats.

Here's a final hint. Many people like me never have tried purchasing music through iTunes or a legal downloading service, because of the DRM problem. I purchase CDs, and copy them to my Ipod, but I only purchase a fraction of the CDs I used to purchase 8 years ago. You would have us as regular customers, if you eliminated the DRM.


There is no easy solution. But I believe that your current tactics will not serve you well in the end. The genie is out of the bottle, and you cannot undo years of innovation to keep an outdated business model.

[VVTF]

Doesn't DMCA apply to any of this?

I'm kind of wondering about DMCA and the fact that it should pertain to these situations. Aren't the copyright notifiers supposed to notify said person making their copyrighted media available so they can take it down?

[VVTF]

by this i mean OCILLA

i mean, even if it's a p2p network, one is still providing a connection to their folders.

I mean, yeah, in most cases they themselves make these files available, but I'm sure in many cases as well some people might not even be aware that these files are in say, a folder available to this p2p network. They should be able to enjoy the same rights as these isp's which i'm sure make plenty of money and could afford irrational fines such as $220,000.

Which poses another question for me, do the artists who are oh so hurt by this piracy actually receive any of that $220,000? Or does it all go to RIAA? Does it even go to companies that sell music who lose out on it? I, apple and it's itunes sells music for 99 cents per song or whatever, if I'm not mistaken, I believe the artist only receives about 3 cents of that or something absurd like that. So who is really being hurt here?

The RIAA and companies like microsoft and apple are bigger thieves than pirates if you ask me, selling these songs for absurd amounts and giving the artists next to nothing.

I'd definitely by songs for say, 6 cents if the artist still received 3 of those cents, and the other three cents was for the provider of those songs.

Bleh, I'm rambling on now.

[Phillep_H]

Smooth bafflegab

Why don't I listen to the radio?

Nothing worth hearing.

Why don't I buy CDs?

Nothing worth buying.

Why don't I download and record my own?

Can't find anything worth stealing.

How many sales did you /not/ make to me?

[enovikoff]

Unmitigated arrogance

This commentary from Cary Sherman indicates how arrogant the RIAA really is. They must think that their customers and the consumer are idiots. Most of his statements are ridiculous:

"We welcome... conversation" As long as it's in court, apparently. Or in the smoke-filled back-rooms of your lobbyist-bribed representatives.

"..a step we never wanted to take..." Then why the endless spouting of glee over the Pyrrhic court victories?

"It's tough love..." If this is love, I'll take abuse any day.

"... years of educational efforts..." education isn't done by lawyers, it's done by teachers.

"... accountable for the theft of creative works..." this one takes the cake. Most of what the RIAA sells isn't creative, it's crassly commercial and boring because it's selected based on how much profit it will generate. And if you talk to any non-megastar artist, they'll tell you that the RIAA stole all their profits. So who's stealing from whom? (see commentary posted earlier showing the accounting of a band's record release.)

"... We target theft. Period." Then target yourselves.

"... a community hemorrhaging jobs..." This is what happens when an industry dies, led by uninventive management that can only cling to the past instead of roll with the times.

"What have our antipiracy efforts yielded? A legal marketplace that is far better because of what we've done..." Better for whom? I can't find anything interesting to download. I'd like to buy good copies of the scratchy muffled snippets I heard on internet radio or Kazaa many years ago before you destroyed them, or on my last trip to Europe, but they're not available. Instead, all I can get is Paris Hilton. You guys haven't bothered to understand the concept of the "long tail", where all the money is. It's like picking only the low hanging fruit and then watching the bulk of it rot on the tree.

"can there be any doubt that a whole lot more of those broadband subscribers would be illegally downloading but for the lawsuits?" Yes there can. If you and your industry had bothered to create a win/win solution for artists and customers that used the new technology without bribing and bamboozling politicians to pass laws in your favor while thinking first of your pocketbooks and antiquated business models, the public would be downloading a lot more - and legally. Everyone would be a winner. Remember the railroads. They had a chance to buy airplanes and they didn't. Do you understand what Karma is?

"Think about it. What would the online music world look like had we done nothing?" Well, I have. There would be a far greater variety of music available. You would be out of business, replaced with enthusiastic, eager startup web businesses that would connect artists with music aficionados - efficiently. Songs would cost $0.20 instead of $1.20 and people would enjoy music rather than using it as a status symbol as you've programmed them to.

"A jury of Ms. Thomas' peers" Hardly. None of them ever used the internet. They were all white. How are they peers of an internet-using Indian single-mother? Your mistake in picking a tilted jury will create the Joan of Arc of the revolution against the RIAA.

"Because that's what this program is ultimately about--creating a marketplace that rewards investment in creativity and compensates those who make the best music in the world." This really does make me wonder what you're smoking. How is america's top 40 the best music in the world? It's just last year's formula warmed over. Your program rewards investment - yours. But when you speak of those who make the best music in the world, you're talking about yourselves making the best profits, not the safe-bet artists that you've picked because they satisfy the highest demographic.

If you're the face of what America's industry has become, then the coming fall of the multinationals can't happen soon enough. Get the message: the artists and their customers don't need you to stand in the way and leech so much money from their relationships that the pricing makes piracy desirable. You've destroyed the simple joy of listening to something new and different, receiving it as a gift from the soul of the artist to the soul of the listener, building a connection of heart and mind that makes the body want to move and the heart leap in the chest. People hunger for that, and that's why you are losing.

[stephenmeyer]

SURELY YOU JEST MR. SHERMAN

Four years and 26,000 of RIAA lawsuits ago, the RIAA launched its monthly legal campaign against individuals file-sharing and downloading.

Believe it or not, though it has been four years, the RIAA entered its first jury trial just a few weeks ago. The (alleged) industry association had had its challenges and because of their deep pockets to pay their lawyers, they have forced many people charged to settle out of court for small amounts.

Despite the extreme risks involved with challenging the RIAA, lawsuit recipient Jammie Thomas chose a to defend herself against the RIAA in court. Opening arguments in her case, Virgin v. Thomas, started this week and ended Thursday..

Ms. Thomas, one of just 26,000 people the Recording Industry Association of America has sued over the past four years for alleged use of music ?file-sharing? software, was accused of swapping 1,702 songs and she stood firm about proving her innocence, despite a possible liability of nearly $4 million. She is the first to refuse to settle and she forced the music industry into a trial.

?I refuse to be bullied,? she said this week. ?I know that I did not do this, and the jury will hear that I did not do this.?

The jury verdict was rendered, and they sided with the recording industry and levied $222,000 in damages against Ms. Thomas. They ordered Thomas to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs online in violation of their copyrights.

Ms. Thomas' attorney, Brian Toder, argued at closing that record companies never proved that "Jammie Thomas, a human being, got on her keyboard and sent out these things."

Okay, a courtroom victory for the RIAA. But certainly a PR disaster is awaiting in the wings as the public reads about this. Most people realize how completely useless the decision rendered is, in regard to actually trying to stop file-sharing and P2P usage here and everywhere else in the world. The financial amount Ms. Thomas is supposed to pay is also ridiculous. I imagine it isn't enough to cover the RIAA's legal expenses for the trial.

" We think we're in for a long haul in terms of establishing that music has value, that music is property, and that property has to be respected." said Cary Sherman, RIAA President.

The long-haul indeed Mr. Sherman. But you'd better hurry and get all those people in court. For the first nine months of this year, overall sales of albums are down 14% from last year at 337.3 million albums sold, according to Nielsen SoundScan. Of that total, 300.6 million were CDs. The number of digitally downloaded tracks rose 46% from the same period in 2006 to 612.2 million. But alas Mr. Sherman, there just aren't those big profit margins built into sales of digital downloads.

If physical CD sales continue to slide as badly in the next few years, the RIAA won't have enough money to sue people because more labels will continue to lose revenues. At some point, those RIAA dues have to be questioned. (Especially those exorbitant lobbying expenses that could run over $1,000,000 this year)

This is something the RIAA will gloat about in the media over the next few weeks, and it will no doubt result in more people deciding to settle (for just a few thousand dollars) than fight them in court.

And the result will be? Absolutely nothing will change. Nothing has changed since all the lawsuits started. All the research out there from a variety of different sources has shown time and time again that file-sharing and P2P usage has not declined at all here or anywhere else despite all the RIAA lawsuits and the media coverage to the contrary.

So while the RIAA fiddles in the nation's capital, the rest of "Rome" is burning all around them. While their lawyers have cocktails tonight and celebrate this miniscule victory, they should keep in mind the war against illegal downloading was lost years ago. In the end, no matter how many more court battles they fight and possibly win, it's all quite meaningless in the big picture.

But then, what else does the RIAA have to do these days except battle these download criminals and have lunch and dinners with those politicians they lobby? Are they doing more than that?

If so, please tell me.

Steve Meyer
President/CEO - Smart Marketing Consulting Services
Publisher - DISC&DAT - A New Media Newsletter For The Music Industry
Available at: www.freewebs.com/stevemeyer
Editor, Digital Technology: www.allaccess.com
Las Vegas, NV
E-mail: [e-mail]

[sherminator365]

Load of B.S.

I have to say reading this made me experience several emotions. Anger, and Humor in the logic of the Mr. Sherman and the RIAA. While I agree that artists have rights and illegal downloading is wrong. I feel the RIAA is taking the wrong approach. Have you ever bothered to do a survey to see how many illegal downloads have led to sales of music due to the exposure of that music, and for the rest of hollywood movies and books as well. Or a survey to actually find out why people choose illegal downloading vs. legal. I bet you would find 90% would say because of price and the fact that they can't justify spending so much money on luxury items such as entertainment. If you actually approached the market with understanding your consumer and finding out how to change to compete in an ever growing market were consumers are becoming more aware of spending money on value and needs over luxuries and wants.

I would also say the internet has given the musician a great opportunity to break away from this pathetic business model where large corporations feed on their talent to make money giving them meager percentages. The people will always enjoy music, and support the artist they will not and do not support the record companies or the RIAA.

The bad guy here is not the consumer. Stop whining stop fighting to increase sales through fear, and start learning, understanding, and adapting to your customers needs and wants so you can compete in a new way.

Art and music were meant to be shared whats next suing someone for having a friend over and watching a movie because they didn't' pay to see it. Or suing someone because they shared the music via their radio in their car while driving to work with the windows down. Or they were talking on their cellphone which broadcasted the music to the person they were speaking with. This is how ludicrous your lawsuits are and now amount of justification will change that.

If the RIAA continues the most you will accomplish is a consumer boycott of the music industry.

[disc man]

You do have a point......

I have to agree w/the point related to real pirates that sell hard-copy cds to the general public. It should not stop there, they should approach the distributors that sold them the duplicators, inkjet printers and blank media.

RIAA continues to speak on behalf of artist, so they say, when the real client is hinding behind the notice. The fear tactic in downloads is working.

Today artists are beginning too understand how to compete in the market without the need of having their hands held with production and distribution and their need for a contract too succeed.

But how far will RIAA go in pushing DRM. The back-side is the promotion of additional licenses when "ripping" your tracks to other appliances.

Being a duplicator, we're on consistent guard against Copy Written material. As our support for StampOutPiracy.com. But this also includes the education of getting your material protected.

Low Hanging Fruit, for sure. If the RIAA wanted to get any support from consumers or artist(s) stop playing around an knock-over the big players and drag into court all the suppliers.

I have yet to see them (RIAA) approach the Disc Duplication Association with this heavy hand tactic. We encourage it. Get off the download trip (RIAA) there are other Real Pirates laughing at you.

[cjwall67]

Missing the ****ing point!!

Whenever this subject comes up, it's always the same thing. It
degenerates into political squabbling about "neocons" and the
"dinosaur establishment" tromping on the little guy who just
wants to satisfy his need for quality (and free, it's gotta be free)
entertainment. I keep hearing about how artists are
downtrodden and abused. If it's all about the "art" then don't
sign on the dotted line, Amadeus!! If you hate the dreck spewed
forth from the record company machine, disconnect from it.
Don't buy it, download it, or listen to it. You participate in the
big nasty system, and you are partly responsible for its
continuation. Yes, I know that laws suck. They get in the way of
you having any fun. Unfortunately they ARE kind of necessary to
protect you from people whose idea of fun goes way beyond
yours. If RIAA is on the way down, let them go. Please don't
turn this into just another "us against the MAN" thing. All those
faceless record company people were already doing that back in
the 60's when they thought their generation had all the answers
to the world's problems. They didn't, neither did we, and neither
do you. (My apologies to any aging idealots who think I am
incorrectly referring to them.)

[SneezingPanda]

Not at all.

"You participate in the big nasty system, and you are partly responsible for its continuation."

The truth is that the system does not have to be nasty to serve it's purpose. The record industry was promoting music for decades under certain rules. Internet brought new variable into the game: people can share contents with each other, artists can directly promote their work. It is time to re-negotiate the rules. It is perfectly understandable that RIAA is trying it's best to get as much as they can and they use any opportunity to bend the rules to their favor. But if they win, everybody else will loose.
There are good news tough, it is not over yet, and it is unlikely that RIAA will succeed with it's greed.