Comments on: Lawsuits or not, the RIAA still doesn't understand us

The recording industry will stop suing individuals and lean on ISPs to curtail piracy. Don Reisinger thinks this is just another example of the RIAA not getting it.

[BtmnHatesRbn]

Haven't bought any music since 1996, when MP2 and MP3 came out, before that, I was getting VOX files for these old DOS players.

Also, the RIAA never sued a Mac, Linux or other OS user, just Windows users. I wonder why...

[Viio]

In the brick and mortar days a record label sold an album - that was the product and where they made their money, artist made some money but the majority of it came from touring. Labels would provide support for recording time, marketing, distribution, etc. They would support tours cause they helped them sell more product. Road blocks for artist was cost of recording, being able to effectively market to large numbers of people, and distribution of the albums. This is the value to the label to the artist.

The market has changed and the labels need to reexamine themselves from the top down. What they need to adjust is the product, people do not buy albums, they buy songs and merchandise. Recording is fairly cheap now a days, distribution is easy, marketing is easier but is still a large challange. The product is no longer the album, the product is the artist as a whole.

Labels need to shift their focus to partnering with artist to help sell the entire spectrum. It should be much more of a "agent" type model where a label gets x% of all revenue generated by the artist. The value the label can bring to the table is help focus the marketing the artist via youtube, blogs, etc. Finding advetisors that would be willing to pay to show up in the teh first 15 seconds of a video. Creating and directing more appealing videos. Finding more channels to distribute these advertise supported streams of music and video. Support merchandising and the marketing and store fronts for merchandise, etc.

There are lot of revenue streams that an artist can take advantage off, there is alot of benefit for an artist to partner with a company that can focus on optimizing those revenue streams. And I believe both artist and labels can benefit. Problem is labels are still viewing recorded music as the finished product and main revenue stream. If they adjust their model, goals, the benefits they bring to the table and think there is alot of money to be had. In this model shared music becomes not a bad thing, but a good thing.

[slcagnina]

I?ve come to the conclusion that speaking positively in any form about the RIAA and the music industry in general is akin to arguing about the Iraq War: On the one hand, no sane person would say that Saddam had a redeemable quality and so arguing he should have stayed in power is difficult; however, arguing for the alternative ? America mired in a civil war with roots in thousands of years of religious confusion and hate isn?t a good debate position, either.
Downloading is stealing. Yes, recorded music is a technological art form and yes, the advent of it destroyed many performing musicians? careers. One could argue the digital revolution is payback for what recorded music did to the everyday musical performer.
However, I don?t buy the above. Oh yes, the RIAA is idiotic. But the lawsuits weren?t stupid ? any more than police handing out speeding tickets is stupid; but the police are far outnumbered, and so are the RIAA, so without the forces, it was bound to be ineffectual. Tickets don?t stop speeding in the general sense, and the lawsuits didn?t stop file sharing in the general sense. And I can?t blame the music industry for not utilizing Napster when it hit the scene as the default web application for music sharing; at 9.99 a month, the majority of users ? and this meant millions-plus worldwide ? would have paid for the service, and in effect created a new economic structure for the music industry. It could have worked ? would have worked ? but ripping up one?s own business model ? especially for the non-tech generation running the labels at the time ? this isn?t/wasn?t a plausible option for most. Stupid in hindsight ? maybe. But doing this, I believe, was impossible for the people whom had real financial and artistic stake in what was happening.
The music industry deserves the hate, however, for:

1. Premium pricing of CD?s ? and allowing artists to fill them up with crap so they could justify the prices by stating there are 17+ songs on the disc. Forget that single albums used to be around 45 minutes long and this was a reasonable number for artists to get quality. It?s akin to charging 50 dollars for a hardback book because it?s got a thousand pages but the author only had 400 in him ? the rest was there to justify the price and maybe, the ego of the writer. If the industry had focused on ? god forbid, quality ? it might not have destroyed the album as an art form and created a generation of 1-2 songers.
2. Allowing Wal-Mart and the like to sell new music as loss leaders. This destroyed young people?s visits to real music stores ? the kind that had a back catalog and workers who knew about music and could make a suggestion based on your interests. For want of that upfront money, you sacrificed fans (customers) of your art form ? that?s called sustained revenue loss.
3. Allowing Clear Channel or other huge multi-horror show conglomerates to buy up FM Radio and turn it into the place of SAFE. The industry never complained to regulators about corporate radio destroying local voices, local music flavors, and new music in general getting to listeners. I think no sane person can argue that Clear Channel owning dozens of radio stations in multiple markets has been good for radio. It?s been a disaster.
4. Charging Internet radio, a nascent industry, ungodly fees ? hey ? they?re trying to fix all the damage you let happen in number 3!
5. Failing to sell digital files sooner ? people loved those iPods ? they weren?t going to keep buying CD?s just to rip the songs and then toss them in the corner. Forcing customers into a platform that goes against ease of use doesn?t work in the digital age.


There?s more, but the industry did destroy itself in many ways ? a classic case of staring at the bottom line but missing all the others above it which define the flow of the business. And yet, arguing that the record industry is evil because it?s trying to protect its copyrights is absurd. Just because the industry is run by idiots doesn?t mean you have a right to steal.
In this fight, both parties aren?t looking good. Users who feel they have the ?right? to steal ? who feel like the author that the musicians should just offer their songs for free and we can pay for them if we, you know ? feel like it are just as greedy as the record industry types who wish we?d all just stop buying iPods and go back to buying their overpriced CD?s. Unless there?s a meet in the middle ? unlikely ? we?re gonna see government oversight because they?re not going to let the music and movie industry go down in total flames ? and government oversight is the worst option.

[Tech Diva XXX]

Thank you!! Some excellent points made!

[sparrowhyperion]

The RIAA doesn't seem to get a few key points.

1. Unemployment is at an almost all time high. So people don't have money for frivolous purchases like music CDs.

2. The record labels charge way too much for albums, and not a lot of them produce CD singles. So, People have to pay for a whole album of junk songs if they want to get the 1 or 2 tracks they like.

3. Did they ever consider that their ideas of suing individuals may be one of the main reasons piracy has increased and their sales have gone down. Nothing says you care more than a nice lawsuit, after all.

4. The draconian limitations placed on online music at many sites doesn't inspire people to buy from the legal sites. Regular MP3 files can be played on almost any CD player and of course any MP3 player.

5. Heres the best part. The record labels invent these enormous dollar estimates of sales that they claim to be losing. The simple truth is that it's bull. Most of the people who pirate music are those who could never afford to buy it anyways. They are not losing that many sales because these people would not be buying it either.

Personally I have no pity for the labels. And as for the Artists, I would rather donate a few dollars to them for music than spend the kind of money you have to for a CD just to get the few tracks you like. The artists would probably make more directly through donations than from retail sales. And that way ALL of the money would go to the artists, not the tiny percentage the record companies give them.

The record label system is almost completely obsolete now. All they do is act as an advertiser and distributor after all. Both of those functions can now be done online for free. Eventually I think Artists will just bypass the greedy labels and cut them out of the loop. Some of them have already started.

When you think of how much the record labels have squandered on lawsuits they have no possible hope of collecting on, it's enough to make you wonder just where they grow the morons who run these companies. In the long term, the labels and the RIAA are going to find out that they have been collectively shooting themselves in the foot with each suit they bring against these people.

[hpew]

What the public needs to understand is that gangs like RIAA and (the other "friend of the people") ASCAP,
do NOT work in the interest of the artist - that is not the intent. They protect the copyright holder, which in almost ALL cases are music publishing CORPORATIONS.

Aahh, CORPORATIONS GOOD - PEOPLE BAD!

[Dalkorian]

" ... the organization claims it will stop suing individuals who pirate music (except for the most egregious offenders) and instead, lean on ISPs to battle piracy."

You know, I missed that little clause the first time I saw this. I mean I saw it, but it didn't click with me what it meant.

Notice that the RIAA hasn't actually "given up" anything. They still "reserve the right" to sue their customers on baseless accusations. The only change here is they're now going after the ISP's to police everyone for them, in other words instead of continuing this litigation nonsense which they realize the courts are waking up to (racketeering, extortion) they would rather make the ISP's deal with the questionable legal basis. The RIAA still is reserving the right to dictate who is guilty, without proof or a trial.

I see no changes here whatsoever, except for the real criminals to be running for cover.

LONG LIVE THE PIRATE BAY!

[D3vildog699]

Oorah

[skeptic47]

"But doesn't the RIAA understand the real offenders are the piracy cartels overseas that have created an enterprise out of stealing music and movies? And most importantly, doesn't the RIAA understand that all the lost revenue the industry is dealing with has less to do with piracy and much more to do with its utter disregard for consumer desire?"

You lost me. First, are you really arguing that the millions of massive infringers "sharing" music files domestically have little or no impact on a label's bottom line, and thus on the revenue stream for the artists who voluntarily signed contracts to have the labels distribute for them so they could focus on writing and performing? Or are you suggesting that file-sharers only upload and download songs they would otherwise not have purchased? And if this is the case, if they truly value these works at 0, then how on earth can you accuse anyone of showing disregard for consumer desire? As a consumer I don't want to pay for anything at all, but if someone spends money creating something and doesn't want to give it to me at no cost, that doesn't mean they are in the wrong if I take one anyway.

[Expatriot]

Let's be honest about things and not try and excuse illegal behavior with some sort of bogus moral equivalence. Illegal downloading, whether of music, movies, software, or any other thing, is still stealing.

The fact that you disagree with how an industry runs its business does not give you the right to steal their property. You and anyone else who illegally downloads things are thieves, just like Bernie Madoff, who confessed to being a Ponzi scheme con artist. Only the scale of the thievery is different. Your pathetic attempts to justify it reminds me of the following anecdote about Sir Winston Churchill (source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill):

Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

It seems to me that we are now haggling over whether you are a journalist masquerading as a thief, or a thief masquerading as a journalist.

[brianshuba]

This does not matter to me. I am STILL going to download music. FREE. Who can stop me? Gotta catch me first. Screw the RIAA. All they are is a bunch of profitteering glutons. They don't care about the record companies. They only care about the $$$ symbols. The ability to download free music is the reason we have such a diverse set of genres. Without the ability to download free music there would be a lot of uniscovered bands out there.

[contentcreator--2008]

And all you care about is yourself, stealing other people's work so you can have it all for free, greedy little selfish punk. Blame the RIAA? You surely are what you are accusing them of. Add rationalization to taste. Go flip a few more burgers.

[udellj]

I am amazed! No... SHOCKED!! That so many people truly believe it is okay to violate the copyrights of others is just revolting!!

Dalkorian calls it "extortion, that the "horrible" record labels (I'm not a fan of their business model either, but here they are right) invest millions of dollars in promoting a CD and then try to protect that investment?? I suppose, if you've never invested anything in anything... you'd never understand.

Those of you who justify illegal file sharing because of overseas pirating are insane. Does this make it right?? Or even any less wrong? If we are going to use this "they do it overseas" argument, I'm in really big trouble!! I'm a Republican and there's about the be a Democrat in the White House -- Perhaps they should execute me for disagreeing with the government? They do THAT in China too!! (probably the most basic lesson my father taught me.... "two wrongs don't make a right"... what did your parents teach you?)

Sure, there are many arguments to be made that the current business model of the US music industry is broken (or at least not keeping up with the times), but that still doesn't justify doing something that is both legally and morally wrong.

I do like the suggestion (sorry, don't remember who made it and I'm to lazy to read all of these posts again just to find it) about starting a new news site and posting all content from cnet. I'd almost like to go to court to defend myself against their lawsuit... now that their stated editorial position is that it is perfectly okay to infringe on copyrights.

[udellj]

I am amazed! No... SHOCKED!! That so many people truly believe it is okay to violate the copyrights of others is just revolting!!

Dalkorian calls it "extortion, that the "horrible" record labels (I'm not a fan of their business model either, but here they are right) invest millions of dollars in promoting a CD and then try to protect that investment?? I suppose, if you've never invested anything in anything... you'd never understand.

Those of you who justify illegal file sharing because of overseas pirating are insane. Does this make it right?? Or even any less wrong? If we are going to use this "they do it overseas" argument, I'm in really big trouble!! I'm a Republican and there's about the be a Democrat in the White House -- Perhaps they should execute me for disagreeing with the government? They do THAT in China too!! (probably the most basic lesson my father taught me.... "two wrongs don't make a right"... what did your parents teach you?)

Sure, there are many arguments to be made that the current business model of the US music industry is broken (or at least not keeping up with the times), but that still doesn't justify doing something that is both legally and morally wrong.

I do like the suggestion (sorry, don't remember who made it and I'm to lazy to read all of these posts again just to find it) about starting a new news site and posting all content from cnet. I'd almost like to go to court to defend myself against their lawsuit... now that their stated editorial position is that it is perfectly okay to infringe on copyrights.

[polarkrackin]

So they feel it is appropriate to keep tabs on all the net traffic that goes through my computer? Doesn't that seem a bit odd... well it does to me. However, I feel I can reach an accord if they are willing to do something back. They say they are trying to enforce the law, but we all know they just want to make sure the money is going to the right places. So in the interest of upholding the law, I submit this to you.

Step one: All of their cars need to be equipped with special equipment.
Step two: Should any laws be broken by anyone in this car, a letter will be sent to them or their insurer.

Dear customer,

It appears you were going 60 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour zone. We take it in good faith that this was not to avoid an accident and was committed without the expressed consent of an officer of the law. Should you be caught speeding again, your vehicle shall be throttled to no greater than 30 miles per hour.

Step Three: Throttle the vehicle or shut it down completely.

Ok that aside... should it become a precedent that we can check out people's activity without a warrant does become a problem. So if they can look at that portion of my traffic, why not all of it? A slippery slope indeed.

[tgags]

I think we're looking for comments on what the article is about, not punctuation. Geeze people.

Honestly, I can't say I blame the RIAA for trying to stop piracy. But I think they need to realize they are fighting a loosing battle. There are just way too many people and computers out there to police this (kind of like when we used to tape songs off the radio). Aside from bands going directly to fans through a website (though most people choose free vs. fee), I think Apple had the best solution to this issue - the AAC format that has limited transfer ability. Yes, you could reburn them and then get them to MP3s but there's a quality hit. But now I understand that other music services offer the restriction free versions, and Apple now does too (for more $). Is this true? If so, so much for the attempt.

[Ripittoshreds]

It seems to me the solution should be really easy, but some of you here seem to find it necessary to justify your actions because you feel entitled to something.
The RIAA, like any other business in this country, is out to maximize profits. They will raise prices until it reaches a saturation point at which people will rebel. In this case, p2p file sharing. If you want the prices to come down, stop buying the product. If enough people do that, then businesses will be more apt to listen as they want to stay in business instead of blaming other sources for their woes (a legitimate blame in this case).
Personally, I can't afford a new(er) car. Nor do I choose to economically enslave myself to a loan payment and higher insurance premiums. So, I do without. I drive a very inexpensive car, keep it maintained, and use public transportation. I don't choose to go out and take one because I deserve it or I feel entitled to something someone else created.
I wholeheartedly agree with mattumanu. 99 cents is not a lot to pay for a music track. I believe it to be very reasonable in fact. Plus, you can download a variety rather than have some tracks on an album you may not like. Making music, or any other art for that matter, is an extremely personal endeavor. Artists pour their heart and souls - yes, it's very cliche - into their endeavors and should be compensated for that as well as the efforts it takes to reach a wider audience. If you can't do without music (the world would be a very sad place without it) then go make your own. Otherwise, pay these wonderful and talented people for their efforts which you obviously enjoy.
I used to download "free" music until I realized I was being unfair to the people who create the music that I love.

[keiferdark]

for the money a person shells out for their live concert events the artists should give away their music. want to make money? do it the old fashioned way... tour. the numerous concerts i have attended this year alone with good seats, memorabilia and an occasional backstage meet and greet have cost hundreds of dollars maybe i should just sit on my ass and give them .99 cents on itunes if they would rather make their money that way.

[mattumanu]

So, keiferdark, if you can afford to pay hundreds of dollars to go to concerts, why is it such a big deal to pay 99 cents for a track?

Let me tell you about a couple of bands I discovered through the internet. One is a duo in California calling themselves Pomplamoose (French for grapefruit). The other is a group that made it sort of big, called Tally Hall out of Anne Arbor Michigan. I like both of these groups. Neither group will be touring near me this year. But instead of saying to myself, "they should give me their music for free because they should expect to make money off of touring", I believe it's fair and reasonable to pay for their music. I paid for Tally Halls first album through iTunes, and Pomplamoose's music through their myspace page. I think it was worth it.

You, however, acting like an ass. You're bifurcating the argument, declaring that you spend all this money on concerts and other stuff, but what about the bands that you can't attend their concerts? Do you just say, "well, they make their money off of concerts so I'll just take their music for free" and then just basically leave a band you like out in the cold? "Sorry guys, I can't attend a concert because you're too far away, but I still expect the free music".

And before you say you "pay" them by helping promote them... Hold your comment. You should honor them and what they do by paying them for the tracks you download, AND you should promote them. You should be willing to help them out ANY WAY YOU CAN. But instead, you make your fandom subject to all kinds of assinine stipulations, ostensibly because you're such a wonderful person that you deserve to get something for free.

Like I said, if I were an artist on a tour like that and someone made the damnable arguments you make, I'd have security escort you from the premesis, and I would care if you told the entire world about it. In fact, I'd write a song in your honor, release a press release on my website and offer a bounty of free concert tickets to the first person who can find you and take a picture of you naked and covered with dog vomit (or doo doo, which ever comes first).

Now THAT'S marketing folks.

[contentcreator--2008]

Touring isn't necessarly a money-minting process either, you know. Check the cost of rental and gas for a tour bus, the cost of hotels rooms and meals night after night, the cost of a venue, the cost of advertising so maybe people will come. Salaries for sound men, roadies, drivers, etc. If it was such a panacea, more people would be doing it already, right?

What you're saying is you have to work real hard to make something and be forced to give it away, in hopes that you can go away from home for months at a time to work even harder to maybe have a chance to make some money. That should inspire legions of musicians, yeah.

[fatbutch]

they don't warn you first. they just automatically cut you back or stop the ports. i have verizon and that is what has happened. virginia tech will warn then cut you off or even stop your internet connection. comcast, well we all know the story with comcast. i did have a letter sent to me by ntc and i in turn bought the movie because i was afraid of being caught.

[HelenBedd]

So why doesn't the RIAA go after public libraries that offer CDs? What's the difference?

[3rdalbum]

I believe the move by the RIAA is the opposite of what you think.

It's not the RIAA trying to pretend that it's not the bad guy; it's the RIAA trying to pretend to its members and to consumers that it's still doing something to curb piracy, without having to get lawyers in. You might not realise this, but several video game associations like the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia just send letters to the ISPs, and have been doing so for years.

The ISPs can't prove that the IEAA's information is correct, not without spending considerable time and expense investigating. The ISPs send a copy of the letter to their customer and warn them that the transfer of copyrighted material is against the Terms Of Service. In many cases, this stops the file-sharing activity.

How do I know this? One of my friends got sent such a letter, and his parents grounded him. I don't know what would happen if the ISP got another complaint about the same customer, but notifying the person that they've been spotted doing something illegal is a good deterrent.

The RIAA still doesn't understand why people pirate, and more importantly they still don't understand why their sales are going down (hint: It's got nothing to do with piracy), but by adopting the entertainment software industry's method of contacting infringers it's unwittingly doing the right thing.

[williamcbarnes]

Yes, 99¢ is too much to pay for a track.
$12.99 is too much to pay for a CD with 2 good tracks and 11 tracks of filler.
The RIAA has done us wrong, especially those of us who didn't used to pirate. We buy music expecting it to be transferable from our iPods to our computers to our MP3 players, burnable to a disc for our use, and we find ourselves besieged by rootkits that destroy CD drives, DRM that prevents us from using what we bought, and usage limitations that destroy the product. It is no longer worth the time and money to purchase music legally.
Your songs have value. The time and effort you put into recording them is well-spent. The market has changed. The copied recordings of your songs, be they physical CD or data download, are no longer a product with any value. Fewer and fewer people will be willing to trade real money for a copied experience.
Your recordings are advertisements.
YOU ARE THE PRODUCT.
Release your music to all who will listen. If your music is good, when you play a concert they will come. They will pay hand over fist for the right to bask in your presence as you perform the song they love. They will buy your merch to commemorate the experience. They will bring their friends who will also pay. If you are arrogant enough to harass them for enjoying your music without your permission, they will leave you to suffocate and find other artists to worship and still not buy your music.
The ideal of copyright is that every man should be rewarded for his creation. The fallacy of copyright is that the only means to do so is through control of the content. This is the information age, and it strips away control to expose the fallacy for what it is. Adapt or die, because it is the fans that pay your wage, and they demand non-replicable experiences. You have been paid in full for each and every one of your worthless copies.

[mattumanu]

"Adapt or die"

Adapt to your idea of what should be reality, you mean? Like I said earlier, it tells me more that you can't part with a lousy .99 to support your favorite bands, especially when they aren't going to be touring in your area any time soon. There's a word for what you espouse, and it's called "being petty".

Hundreds of dollars spent on concert tickets, gas money, tshirts and hats, and you can't spend a lousy .99 on the actual music?

What an ass.

[DragonWizard]

I only have one question... why did any of you "musicians" start playing music?? Did you buy a guitar and sit down and learn to play so you could make music, or did you sit down and learn to play thinking it was a way to make money?? If you thought you were going to make money with it and that is why you learned to play then you are getting just what you deserve.... my child plays music.. She LOVES to play music.. SHE LOVES TO PLAY MUSIC FOR OTHER PEOPLE.. At NO point did making money even enter her mind.. She works with her mother and makes money to spend and still she plays music because she likes it..

SHE is a MUSICIAN... you all are just a bunch of greedy chumps that deluded yourself that you were going to get money for nothing and your chicks for free. Domo arigato Mr. Roboto.. you deserve your fate ... for you music IS money and you feel you have a god given right to be paid because you learned to play.. that was never the intent of music, only the intent of the lazy, greedy, self centered screw ups that see no other way to get that green.... go get a job, play music for anyone that will listen and hope you get really good enough that people take notice of your talent.. then come back and don't cry to everyone because then you will TRULY be a musician.. Just like the Artwwork that I do and post for anyone to see and allow them to take and do as they wish with.. I make art because I love to make art.... it has never been because of the money... or the greedy slobs that want to use you for THEIR profits either..