Comments on: An open letter to the RIAA

The RIAA has gone too far, and now it's time we tell them as much.

[coffeecan]

reisinger and his defenders

Could you be part of the group of adults and 12 year olds that ran to my t-boned auto (caused by a person who ran a traffic signal red light) and stole my and my passengers personal belongings and other articles that were scattered about after the collision as we lay there bleeding and in terrible pain. People that think they have the right to steal music or other creative productions would most likely also steal in the above situation and feel justified doing so. Folks like that have some pretty low morals, "if we want it, we take it". It is nothing but stealing. Those philosphies about law breaking will come back to bite you hard someday. This type of lack of intergrity stinks.
Trying to use a defense of a 12 year old is pretty shoddy journalism. You are not a technology pundit but a purveyor
of your version of "the law is wrong and I'll do what I want." Next I suppose it will be wrong for me to keep my doors locked to keep you out when you are in the area because in your opinion there should not be laws preventing you from coming into my home whenever you want. Get real.
Pay your way in the world. Stop begging.

[sdtrott]

Which is worse, piracy or counterfeiting?

The recording industry has been selling counterfeit products to us for years and apparently no one has called their bluff. How many people have bought an album or CD claiming to be an artist's "Greatest Hits" only to find that less than half of the album is made up of actual hits and the rest are just live versions, "B" sides or album cuts. Another one that really ticks me off is when I pick up a CD with a title such as "Greatest Hits of the 70s" etc and then after taking the time to read the titles of the tracks, I see the fine print down at the bottom claiming that "These are new stereo recordings...". These so-called "new stereo recordings" are nothing more than sub-standard, poor quality re-makes. And all too often, they will produce collections of these low quality substitute recordings and not even mention it on the label, or they will hide the statement with the price label. Everytime I see one of those counterfeit CDs the record companies are producing these days, I have a strong urge to fling it across the store against a wall. If the record companies are really losing any money because of file-sharing (which I seriously doubt) then they would be getting what they deserve for not respecting their customers. Until the record companies get their acts together and give the customers what they want, the only way one would be able to get a true "greatest hits" collection" would be to download it from the internet.

[juddrizzo]

Unbelievable

We should all support the musicians we love.

My life has been made a lot more enjoyable because of all the music I've bought.

It's sad that music is seen as something that should be free / worthless now.

It seems like the musicians we love are always the ones really getting screwed. Did you know that full rate, to the band was $0.06 / song / album. That's only $0.60 / album! Most newely signed bands are forced to agree to 3/4 rate or Only $0.045 / song, from a CD that sold for $15.00-$18.00!

Bands used to lose money on touring and support themselves with the royalties they received from FM radio (which Sucks!) and album sales. Bands need money from CD and Merch sales. (A lot of merch is pirated too.)

So the recording business really Has deserved a good screwing, for a lonnnng time. That's why it's such a lost cause now. (People are gleefully screwing Sound Exchange / RIAA.)

We really should all support the musicians we love.

I used to be happy to get a CD for $11.99, at Kemp Mill Music. Then the prices just kept going up Everywhere. (No one seemed to know about Kemp Mill's prices.

I used to just shake my head ... and leave the store, when I saw Tower trying to sell CDs for $18.99! Welp, now their out of business. ;-p

If the industry had charged something more reasonable, this may never have happened. Nah - this was always gonna happen. It just might have taken a little longer.

Now, through the internet, we all know about thousands of great bands, with multiple albums, and no one feels like they will every have all the money they need, to buy all the music they want. However, that should just be too bad.

I don't have the money for a new car. So, I just don't get a new car 'till I get more money.

I wouldn't expect the guy who made the car to do it for free 'cause he likes puttin' doors on cars, all day long. Gimme a break!

I just can't steal from my fellow musicians. I've turned to subscription services like Rhapsody, which I Highly recommend.

Rhapsody is great because you can listen to weeks worth of whatever you want, when you want, without storing GBs of data.

Rhapsody Was just $8.30/Month, until a few months ago. The problem was, I still couldn't get anyone else to sign up, or even try it. Now it's $12.99/Month! Their prices, actually, went up! Now people will flock to it, right?!?!

http://www.pandora.com is cool too. ... and it's FREE ... for now. However, you can't listen to exactly what you want. Although, because of this, I've discovered many new / cool bands.
Check out Steel Attack "Diabolic Symphony"
http://www.pandora.com/music/artist/steel+attack

I still think Rhapsody is worth it.

Both Rhapsody and Pandora pay royalties to Sound Exchange / RIAA. That's good. That means they are supporting the musicians you love. Yes, that means the suits, labels, etc. make money from it. That's probably good too.

Rhapsody Unlimited
1-866-420-5833
http://www.rhapsody.com

Tell Sound Exchange / RIAA how you feel.

Sound Exchange / RIAA
Marc Hines
[e-mail]
202 640 5858
http://www.soundexchange.com/contactus.html

We should all support the musicians we love.

Thank you for reading my mind dump.

[irdac]

The cure is don't steal but don't buy

The RIAA is only a tool to make money for the record companies. The artists and the public are just there to feed their excess profits. It is little wonder that people hate them and try to get away from their greed. I am one of the fortunate few. Being ancient I have bought all the records I wanted before DRM and the latest rip-offs.

[rwhpi]

Get caught stealing? -- Prepare to get punished...

In simple terms: If one chooses to take a chance at stealing any property of another, he or she should pay the price. To me, this scenario is no different than shoplifting from merchants or boosting a car. The US Constitution spells out everybody's right to protect personal property, regardless of its nature and We the People passed laws to protect that right. The entertainment industry should not be an excluded from exercising this right, regardless of how rich they may be.

[old-git]

2 wrongs don't make a right, but ...

the RIAA cannot claim any moral authority. For years we have been ripped off by the record industry. Some examples:

a) 40 year old albums that sold in their millions (Beatles & Stones) still selling at (or very near) full price

b) Greatest hits albums that contain 1 new / unreleased track

c) Re-issues with bonus tracks (some of which are available on other albums)

d) Compilation albums with racks re-recorded by 1 or more of the original group

e) Box sets of the original albums plus bonus tracks (check out VU's Peel Slowly and See)

I am a victim of greedy record companies. I bought an lp back in the 60s, and again when it was reissued in the 70s with a single bonus track, I didn't buy the original CD issue as I didn't have a player but I did but the CD re-issue with bonus tracks (4 of which were shared with another of their CDs). So I have 3 versions of their original album and it could have been 4.

And they wonder why people download for free. It's because some of us strongly object to being ripped off!

Of course, the irony is that records were originally a marketing tool used to sell sheet music.

[RacerX7]

Excuse me but...

How did they "rip you off"?

Did they hold a gun to your head and force you to by a cd?

Were the contents of the CD not clearly legible on the back of the CD?

I'm no fan of the RIAA and I look forward to their eminent demise, but to say that they ripped you off because you didn't like what they sold you (after they make it perfectly clear what you were getting) well, that's your own fault.

Here's a tip to help you not get "ripped off" again: All the songs on an album are usually listed right on the back of the CD. I you don't like the content of the album, then don't buy it.

Pretty simple way of not getting "ripped off", don't you think?

[tmccool]

No teeth in this letter

Fight back? How? Your suggestion to "fight against your (RIAA) high-powered lawyers with our own" is laughable. In case you missed this important point - the RIAA has the law on their side. That's why they are winning these cases. They are winning them because the copyright laws are very clear. You are in violation of copyright law whether you are making money from file sharing or giving it away for free.

Old-Git's comment is much closee to what the RIAA should be doing, which is to examine their out-moded business model and revise it so that illegal (and it is illegal) music downloading is not as attractive.

I'm an "old git" too. I hate buying and re-buying the same CD because the sound is upgraded or it has bonus tracks and/or discs. Now there is also the tactic of issuing a CD, then a few weeks later issuing the same CD with a bonus DVD. The record companies ARE ripping us off at an alarming rate.

However, I'm not really into downloading music. First, I think it's outrageous to pay $9.99 to download a back-catalog CD that I can find in the store for the same price, and I get to feel like I actually own something.

And, yes, I own an MP3 player. Yes, I've downloaded tracks when I didn't want to buy the whole CD. And, yes, I've burned downloaded tracks to a CD so I can listen to them on a CD player while driving and at home while entertaining.

Both sides of this issue are flat wrong. The RIAA does need to encourage record companies to find new business models, and the downloaders need to refrain from illegal activities. Just because millions do it is not justification. If millions of people starting killing each other, we'd call it anarchy, not freedom.

[zole]

RIAA is all about control

The RIAA exists solely to control the artist, control which music gets the airplay and to make money, not for the artists but for the recording industry.

[mpm10]

Free market at work.

Enough already. Consumers are the ones who will ultimately decide what type of music the market will bear. Record labels can try to sell CD's and online downloads at comparable rates, however if consumers don't buy, they will have to adjust their prices. I have seen many download sites selling music for about 0.99c. If I download 13+ songs, I am spending about the same amount as a cd. The only problem is, that I just have decent quality song but little else.

There is no cost for creating, designing, distributing or marketing an actual CD. In other words the record labels are increasing their profits at the cost of consumers. Now let's say songs on only cost 0.50c, now there would be a better market and increased demand for the songs. You might even convince many illegal down loaders to purchase music and avoid the hassles associated with p2p sites. Consumers will be guaranteed a legal quality recording the first time for a minimal amount of money. Since few resources are devoted to the production of a CD, profits should remain the same or might even increase due to the expanded market base. Consumers will get only the songs that they actually want, thereby forcing artists to earn their keep by forcing them to produce quality songs. No longer will inferior or cover songs be forced on to consumers via a cd package.

Well I guess we can all return to recording from the radio on good old tapes like previous generations did back in the 70's-80's. I remember compiling my own tapes with recordings from radio, records and borrowed tapes. Did I buy all the music I wanted, not really I just bought my favorites and borrowed the rest from friends. Wow an early from of p2p. Wait weren't these recordings illegal? Why didn't the record industry start their litigations back then?

[gkrash]

Times have changed.

Music, is a form of art, a form of expression, by fronting it with a business
model, the art form and expression is cheapened, and this is prevelant in
todays music more than anything. Yes, it does take years of effort to "get it
right" - and to be honest with you, the songs that have stood the test of time,
have all come from the root of expression, not from the desire to make
money. How many popular songs lately have their roots in personal
expression though, think about it.

This new internet medium is _amazing_ for true artists that desire to express
themselves through their music, they no longer need to sell their souls to the
recording industry in order to get FM radio play time, and distribution deals.
Put up a website, and do live shows, it's amazing how many people start to
catch on, especially when it's not refactored drivel being sung by the latest
and greatest busty 18 year old to flaunt her body and modest musical talent
in front of a spotlight. Industries across the globe have embraced the
internet revolution, and there is some painful change going on, this being
one of them. The RIAA and the major labels made their billions trafficing
information, they didn't actually produce anything, they just sold it. Well
guess what, the internet now allows anyone to do that for a teeny fraction of
the price. I feel terrible for the artists who feel like they're losing out
because they signed their lives away for a nice initial bonus and chump
change on their album sales, oh, and their music, their product no longer
belongs to them. I'll tell you what though, every time I hear about some
talent-less chump on "Cribs" showing off his Mercades collection, I don't feel
so bad anymore, the ride has gone on for a long time guys, it's time to get
back to your roots, and start puting your soul into your music and stop
worrying so much as to how you'll be paying for your 3rd mansion.

And for those musicians out there turning out original, meaningful content? -
Keep your head up, and keep turning it out, your chances of getting noticed
by the public are now far greater than they ever have been before, get a
website, get a myspace account, and get recording in your home studio, there
are a whole lot of us who've got an appetite for some good music, and we've
had to pick at scraps for a few years now.

[TechieTrekkie]

"Music, is a form of art, a form of expression''

I couldn't agree more. These days, artists seem soley to sell their music on their looks, how many special effects they can pack into one live show, and how much money they have to spend on publicity. It is time for some actually talented artists to take the stage.

[tarkat]

RIAA Slap in the face

how many people do you think see this blog? 1000? 10000?10000?100,000? 1,000.000.000? If all of us sent this woman $1 each, not only would she be able to pay this ridiculous fine, she could afford to share some files, or do something constructive. As a matter of fact, I would be willing to send my dollar to 5 or 10 people. I think that it is time that the artist got paid more than the .09cents per track.
K.B.

[SeanBlader]

Done with music

Because of the recording industry, I just don't listen to music anymore. It's my opinion that the sound of my well tuned and maintained 22 year old sports car engine is more appealing and pleasing than listening to even good music. The problem with even good music now is that when I hear it, I tend to think of how little of the money spent on that music actually goes to the people who created it.

So in reality, anyone who buys music now is paying the RIAA to make sure that they can keep paying those high priced lawyers and keep suing the little people. The $220k judgment is utterly disdainful. The RIAA taking someone's life and ruining it because they think their lawyers are worth more than the individual. It's disgusting, and makes me ashamed to be considered a part of the same species as those who run these sorts of operations.

Now if I ever listen to music, it's via good old fashioned FM.

[Dauplat]

Bottom Line: Don't steal

I can't understand why some people feel that the RIAA is making too much money, so you should steal from them (and the artists.) If you think Mercedes Benz makes too much profit, should you be entitled to steal one?

Someone posted about the cost to produce a CD, using that as proof that music is overpriced. The cost of the media/duplication is a small part of the cost of music. How about advertising, production costs, artist royalties, etc? These companies take a chance when the decide to sell an album. They could lose money if it doesn't sell. They take a risk, and deserve the reward if things pay off.

Put yourself in their shoes. Say you spend hundreds of hours to write a book, and pay big bucks to get it published. What would you think if a PDF copy of it was freely available online, and thousands were downloading it? Would that be fair? You're charging $29.95 for your book, but the paper needed to print it only costs $1.49. You're making too much! I should be able to steal it for nothing!

So here it is: If you want to listen to a song on your computer or MP3 player, then buy it for $.99 through iTunes or a similar service. If it's not worth $.99 to you, then you'll have to do without it -- don't steal it. If you're caught stealing, then be prepared to pay the piper (or the RIAA) whatever the law allows.

[bob1spencer]

RIAA Are Thieves

What everyone seems to forget in all this crap, is that the RIAA is also ripping off the artists they supposedly represent. Why do you think several artists have offered their music on their own website? I would rather buy from the artist than pay for a CD with one song that I actually like, and from which the artist gets maybe five or ten cents. Beside all that, I can "download" any song I want using the cassette recorder built into my stereo system. Let's see them do something about that!

[Sirgrimreaper]

It's the fine not the theft itself.

To all who claim in words like do the crime, do the time. You people just don't get it. She was sued for 24 songs, equal to 1 extended CD or at best 2 cds worth. Where on this God green earth can you shoplift, as you say, and be fined $222,000? No where. They, the RIAA, can't and didn't prove that anyone downloaded the songs that she had available. So the only thing she did was download these songs for free. Get fined sure, she was wrong, but the system is VERY wrong when a person can get fined upto $150,000 per each 99 cents song. Not only is the system wacked so are the jurors who set this fined. It's not a sense of morality in their part, but a sense of stupidity.

[bwvla]

The RIAA is an anti-competitive behavior

In all reality the RIAA should be broken up for anti-competitive behavior. The RIAA is a group that ties all recording companies together into a single entity where behind closed doors they set anti-competitive policy. This is no different than price fixing!!!

With physical CD sales dropping like a rock the individual companies should each be coming up with new competitive product offerings to combat that. Perhaps the solution is lower prices, or maybe going to online distribution, or perhaps something completely different!

Instead of using the principals that make the free market great they have banded together to all continue to push the CD album format, fix prices on downloads, and prevent any other creative/competitive distribution format. Instead of competing with one another they have banded together to stand against customers who want something different. Its anti-competitive and wrong. The people breaking the law in insane numbers is not lawlessness breaking out, but a consumer revolt.

I also have a real problem with someone being sued 220,000 for the apparent theft of 20 songs. Last I checked thats about 20 dollars worth of goods. People convicted of grand theft auto pay less penance than those who steal 99 cent songs. Perhaps their should be a punishment for stealing music, but it should fit the scope of the crime.

Perhaps stealing music is wrong, but until fair competition is returned to the recording market, it will be nothing but a mess.

[jgalecpa]

Download misinformation

This is not the innocent housewife people portray.
Writes PC Magazine: "According to court documents, the record companies sued Thomas in April 2006 after 1,702 music files involving artists such as Green Day, Aerosmith and Guns 'N' Roses were traced to a computer tied to her."
She was offered the chance to settle, and refused. I have no sympathy for her at all.

[J G M]

My open letter: You win, RIAA

Okay, okay, RIAA: you win.

I admit it: I've downloaded music; I've used it as a tool to check out albums -- many of which I later purchased, some of which I deleted after deciding I didn't want to waste my money. I've picked up rarities and out-of print tracks, and replaced tracks that were unplayable due to scratches or manufacturing defects. I've backed up my own collection onto MP3s, which I burn as collections for use in the car. I've even sent MP3s of great songs to friends and relatives, many of whom later bought the albums in question. Hell, I might as well confess to the cassette mixtapes I made as a kid. In other words, I've *used* the technology you are so afraid of and so intent on criminalizing to advance and promote your product. But I'm done. After almost four decades of avid interest in ownding and collecting music, I'm done. Done with the whole thing.

You've met your goal with me, since I can only assume your goal is to ratchet up the anti-consumer, anti-music fan ante until we all give up in disgust. For the first time in years, I won't be stopping at the store on Tuesdays. I'm not buying the new Springsteen album (first time ever). I'm not buying the Queen Latifah I had considered picking up for my wife, or the upcoming Krause/Plant disc that seems interesting. I could have easily been the target of one of the RIAA harrassment suits. Why would I want to reward an industry, an organization, that seems to consider me a criminal? An industry that has put more energy into blackmailing college kids and strong-arming ISPs than it has into finding a workable business model? I don't buy clothes from companies that run sweatshops, I'm sure not going to buy from companies that support an organization that treats its consumers this way.

Enjoy your victory, RIAA, but realize how completely you've poisoned the well by criminalizing, threatening, and shaking down many of your best customers. Music literally doesn't sound as good to me anymore, given the inescapable undercurrent of animosity and greed that is encoded with each track.

It's too bad that the artists are the collateral damage in all this. The smart ones have already found the alternatives to the RIAA labels; to the rest of you: sorry, you backed the wrong horse here.

[exequitur]

Enough ripoff

Full disclosure: my musical tastes run more to the classical end of the spectrum [Sibelius, Mozart, Delius, Telemann] which means that I've never accessed a file-sharing site to download songs or pop tunes but if I ever wanted to do so I'd be willing and ready to pay the artists and recording engineers and other participants in the act of producing, at considerable cost, the finished products that the masses think should be given to them for free. How did this come about in the first place? Where do people get the idea that the creative world owes them their enjoyment as a god-given right? It is a perverted form of populism to expect and demand that musicians and writers and film-makers should be giving away the fruits of their labor just so that the untalented, often lazy multitudes can get their instant gratification without having to pay for it. It's also a sign of moral degeneracy that being able to brag about having ripped off so many songs or films or books or whatnot is widely considered as synonymous with hip smarts. But of course, my views are very much in the exiguous minority and will likely generate [or de-generate?] abuse by the megatonne. So be it, for all I care.

[Jagadeesh Venugopal]

Music industry business model is doomed to fail

A business model where you prevent customers from using your product (DRM) and where you sue your customers (or threaten to sue them) is destined to fail. We've been seeing indications of that failure for a while.

Music industry executives contend that they need both DRM and Lawsuits because the vast majority of albums lose money, and they need to make big money on very few albums to stay in business and to make up for the lost revenues on the flopped albums.

Unfortunately the music industry can't continue with this model for much longer because technology and the Internet have seen to it that the $16.98 CD can be easily ripped and copied. And virtually every DRM method has either been unsuccessful (e.g. Sony's ATRAC) or failed (e.g. Apple, Microsoft selling MP3's instead of DRM'ed music).

The only way out for the music industry is to sell unprotected music online, and to reduce their cost structure and selling price such that the convenience of buying the music oughtweighs the inconvenience of copying it from a friend. Think of the TV Guide model, or even the bottled water model wherein an essentially free commodity (television scheduling information and water, respectively) finds willing buyers.

To do this, the music industry will have to review and rethink all its assumptions. I would suspect that they will not be able to make this price point with distribution of physical CD's any more. Everyone will have to move to some form of online distribution. DRM will have to go as well. Sea changes will have to be introduced in the way in which catalogs are put online in unprotected format. Deals can be struck with online radio stations (hitherto relegated to pariah status) that would allow for playing of songs from a catalog in exchange for, say, a cut of the revenues. The industry can start to sell different versions of the same song... an MP3 with a lower bit rate for, say, $0.25 and the same song with a higher bit rate for, say, a dollar.

Finally, the music industry can add value to its product in the form of artist interviews, song lyrics, interesting package inserts, about anything that cannot be copied over MP3 formats.

The bottom line is that the current business model is in its last throes. A drastic reduction in cost and pricing, along with innovation in packaging and distribution, and ancillaries, is what is needed for the industry to recover.