Comments on: The RIAA speaks--and it gets worse

Don Reisinger had the chance to sit down with the RIAA for a frank interview. Unfortunately, the answers he received make the organization look worse.

[lwhite]

The people (young and old alike) should stop buying from any artist that supports RIAA and let them see what is is like when the public turns against them. They are not just protecting their copyright but getting greedy and lining their pockets any way they can. I think they are bottom feeding scum.

[stshepard]

People who are "buying" their music are not the targets of the RIAA, it's the other folks, the criminals, who are the targets. they aren't helping the artists at all so who cares what happens to them? (with reguard to music)

[TheMadResearcher]

I think it's obvious the music industry needs to change it's business model. Since when has the threat of punishment ever been a truly effective deterrent against unwanted human behavior? It hasn't worked for criminality and it won't work against music piracy. All that's happening is people are being punished, just like people who commit other crimes. I don't think anyone is being deterred from pirating music.

I don't believe that people choose not to commit crimes out of fear of being punished for it. I believe it's because they don't HAVE to or have a DESIRE to. The way to prevent criminality is to eliminate peoples' need or desire to commit crimes. Unfortunately, that requires enormous changes to be made to effect peoples' circumstances which takes years and years of hard work before any positive results will be seen.

I'm speaking very broadly about criminality in general, but I'll try to focus back in on music piracy. For one, I think all of the statistics bandied about by the RIAA about how much revenue they're losing to piracy is probably very grossly overstated. Are they assuming that every song someone downloads illegally is a song they otherwise would've purchased? You always hear about people with collections of 1'000's of songs. Do they think those people really would've purchased all those songs or even had the means to? I think many people download certain music simply because they can do it for free but otherwise never would've spent money on it. I also believe that some people choose to pirate the music specifically because it is DRM-free and they can use it across all of their devices and not have it be constrained in the way it can be used.

Downloads need to be cheaper, offer higher quality bit rates, and be DRM-free. I believe that if each song were so inexpensive and of such high quality, that it just would not be worth anyone's time to try to pirate it. Sure, there are probably people out there that would pirate songs even if you could buy them for a penny a song, but those kinds of people weren't going to pay for the music under any circumstance anyway so it's not really lost revenue.

$.99 might not seem like a lot, but if you buy 15 songs it's basically the same as buying a conventional album. The profit margin has to be way higher on online music vs. conventional CD's purchased in brick-and-mortar stores due to the obvious reduction in distribution costs (packaging, transportation, warehousing, etc.). I'm sure the industry worries about a cheaper price point could just lead to lower revenues but I think it would easily be offset by increased volume. This goes again to my argument about people downloading 1,000's of songs illegally just because it's free. I think if they could buy the music legally very cheaply the per capita amount of music purchased would increase tremendously. I think people would buy a lot more music than they ever have before because it would be a better VALUE at that point. I don't buy a lot of music (or download it either for that matter) because I guess I'm just not that into music that it's worth spending my hard-earned dollars on. However, if I could purchase a song for say $.25, then the industry would have a new customer as at that point it would have value to me even thought I'm not big into music.

[stshepard]

I'm not a supporter of the RIAA, but think about it, there are VERY few "music" stores left, and most dissappeared around the time napster got in trouble, music piracy is theft, bottom line.

If people want DRM free music, BUY THE CD! you can do anything you want with the music when you buy the CD, plus you have a relatively safe "back up" copy of your digital music.

Since when is it a crime to protect your property? The RIAA may have some questionable practices, but they are dealing with people of Questionable morals. it's an eye for an eye.

I agree that the music industry seems to be a very greedy one, and that they may have created some of this problem themselves, but ultimately, the studios own the rights to the music that they pay to produce, so again , why shouldn't they protect their property?

It's true, artists could produce, market, promote, and sell their own music without the studios, but be honest, do you really think people would "gladly" pay them for their efforts? I'll tell you, no they wouldn't, the same people who steal music from Capital Records would steal directly from Nelly or The Backstreet Boys, and don't kid yourself thinking they wouldn't.

I've legally downloaded about 3 DRM protected albums, and most of the DRM- related complaints I've heard simply aren't valid. I created a real CD from my downloaded albums and this CD is playable and rippable just like any other CD, and, when I upgraded my PC and I no longer had access to my DRM music, I was able to rip it from my CD version. and I was back in business. I have never illegally downloaded any music from anywhere, and I have all the music I've ever wanted. you can be honest and get the music you want.

[daboot25]

One webpage said if you do not own the copyright you do not have permission to distribute. If that is taken to the extreme, is it illegal for people to sell a CD on the internet, or in a garage sale? What happens when you let a friend borrow your CD? That friend didn't pay for the CD and no money goes to the RIAA or record label. In a sale that isn't the original sale, the artist and label makes no money, how is that different from someone buying a cd, and letting other people have it? The only difference I can tell is that buying one and letting other people have the music via P2P, more people get it. If someone buys the CD and sells or gives it to a friend, the music would still be free for the other party.

[stshepard]

You bring up some valid points, I think the hitch is the word Distribute. If you sell the one legal copy of a cd you have in a garage sale, and you don't have any "back up" versions of that CD, and not ability to reproduce it and sell it again. you really aren't distributing it, and since you're probably selling it at a loss, no money is really being made by anyone.

If you read the copyright notice on any recent CD, you'll find that loaning your CD to a friend is probably okay, so long as your friend doesn't make any copies of your CD.

On thing you fail to understand is that give one CD to someone without the ability to reproduce it and give it again, is just a license transfer, that's usually legal. but when you "distribute" the music on a CD via a P2P network or via a other electronic or physical means you are distributing the music because the one legal copy you bought has become 10, 20, 100 or 1000 copies, and eventhough no one necessarily made any money on this distribution, it's illegal because you didn't own the right to distribute even 1 "COPY" of the CD.

So long as only one person has access to the music on a CD then it's not an illegal distribution, but when more than one person has access at the same time, an illegal "COPY" was distributed.

As for online purchases of Physical CD's like at AMAZON, so long as the store you purchased the music from got the CD's they are selling legally and for the purposes of RESELL. they are legally selling the CD's. in other words if AMAZON buys 400 Britney Spears CD's legally from the record company and sells only 400 Britney Spears CD making no copies either physical or electronic then they are not illegally distributing the music.

[dmca95]

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

[jharrisofkansas]

"Working ostensibly with the interests of the artists in mind" Huge untruth about RIAA ....ASCAP and BMI.....They have ripped off artists forever...They are scared to death artists will figure a way as some have to do business with out them.so they pretend to have artist interests at heart and if they win out here on this issue will go back to ripping off the talent....In any other industry a person can keep full control of their creations and sell it as they see fit and even have a measure of protection guaranteed by governments such as anti trust laws.For years record companies have tied up the distribution side of the record business...the result is if you want to sell an album of your music it will never get in the stores with out them.I am all for copyrights being a composer myself but record companies are not the good guys and never were.Musicians/composers just need to look at this as a crack at freedom to create and as an opportunity to find a new way to do business.

[ljh--2008]

I again feel the need to mention what happened to my son when he was a college student, so I am adding my previous post.

RIAA Lawsuits
Posted by ljh (See profile) - June 19, 2005 1:03 PM PDT
My son goes to Michigan State University and he was one of the people sued. Evidently, they sued 20 students from 20 colleges. Oddly, of the 850 or so students at Michigan State who were doing this music sharing, THREE of them were on the same floor in the same dorm! Also, it seems the site for this came from University of Michigan, and NO ONE from U of M got sued!

My son has to pay $3,750, and his RA has to pay $5,000! That is a lot of money for a college kid. It will take him all summer to work to pay that. The reason the kids are settling is they are told it is a "John Doe" case, and if they settle their name will not be revealed, so they will not have any "judgments" against them on their records.

I think the RIAA should give these kids a warning first. Also, if they are going to sue some of them, they should sue all of them. Maybe a class action suit would be the fairer way to handle this through the courts.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but with all the new technology evolving, it is hard to keep up with all the rules. I feel these kids are paying for everyone who has done this music sharing, and it is not right.