Comments on: An interview with the misguided RIAA

Don Reisinger's latest column about the RIAA made some cringe. But if you enjoyed that, take a look at the full transcript of the interview to see just how bad it was.

[economist12345]

The RIAA has the responsibility of maximizing the profits of its members. They realize that If there is a way for people to get their music for free, with little chance for negative repercussion, then most people will do so, as they will act in their own rational self-interest. Therefore, The RIAA's job can be separated into two tasks -- creating incentives for people to pay for music through legal channels, and creating disincentives for the opposite.

Lawsuits are one way of creating disincentives for illegal downloads, however, the global scope of piracy, different laws and lack of laws in some countries, difficulty in enforcing laws, and cost of the lawsuits all make it a bad first choice. If I was the RIAA, rather than suing, I would dedicate my costs and efforts to finding every major illegal downloading medium, and doing all I could to make the experience of using that medium less desirable (flood the mediums with bogus downloads that mess with peoples computers, overload and shut down the servers of the download channels, and cause as much general havoc as possible). All of this would be cheaper, and could be done under the radar, avoiding making them look like the bad guy.

At the same time, I would increase the incentives of using the approved download channels. This means endorsing (or creating themselves) a well made system such as Itunes (which they've done), providing a number of billing options (pay to play, one time fee, pay per song, etc.) that people can choose from, lowering the overall cost of music (the RIAA might not like it, but the the fact that their product is easier to share lowers the inherent extractable value of the product), and providing ways other than actual money for people to pay for legal music (completing marketing studies like you can do for goods on other sites, watching commercials, turning in illegal download channels, more contests like winning free songs under the softdrink cap.)

I don't think it is possible in this new world for the record industry to ever achieve the kind of royalties they did years ago, but I think that the above would be their most profitable course of action..

[forkboy]

I'm happy to read that you aren't simply offering a free pass for thievery for those who illegally distribute and acquire music.

[parisea]

I am an old guy and also work at a school. This has been going on so long that I think the cavemen traded music on tablets.
We exchanged the latest hits on 45 with friends in the 50's . The cassette tape was a revolution. For almost 20 years everyone made mix tapes for each other , then Cd writers came and off it went . You got to try music. Someone once gave me a copy of Springsteen's Born in the USA. the next day I went out and bought 7 cds including a couple Bootlegs.
The mp3 has made it easier but the model is still there. People , especially young ones want to share music with their friends. A couple of years ago my sister gave me an entire season of the sopranos she got off ebay for $19.99. Chinese box but played fine with a beautiful picture. Go after these guys.
Every Christmas I give my friends (@30 folks) a cd mix for Christmas. I painstakingly create it with a theme and even create a snazzy label. All music is from my paid for collection. Am I a thief? I tend to think of it as a creative thing and I'm not really good at baking. This crap with the lawsuits and all makes these folks look petty . Amazon has made it so easy to buy DRM free music now that I am back spending $10-20 per month
again. Most of the music I'm buying are new alternative bands that my children "gave" me one or two songs to listen to. Peace!

[Yirgacheffe]

Listen to the old timer.

There was no RIAA when people would make cassette tape copies. I remember creating so many cassette tape copies and mixed CDs only to realize that the copy sounds like crap usually.

When I actually wanted a CD because the music was good enough, I would buy it.

I think the problem today is that musicians don't care about the music they care about the luxurious lifestyle for doing something easy.

To hell with the musicians, most music nowadays sucks ass and isn't worth the hard drive or data disk it's copied on.

The real culprit is our crappy legal system that has created such a thing as lawsuits and lawyers and big business record labels to use those legal tools to their advantage to become gods.

They can all burn in hell as far as I'm concerned. Complete and utter filth, terrible mental hygiene.

[forkboy]

Being a "poor" college student is a reason to steal music? Screw the music industry because its big and bad and mean? It's okay to distribute music to anyone who wants to download it from my computer or someone else's computer because I used to make mixed tapes and CDs for friends at holidays? Do you folks actually hear yourselves?

I'm about as left leaning a liberal as you could ever meet, but these excuses sound pathetic. Are you saying that artists don't have a right to be paid for the work the create? Are you saying the record companies don't deserve to get paid for the work they do creating an environment for musicians to make money? Sure, there is a greed element to the record industry (musicians and companies alike), but no one is forcing any of us to buy music. But to steal it instead just because we feel we're entitled to do so because the RIAA and the industry is all greed and mean-spirited? Please.

Let's grow up here. It's theft. Plain and simple. In the 'good ol days' sharing some 45s with some friends didn't mean that your friends got to keep a copy of the 45 when they returned it to you. Sharing a mixed tape or CD with family and friends was, ultimately, small potatoes. But technology has given us the ability to share perfect copies of music with anyone in the world. This isn't a warm & fuzzy situation anymore. Again, it's theft, pure and simple.

How would any of you feel if you had created a product with the intent of selling it to make money and then found that a few who had purchased said product made it available to anyone and everyone for free? Wouldn't you be pissed off? Would you simply sit back and say "Oh well. That's life?" I don't think so. You would be pissed and you would do whatever you could to stop the situation. This is what the RIAA are doing.

And why pick on college students? Well, first they're a major music-purchasing (and stealing) demographic. Second, they're right here, in our country thus making going after them much simpler than these big, sinister, overseas piracy groups (just trying suing someone in another country and see how far you get).

This entire issue is about a lack of ethics by those who both acquire and offer music to and for others for free. This isn't just about greedy corporations in NYC and LA, but about unethical and greedy people stealing the intellectual property rights of others.

Folks should be ashamed of what they're doing and not be given free passes.

[R3vXX]

It's an interesting debate. It's also difficult to work from the moral angle, in either direction. On one hand you do have an organization that is attempting to reduce copyright infringement by blindly suing the pants off its consumer base. On the other hand you do have many, many people downloading music without paying a penny for it. What I find most interesting about the whole situation is the grossly inflated losses that the RIAA projects. One thing I think many can agree on is that most people who download, download FAR more music than they would, or could afford to, realistically buy. This makes for a "phantom" loss, that is, profit that the music industry may have realized had downloaders paid for every song they obtained. The poor college student excuse truly only goes so far. I am an exceptional example of a poor college student, at least for this last semester, but I still find the cash to pay for the music of my favorite artists. In summation I like the way NOFX lead singer Fat Mike responded to a question about illegal music downloads:
"I'd like to think that a lot of our fans would buy the new cd to help support the band, but hey, if you don't got the dough who's gonna know." - Fat Mike

[talk2farley]

The immaturity and intellectual absenteeism implied by the vast majority of these comments astounds me. Let me explain something to you folks:

Intellectual property is property. Property is a word with economic connotations. To often we conclude that because a given product has no physical counterpart, it is not really "property," and because it can be copied an infinite number of times without the consent or resources of the creator and at little real cost to the copyer, that doing so it not "theft."

Real resources go into the creation of intellectual property. There is labor costs, production costs, marketing costs, and distrubtion costs. Even if the manufacturing costs are basically nil (a debatable point in and of itself; even distributed networks are expensive, we simply co-opt our time to them in exchange for access to shared files), the other costs are in no way offset or reduced. In order for these costs to be reouped and for a profit to be realized, the intellectual property in any form (digital or macro-stored) must be sellable in voluntary markets at agreed upon prices.

Online piracy seriously reduces the profitability and sustainability of these marketplaces. If one can aquire the same product for free in an illict, involuntary market (the creators of the IP did not volunteer to have their product given away for free by BearShare, a fact I'm sure many of you egoists failed to consider - other people have rights too), then what incentive do they have to operate in the legal, voluntary marketplace?

Lawsuits and other legal remedies provide that incentive. We can argue the merits, we cannot argue these very basic points.

[talk2farley]

And the comparisons to "the old days," and offline copying of IP onto CD's, cassettes, VHS tapes, etc simply does not apply because offline piracy (at least in the first-world countries, where most - a vast majority - of the intellectual property creation and marketing goes on) does NOT seriously reduce the viability of the legal markets. It is simply too complicated, expensive, and dangerous a form of trade for most people to consider it as an alternative to simply buying the product.

Online piracy lacks these problems - it is anonymous, cheap (considered "basically free," though there are costs in terms of resources dedicated to music piracy), simple, and basically safe. It is far more popular with consumers, and therefore far more expensive for producers.

[guitronics]

This is all a bunch of Hooey. I'm an older guy, and have bought some of the same music on 45's, Vinyl LP's,Cassette tapes, and CD's. How much of my money goes to the Musicians? Not much. "Recording Labels" sign bands, take advantage of their nievete',and shaft them.Sometimes a band will get a contract, and the "Label" will record them,and never release any music.OR - The music will go out in a very small distribution, no promotion, and the Band can't get out of their contract for years.They can't sign with any other entity to release music!

I've studied the Big Labels....they are in 99% of cases purely criminals, in what they do to musicians. They'll sell music in the USA and pay some royalties, and not include Japan and European income. They shaft everyone. Since they have Big Bucks to fund their legal army, nobody can mount an effective challenge.They are bullies, plain and simple.

It's become so bad that people are afraid of lawsuits by the RIAA.

Case in point: My Grand - Daughter lives with my wife and myself.She attends a Christian school.The school puts on a Christmas play every year.Before every performance,every year; the Principal asks "Please do not utilize any audio or Video recording devices.If you do so, we'll possibly be held liable for a Lawsuit".

This is where we are, as a society.We can't record our own Children in a Church/School Play because of > Intellectual Property Rights<.

Hogwash!

[forkboy]

Most excellent posting. Hey, I'm no fan of the music industry....it's cut-throat and feeds on the dreams of young kids looking to express themselves...and make a buck or two. But the business side of the industry is what generates the necessary revenue stream to keep the industry going. For every band that makes its label money there are probably twenty that don't. None of these readers seem to be thinking about this.

[shstrang98]

I didn't see any mention of how hidious current cd's (whether they're re-releases or current albums) sound. Part of what made cd's sound so great was the ability to hear for the first time (outside of digital tapes, analog master tapes, etc) wide dynamic range. Today producers and mastering engineers manage to crush the sound of an album to allow maximum loudness. Ironically our technology for converting analog to digital has gotten better.
Why buy recordings that are unacceptable. For that matter downloading them is a waste of time too since they sound so bad.

[forkboy]

Blame the artists for this problem. My 15 year old daughter listens to a lot of this sort of music; loudness (or more correctly, volume) means more than sonic quality and accuracy. Unfortunately 'loud' is the in thing with so much music these days.

[mikel1049]

During the late 1990s, sales of CDs for non-top 40 artists plummeted as top 40 artists continued to soar. This happened as the Clear Channel / Top 40 format was spreading like wildfire across the nation. Has the RIAA estimated the amount of money the recording industry lost due to non-top 40 artists being forced off the air waves by Britney Spears, the Backstreet Boys, and the Dixie Chicks? Does the RIAA plan any legal action against these parties? The recording industry lost $3 billion (I'm sure VERY fuzzy math was used to arrive at this generous estimate) because, like the RIAA, they refused to change their business model and made consumers their enemy. It had nothing to do with piracy.

[Shig2k1]

The RIAA basically represents a dying industry... well, to be more accurate, a dying element of a thriving industry. Records Companies are no longer the only choice of aspiring musicians and what they're unwilling to admit is, they can no longer claim to be the only means of a musician breaking the market, or getting an album out.

It seems that the record companies have fallen behind the times, if education were ever needed, it's the record company identifying their core demographics, and providing incentives for the legal purchase of digital music.

To put it bluntly, you can't sell a virtual copy of a song/album and expect the consumer to pay the same price as a CD, when they get no tangible product. The average consumer isn't going to give two short ***** about whether the music is legal or illegal when the virtual product can be percieved exactly the same thing.

So how are they going to make us buy music? Well, for a start they could stop churning out the same **** over and over again. Secondly, they could maybe offer some kind of exclusive content which can be accessed with a key received during a legal virtual purchase. Or... they could make the price of the virtual product representative of the distribution cost, 10p per track maybe?

[akamrt]

The music industry is its own worst enemy. Music in the past ten years has stagnated and the resulting "product" isn't worth the asking price. One performer looks/sounds like the next resulting in one release after another that brings no innovation or quality to the market place. Simply put, the "product" is terrible, some what attributable to the milling out of one clone after another ala "American Idol," but also to the lack of integrity in the industry.

This lack of quality results in an apathetic audience who are not interested in plunking down $15 for a disc of three or four appreciable songs slipped in amongst the rest of the blather. The consumer doesn't want anything but those few good (not great) songs, so they are resorting to methods similar to the ones used prior to iTunes and other legal downloading options - "Hey can I borrow your Dark Side of the Moon album so I can make a cassette?"

There are very few industries that go to such great lengths to control what you do with the product you purchased from them. I don't see Toro telling its customers that they can only use their snowblower if the temperature is below 32 F and then demanding that you call into the companies weather line to see if they have a temperature low enough registered for you locale - all of course for .99 cents a minute.

The RIAA and the industry do not like their consumers. For them the only issue is the bottom line dollar figure and they will do what ever they can to increase the figure at all cost.

[strongpimphand]

THIS IS THE DUMBEST STRATEGY POSSIBLE! US COLLEGE STUDENTS USUALLY PAY NEARLY THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ALREADY FROM INFLATED TUITION AND BOOK PRICES. NOW WE MIGHT FACE A LAWSUIT???

I WOULD REALLY LOVE TO KNOW WHERE THIS "FREE" MUSIC IS. SHOW ME THE WEBSITE WHERE I CAN GET RIAA APPROVED FREE MUSIC. I BET YOU THAT FREE MUSIC IS GARBAGE POLKA STUFF.

BUT OVERALL WHAT THIS DOES IS CREATE AN OVERALL DESPAIR TOWARDS THE RIAA. YEA, KEEP FOCUSING ON US, I DARE YOU TO. WHEN WE GROW UP AND REPLACE YOUR BACK SCRATCHERS YOU'LL FEEL OUR WRATH!

[Papa Chango]

>For example, we also are responsible for the Gold & Platinum program awarding artists who >have achieved successful album sales and are active proponents of free speech in music.

Being able to say S*** my d***, b**** isnt about free speech.
I saw the list, aint many crusaders and activists there.
These are the tools of the system, the marketed mediocrity that is branded and peddled like any commodity. They are grateful for the system.

Free speech invokes names of artists like Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Michael Franti, Manu Chao,etc.

[RedZoneRecords]

I run an independent record label myself, so it's obvious that I would like to see the industry (especially our niche) remain profitable. But on the other hand, the RIAA does not speak for indie labels, artists, or the general public. They speak for the majors. That's fairly obvious.

No matter what the RIAA says, they and the majors are in a battle they can't win. Too many people download from p2p services for them to be able to litigate their way out of it. The majors are going to have to update their business model. Which is why they seem to all be shifting to "360 deals" with their artists, where they take a portion of merch and tour sales, in addition to music sales.

I know that might seem a little greedy, but if most labels shift to this method of doing business, the illegal download thing wouldn't be such a big issue. I mean, the majors just want to protect their bottom line, so 360 deals can do that for them. And most artists just want as much exposure as possible for their music. P2P downloads do that for them.

I don't know. I think that would be at least part of a solution. Seems to be more of a win-win than litigating against grandmothers and college kids.

[hirokino]

Is using a P2P network to download your songs for free, illegal?

[markwww]

RIAA is nothing more than BLACK BOOTED THUGS, THEIR SALES ARE DOWN CAUSE PEOPLE HAVE WOKEN UP AND REFUSED TO BUY MUSIC, LIKE ME. AND OTHERS WHO SEE THE REAL RIAA, GREED BY CONSPIRACY AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS AS TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. ITS LIKE THE NEW COMMUNIST LAW CALLED PROPERTY SEIZURES, THEY ARE BOTH BAD IN AMERICA WHERE FREEDOMS ARE DRIPPING AWAY. THE RIAA IS SO GREEDY THEY WILL DO ANYTHING TO MAKE A BUCK.

SO I DON'T BUY OR PROMOTE THEIR MUSIC.

[mu1980]

There's a lot of chaff in these comments, from both the anti-RIAA and pro-RIAA (loosely defined) sides of the coin.. and little wheat. Why is it mostly chaff? Because it's all obvious and you all sound like (bad pun alert).. broken records. :)

*Of course* stealing or copyright infringement (pick your term) is wrong... and *of course* the RIAA's business model has long since become obsolete. Are these really matters of significant disagreement that beg a debate or argument? What's more, is that consumers *are already* voting with their wallets; they didn't need to be made aware of that idea by anyone here.

The point of my post? Simply to raise a simple and apparently not obvious point: there's no need for vehemence here, on either side. The free market will eventually resolve this situation, as it tends to do. Ultimately the consumer will win because for most people music is not a life-or-death need, simply a luxury our standard of living has allowed us to pursue. This means that the RIAA and its ilk needs consumers more than consumers need them. It is only a matter of time.

[Indiana_nate]

Cara Duckworth is a loser. Her arrogance shows through with this interview. I'm sure her mother is proud. 1.9 million for 24 songs? please. Get a life Cara Duckworth.

[Altotus]

Point the copyright is a bastard system that we the people control NOT the RIAA . Fundamental change must take place in the new digital world we don't need a legal fiction that intellectual property is chattel. Open systems ho! The copyright systems are broke the politicians broke it for a few dollars more. You rights are as nothing the truth is lies. Long past time to realize your power as voters is absolute over all republicans and democrats, all animals of the same stripe? No choice if its joker #1 and joker #2? Like who wants a damn joker anyway? Get with it then. Whats samatter with ya? Got the best information system of worldwide communication and you all get pushed around everywhere here and around the world. The Internet behemoth jokers sell you out and you eat it up yum. Maybe we need the ANTI JOKER movement eh? A worldwide movement of holding political feet to the fire of a informed and active public after all don't look now but you are loosing this already your being fed disinformation by official policy of the US government. There is no truth to find you must fix this now or be slaves forever to the lie you your children and so on. This is the lesson of history. Its past time to wake up wake up now. Oh yes the target of university students is logical $150,000 per song they will have good jobs that pay good money hit them while they are unable to afford the good legal service necessary to defend themselves ( many not understanding may allow a default judgment) and put them into a economic slavery garnishee their wages you cant duck a judgment by bankruptcy. Economic slave forever. Yes collage students you are being targeted wake up dammit.