1. How can we as the music buying public make it clear to the RIAA that we believe that artists happen to be THE crucial piece of the music puzzle? The RIAA is not fit to manage the music industry's music talent (i.e., the artists), particularly given their track record over the last decade. It's past time for a completely new paradigm of music production and distribution, without the RIAA.

Posted at 8:46PM on Dec 6th 2006 by Chip

2. The fact that we can see the "wrongness" of what the RIAA does should be the catalyst that could spell the beginning of the end for this "idea whose time has past". It will take the artist and songwriters themselves to say "enough". Hopefully, that time will come soon.

Posted at 9:19PM on Dec 6th 2006 by Joe Barnes

3. The more you look at it, the more you'll realize that the RIAA (and other **AA's of the world) are nothing beyond companies like NTP who take out vague and unsubstantiated patents, then go on to sue (perhaps "extort" is a better word) successful and profitable businesses like RIM, who actually make a useful contribution to society (and don't act like slime-sucking bottom feeders who pervert the law to their own monetary advantage at the expense of honest and good-willed entities).

The patent system is not a moral proposition. Having the same or a similar idea as someone else (which is entirely conceivable and plausible) and monetizing off of it after someone else has done the same thing is not a moral issue. This takes us back to the times when Kings granted someone the exclusive "right" to produce a specific type of product. But we don't live in a dictatorship, we live in a democracy (or, at least, we're supposed to).

Copyright is the same. It's not a moral issue. Downloading copyright songs or movies isn't "stealing". I hesitate even to call it infringement. The Internet is a general purpose technology. Just as the industry had to suck it up and change their business model for radio, cable TV, VCRs and so forth, they will need to change their business to conform to technology (peer-to-peer file sharing) or go broke and sulk in their own self-pity.

The RIAA lies to artists, lies to consumers, makes extortionate contracts, treats consumers like criminals, sues consumers who stuff it to them and decide not to be treated like criminals; and -- as proven in this article -- changes agreements and contracts to be even *more* extortionate than at the time they were initially agreed upon.

Copyright is not "artist-right", it's not "corporation-right", and it's not even "consumer-right". It's a balance. The artists have rights and the consumers have rights. Violating EITHER of those rights is considered infringement. But, when technology makes this so-called "infringement" private, quick, cheap and easy, the definition of infringement needs to change. Just as it always has.

Posted at 10:07PM on Dec 6th 2006 by epp_b

4. I think that the RIAA should say screw charging for digital media overall. As long as there are limitations to how much of it you can have a CD, DVD, or what not, we as people should have the availability to grab what we want. I had an Urge membership that charged me $15 a month so that I could download all of the music I wanted, but there was a catch. They charge $.99 per song if you wanted to either export it into an MP3 player that was compatable to read windows DRM lisencing, or to burn it to a CD, and never both. I think that these corporations that sell this music with DRM software need to realize that a lot of music artists, like myself, don't really care about giving away free music like I have done in the past to make a statement that words and sounds are free. Not something that can be purchased. Screw the whole RIAA, ever since Metallica pulled that court bull about people downloading their music for free shows that musicians are greedy. They aren't musicians, they are a bunch of low lifes that have way too much money and can't get enough. They don't have a life. They have their nice cars, a big house, and things that would cost a fortune. They didn't work hard for it, they don't deserve it. Musician like me and my band would sacrifice a house, car, and material goods, even our money, to just be able to get our message out. As long as we have enough money to keep a roof over our heads, food in our stomache, and gas in our cars, we are good. Screw paying for music. Its only words with meaning, and sounds that get stuck in our heads. Make it a freedom, not a waste of money.

Posted at 10:39PM on Dec 6th 2006 by Adam

5. The RIAA are becoming more and more redundant as more musicians distrubute their music over the web.

Posted at 10:17AM on Dec 7th 2006 by PJ Blue

6. Well, I understand the need for some sort of protection, because, despite what the artist above thinks, that art in itself is not free. Someone has to make money on it or alot of the great music we have today wouldn't have lasted past the first album. Money makes the world go round, and I personally don't like it, but that's just the way it goes. In our capitalistic, moralless society, money is accepted as the ultimate controller, the ultimate prize, where anything can be aquired at a price. This is not just America or the Middle East or the UK. Our world society has made money the ever prevolent factor of survival or defeat. Thus, I will not pull their job out from under them. They love their job, and I will not pretend as so many people do that music and all forms of art should be free. That's ignorant, no matter the case. These people want their money. RIAA, it is true that they fail without any real glory. It should be up to the companies to protect their artist's material. And, not using DRM. How to do it would most likely be a way where it's better accessed in similar ways, except in a medium where they can make money still. Companies need to embrace new technology and make new buisness models and plans and the RIAA needs to be phased out of the picture. May artists still have a job in the future that is something they love so much, and may us, the consumer, be treated with more respect, but stop being douches and give some money back for a change. $7-10 is not so hard to give for a damn CD of 12 - 13 songs...

Posted at 10:19AM on Dec 7th 2006 by Cameron

7. Well, what's starting to happen in films (the studios are more detached from the MPAA) is that the artists are given ownership. The studios know and are happy to be merely distributors and production facilities; it removes risk from the equation for them (movies, unlike albums are expensive to create). It's also better for artists, who will get more control and reap more benefit. Wall Street's been funding movie production for years, now they'll just be doing it without the studios as middleman.

In the music world, there is no soft landing for the record labels. Online distribution makes much more sense for artists, as they can keep much more money. Albums are cheap enough to record that they can pay for them themselves, and the labels don't provide studios anymore. Promotion can be done by third party, hired firms, who take a flat fee or a cut.

I would be surprised if you didn't see the entertainment conglomerates who owned labels start to sell them off to people who don't understand the business.

Posted at 10:35AM on Dec 7th 2006 by Dan

8. I hate the RIAA.

It feels so good,just saying it.

Posted at 12:36PM on Dec 7th 2006 by Eric Splomp

9. Adam, well said! Sometimes I wonder what someone living a few hundred years ago would have thought of actually paying for music. They'd probably laugh it off and call me mentally unstable for thinking that one could actually "own" and charge money for ideas and concepts.

The portable content on cassettes, CDs, moving about on P2P networks; is merely advertising. It's advertising for live shows.


["$7-10 is not so hard to give for a **** CD of 12 - 13 songs"]

When the RIAA takes such an extortionate chunk of it and gives a tiny minority of the price to the artist. Like I said, what kind of concept have we been fooled into believing that we are actually paying for a compilation of ideas?

The RIAA is an extortionate advertising firm. That's it. Nothing more.

P2P is a free advertising medium, because piracy isn't artists' biggest problem. Their biggest problem is obscurity, and "piracy" helps rid obscurity. The RIAA is up-in-arms because P2P is merely a competitive medium.


["Promotion can be done by third party, hired firms, who take a flat fee or a cut."]

In addition, hiring a firm for promotion isn't always even necessary, especially when your fans are doing your advertising for you!

Posted at 12:37PM on Dec 7th 2006 by epp_b

10. If the RIAA is as bad as TDMW says it is, wouldn't it be appropriate to stop promoting artists signed to its member labels? The Grates, for example, covered recently at this blog, are signed to RIAA member Interscope Records, which is owned by the Doug Morris-led Universal Music Group.

There's the rub. People hate the RIAA but buy its artists anyway.

Posted at 12:49PM on Dec 7th 2006 by Glenn

11. It's no crime to steal from a thief.

Posted at 12:56PM on Dec 7th 2006 by Fake Name

12. @HiFi

Maybe you should look at the definition of theft :

the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

This is from dictionary.com.

Downloading doesn't carry away anything. The file that was there is still there, you have a copy. That's why it's call "copyright infringement" and not theft. That's also why you don't see the RIAA having people arrested. The RIAA sues them in civil court, not criminal court. Mainly because they don't have enough evidence for a criminal case.

Posted at 1:11PM on Dec 7th 2006 by PirateBoy

13. I agree with Dan here, there will soon be a change that the record labels and RIAA don't like. More and more artists are bypassing the old traditional routes of music distribution.
When you read stories, like Billy Joel's about how the record labels completely hosed artists that were/are uneducated about all the technicalities and are just so hungry and desperate to get their work out you realize that the labels are just leeches and middlemen.
With technology being what it is today there is simply no reason to go that route, you can rent a studio, pay a production company, and sell the albums yourself. I know I am leaving out teh part where record labels PAY radio stations to be sure we KNOW that "this is the hot new single you are supposed to like and want to go buy!". So it is more difficult to be independant but also more profitable and liberating.

Conversely I don't mind paying a reasonable price for good music I like. I recently used Sony's "Connect" service and went through and picked out specific songs off numerous albums I wanted and paid for them. Admitedly this was mainly because the albums were older or obscure so they were imposible to get via "underground" routes.

Posted at 1:14PM on Dec 7th 2006 by Jason

14. Pirate boy, they sue in civil court because it's a civil crime - like witholding services from someone who's paid for them, for example - rather than a criminal one. It's still illegal.

For those of you making the comments about "owning music being ridiculous", etc. - do you really understand what copyright IS? Maybe you should read up a bit. Just don't download the book. ;)

Regardless, the RIAA (and Disney, with their mega-bucks political campaign to keep The Mouse from going public domain) have ruined this entire subject. Forever, probably.

Posted at 2:22PM on Dec 7th 2006 by eaeolian

15. With inflation rising, the artists should without a doubt make less money. All kidding aside, another story of greed and th rich getting richer. *sigh*

Posted at 2:23PM on Dec 7th 2006 by Chester

16. Pirate boy, they sue in civil court because it's a civil crime - like witholding services from someone who's paid for them, for example - rather than a criminal one. It's still illegal.

For those of you making the comments about "owning music being ridiculous", etc. - do you really understand what copyright IS? Maybe you should read up a bit. Just don't download the book. ;)

Regardless, the RIAA (and Disney, with their mega-bucks political campaign to keep The Mouse from going public domain) have ruined this entire subject. Forever, probably.

Posted at 2:24PM on Dec 7th 2006 by eaeolian

17. ["lets face it.. it is stealing. if you are enjoying the music by downloading a pirated version, it's stealing. I challenge someone to explain how it’s not."]

I'll accept your challenge...

Copyright is not a moral issue. It's a utilitarian proposition made by us humans MERELY AS AN INCENTIVE to artists to keep on making art. Stealing is a moral issue.

Stealing involves actually depriving someone of a physical 'thing'. If I take a CD from you that you've already ripped to your PC's hard drive, I've stolen only the 10 cent disc that you own. I haven't stolen your music.

If I download a song from an artist who sells his/her music on CDs, it's not stealing, it's using technology that has superseded an old business model. Just as did radio, cable TV, the VCR, and so on and so forth.


Let's say you're in the business of selling widgets. You make and sell widgets profitably for a few years when, all of a sudden, someone invents a tool that can quickly, cheaply, easily and instantly make an exact copy of your widget. Predictably, someone who has bought one of your widgets is going to acquire this new tool so that they can make an endless number of widgets for himself, and then start making copies them to give to him friends and family. Then, those friends and family members will acquire the tool and make copies for themselves and for *their( friends and families...and so the widgets begin to proliferate exponentially.

Now, if you're short-sited and naive, you're going to be furious that this disruptively-innovative technology has trampled all over your business model. So, you demand to the government that make a law so that if you put a "note" on your widget that says you can't copy it, it would be illegal to do.

This is exactly what the content industry has tried to do. But, how arrogant and self-serving does someone have to be to think that they have the right to demand that the government put a halt to a societal force like P2P just so they can prop up their nickel-and-dime racket?

The fact is that they need to change their business model to confirm to and work with new technology, or start cleaning toilets for a living.

Most art is not about selling art. It's about selling the artist. Recordings are merely advertising for the real thing: yourself, the artist. If you're an artist, you need to focus on selling yourself for fans to attend your concerts, to perform at events or appear in a movie, for a few examples.

As for artists signing with the RIAA, that's their own fault. They're entering into a business for themselves, and just like anyone one else doing the same thing for a different business, the success of that business is reflected on the choices the business person has made. Choosing to sign with the RIAA, as I think most of us can agree, is a poor business choice, and that's your own choice and fault as a music artist.

Posted at 2:33PM on Dec 7th 2006 by epp_b

18. ["Pirate boy, they sue in civil court because it's a civil crime - like witholding services from someone who's paid for them, for example - rather than a criminal one. It's still illegal."]

Yes, RIAA's petty suits are civil cases. I think the severity and category of the crime ("civil" or "criminal") depends on the act. Filming a movie in a cinema is a criminal offense, IIRC (and, disgustingly, carries a heavier jail sentence than does possession of child pornography...yup, gotta love this legal system).


["For those of you making the comments about "owning music being ridiculous", etc. - do you really understand what copyright IS?"]

Do YOU? Do you think it's so that someone can make money? If so, you're wrong. The money is designed merely as an incentive for artists to keep on making useful art. To keep enough of the dangling carrot in front of their nose so that they have to keep on working in their field of business -- just like any other business has to. There is nothing about the current copyright system extending rights to someone's entire lifetime AND THEN some that behaves as an incentive. That's just nickel-and-diming.

Posted at 2:38PM on Dec 7th 2006 by epp_b

19. support independant musicians! we refused to bow down and kiss the RIAA's feet, as a result we've got to fund and run our own project...making it harder to reach fans (little or no advertising money) and harder to get recordings finished (again, money).

we, and thousands of other independant musicians like us, need your support.

Posted at 2:40PM on Dec 7th 2006 by downneck

20. ["support independant musicians! we refused to bow down and kiss the RIAA's feet, as a result we've got to fund and run our own project...making it harder to reach fans (little or no advertising money) and harder to get recordings finished (again, money).

we, and thousands of other independant musicians like us, need your support."]

OK. Just change your MySpace page so that it renders in less than 20 minutes ;)

Posted at 2:59PM on Dec 7th 2006 by epp_b