This story is archived

Congratulations to the RIAA legal team »

Posted by: Grant 3 years ago

Archived 42

A note of congratulations to the RIAA legal team, who've managed to redefine evil for the 21st century.

Read Full Story at digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com »

Submitted By:

Grant

Writer, comic, fair use zealot, blogger, radio personality, and music fan. Grant is a constant thorn in the side of convention. Currently living on the ...

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 27

Avg rating: (+5/-0 5)
sakana
Dec. 10, 2006, 7:19 p.m.
Good stuff, Grant! Worth putting on TDMW, too?
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
Neophile
Dec. 10, 2006, 10:42 p.m.
Well said, indeed!
Avg rating: (+0/-1 -1)
Sandmn
Dec. 11, 2006, 7:10 a.m.
The FCC and our lawmakers, have certainly written their own self serving laws. How can any information or broadcast over open airwaves, ever be protected by copywrite laws. Is a radio then a tool for copywrite infringement? They rebroadcast open airwaves to be heard by millions. Standard operating procedures for a bought legislative body and greedy corporations with no other means to earn money than to steal or blackmail it from listeners.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
1-2-Oscar
Dec. 11, 2006, 10:03 a.m.
Too many people want something for nothing. Broadcasting original material over the airwaves, posting it on the internet, or blazing it across the skies themselves does not mean that everyone has the right to take it, reproduce it, modify it, or otherwise appropriate it for their own purposes.
If you find that someone has created something worthwhile, why shouldn't you pay them for the pleasure or knowledge it gives you?

4 Replies
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  SevenHundredV14
  Dec. 11, 2006, 12:11 p.m.
  It's not the artist that is the issue here Oscar. It's the RIAA.
  
  3 Replies
  - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
    1-2-Oscar
    Dec. 11, 2006, 1:09 p.m.
    In this controversy, the RIAA represents the artists and distributors who should rightfully be paid. The critics of the RIAA claim some divine right to freeload.
    
    1 Reply
    - Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
      Grant
      Dec. 12, 2006, 12:22 a.m.
      >In this controversy, the RIAA represents the artists
      >and distributors who should rightfully be paid. The
      >critics of the RIAA claim some divine right to freeload.
      Actually, the RIAA doesn't represent artists, they represent the record labels. The labels have little or no interest in protecting the rights of individual artists, and are cheifly concerned with protecting the status quo.. That status quo being a system that is designed inherently to keep artists powerless, while giving the record label maximum advantage.
  - Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
    redLineRunner
    Dec. 11, 2006, 1:16 p.m.
    Its the industry that is the issue here - the artists, the RIAA, and the people who think that its justified to steal through file sharing.
    I agree with 1-2-Oscar. Most people these days seem to think they have some kind of a "right" to download music, and they justify it with all kinds of lame excuses - "Im sticking it to the RIAA", "Its out on the net, so it must be free", "they play it on the radio, so it must be free", "I bought a cd, so that means I can copy it and distribute it as often as I want, because its mine." No justification Ive heard makes it ok to steal, even if you are stealing from a corrupt organization.
    If such rampant stealing wasnt happening, the RIAA wouldnt be making such extreme measures to try to "protect what is theirs". That isnt to say they still wouldnt be screwing the artists, they would.
    The whole structure of the industry needs to be revamped, but that will only happen if the artists rebel.
Avg rating: (+12/-0 12)
toph1973
Dec. 11, 2006, 11:26 a.m.
I don't have a problem with the RIAA per se, but the artists that make the music. I don't think that it's fair to the consumer to put out a substandard album, with a decent tune or two and make the conumer pay 12 to 20 bucks for it. This is why Itunes and others are a great idea.

1 Reply
- Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
  1-2-Oscar
  Dec. 11, 2006, 1:13 p.m.
  Those are the albums you shouldn't buy. Frankly, I feel that there are many "artists" out there who should be looking for a new career, but they manage to survive because the public (you) does not insist on consistent quality.
  Of course, there's more to it than that. I can understand, for example, why Britney Spears videos sell. But why would anyone pay good money to LISTEN to her?
Avg rating: (+15/-0 15)
Grant
Dec. 11, 2006, 1:32 p.m.
Oscar, you're just missing the point. The defendant in question is completely computer illiterate, didn't know about or understand filesharing and was sued by the RIAA. Despite her explanation to the RIAA that she a: isn't a P2P user, and b: that her health problems made a lawsuit a matter of jeporady for her well-being, the RIAA persisted anyway. What they are doing is akin to extortion and, if you actually _Watch_ the video, I explain that the RIAA lawyers _lied_ to the judge, asserting that AOL certified that her account had been used for file sharing, a claim which is totally unsubstantiated (and can be proven false, now that the RIAA's filing is a matter of public record)
Do you have a right to defend your industry from piracy or theft? Of course. Do you have the right to jepordize the health of an innocent woman in the course of that battle? No. Do you have the right to lie in a court of law to protect your industry? No.

4 Replies
- Avg rating: (+15/-0 15)
  Grant
  Dec. 11, 2006, 1:33 p.m.
  Unfortunately, far too often the RIAA does distort the facts, knowing that the defendants are poorly funded and can't afford to have a lawyer do the necessary work to refute the RIAA's claims. The RIAA have sued over 20,000 families in the United States, with an average cost of defense running well over $25,000 and the average cost of settlement being $4,000.
- Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
  1-2-Oscar
  Dec. 11, 2006, 4:44 p.m.
  If the RIAA's claim "can be proven false," as you claim, then the defendant will surely win. Then she can countersue for malicious prosecution and get a bundle. However, if that is not the case, then she loses.
  Why don't you start a fund to help her with her legal expenses. There certainly seem to be enough larcenous internet users out there who want the court to give them a license to steal.
  
  2 Replies
  - Avg rating: (+13/-0 13)
    Grant
    Dec. 11, 2006, 6:23 p.m.
    You've obviously not been following these lawsuits. Seriously, read up.. it's not that simple. And furthermore, there is no such thing as suing for "malicious prosecution". In fact, those that have won against the RIAA (far from receiving "a bundle") are quite lucky to even recover the legal fees spent in their defense.
    It would be nice if the justice system worked in the way you appear to believe (and I think many people are under the false assumption that civil court is fair) but, the simple fact is the amount of money involved in mounting a defense gives the RIAA a clear advantage, time and time again.
    
    1 Reply
    - Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
      1-2-Oscar
      Dec. 12, 2006, 5:54 a.m.
      It is indeed possible to sue those who maliciously prosecute and harass you. Perhaps it is you who should "read up."
      The RIAA has legal costs equal to (and perhaps exceeding) those they accuse of pirating recordings. The excessive costs of pursuing justice through the courts is not the fault of the RIAA--they must work within the same system as everyone else. And the high court costs impart no virtue to the poor.
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
BuffaloJ
Dec. 11, 2006, 2:13 p.m.
Most of you are right in the fact that redistributing the material is illegal and all that.
My problem is this:
Mp3's cost $1. I will not pay $1 for an mp3. I will pay 50 cents and that's it. At a dollar a song, I would pay more for the whole CD that I would buying it in the store - where I would get a nice printed CD and jewel case and insert.
Some of you may counter with the whole - I won't buy the whole CD because most of it sux thing - so it ends up being cheaper even at $1 per song. That's the music industry's fault, not mine. They should contract artists with enough talent to make an entire CD that's good.
Avg rating: (+17/-1 16)
thalazy
Dec. 11, 2006, 2:14 p.m.
I see nothing wrong with downloading a single for free, if I can hear it on the radio for free, watch the video on MTV2 for free then I should sure as hell be able to download the song for free. The whole cd is another story, but with cd's being overpriced and re-released every 6 months they sure don't make it an incentive to buy an album.

1 Reply
- Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)
  random1734
  Dec. 11, 2006, 2:27 p.m.
  thalazy,
  The point you are missing here is that when it is sent over the radio the station pays for it so you will listen to their advertising. When it is played by mtv2 the telivision station is paying for you to see it so you will watch their advertising.
  It isn't free. You payed for it by watching the ads that you had to see between the preformances. When you take the download for free the owners of the song get nothing in return, where before they were being paid by the advertising being done thru the tv and radio. If someone came to your house and took your shoes away you wouldn't be happy about that, even if they said they got free shoes elsewhere. (its a stupid example but you get the intent of what I mean)
  Hope this clears up a little of the controversy
Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)
thalazy
Dec. 11, 2006, 2:48 p.m.
Maybe I am wrong but the single and videos are given to radio and music stations for free, they pay nothing, yes there are some record companies that paid station to play their music, but it is not something that is suppose to be done. The artist gives it away as promotion for their cd, the radio and video stations don't pay for it. Now I am not saying anything to support my claim about singles should be free or anything, just wanted to point that out.

3 Replies
- Avg rating: (+13/-0 13)
  redLineRunner
  Dec. 11, 2006, 3:43 p.m.
  You are wrong, its called royalties. Every time a radio station plays the song, they pay for it. Every time a video is played, they pay for it. Its not free!
  A while back, Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney had a bidding war over the rights to the Beatles Catalog (meaning every song they created). MJ ended up paying Millions to beat McCartney and win the rights. Why? Not because he loved the songs, but because they were still worth Billions! Every time a Beatles song gets played on the radio, MJ makes money. Every time its used in a commercial, he makes money. And every time another artist covers the song, he makes money.
  Distributing songs on p2p networks guarantees that no one makes money from the song, and that is why its stealing. The artists dont, the record companies dont, the owner of the rights dont.
- Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
  UrbanLegends101
  Dec. 11, 2006, 4:04 p.m.
  Yes, many songs and videos are sent out as promotion copies to stations, however, unless the station has paid for the broadcast rights to the music, they may not play it.
  The three primary music licensing groups in the US are ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. Broadcast operations that run music will generally have agreements with all three, in order to play music. Non-musical programming, such as all news and all talk show operations, generally do not have blanket music licenses, but they can purchase the rights for specific songs, such as a song for a theme music or other special use.
  I remember years ago having to keep BMI logs, where we had to list every song played during BMI week. Today, the music licensing organizations have far more sophisticated ways of determing air play.
  
  1 Reply
  - Avg rating: (+10/-0 10)
    random1734
    Dec. 11, 2006, 6:17 p.m.
    It's the same thing with old tv shows. The actor may not have been acting in years but is still getting royalties because the old showes are on the cable and still being shown.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Dsb2k6
Dec. 11, 2006, 5:27 p.m.
This is the problem with file sharing. The cost of producing music these days is ridiculous. Most decent studios charge $1200 a block which is not including an engineer. A block is only 8 hours. By the time a record is even recorded by an artist the artist has spent money. Imagine spending 50 days in a studio and spending $50,000 to record an album with the intent of some sort of return on your money and then seeing your hard work available on the internet for free. Keep in mind I havent even gotten into all the promotion and cost of printing cd's not to mention all the other people who have to get paid for work and others who you have to clear samples through. When you hear a record you are hearing the work of many many people. You arent just taking money out of Jay-Z's pocket by downloading his album. There are alot of people involved. All of them dont make 5 million a year.

1 Reply
- Avg rating: (+3/-0 3)
  Dsb2k6
  Dec. 11, 2006, 5:31 p.m.
  File sharing has ruined music in a sense. The anticipation of an album being released has been replaced by bootleggers who will sell you next years material at a fraction of the price. This results in artists having to release more albums to account for dwindling sales, which leads to lower quality work.
Avg rating: (+2/-0 2)
anarchy
Dec. 11, 2006, 6:20 p.m.

The music industry did it to themselves. $18.00 Cd's, what a rip-off.
Then when people began to download more music, they lowered the prices. $8.00 a Cd should be about right.

1 Reply
- Avg rating: (+11/-0 11)
  redLineRunner
  Dec. 14, 2006, 6:52 p.m.
  It wasnt the cost that made file sharing popular, that is an excuse. Its getting something for free. If it were the cost, then why arent people using the $1 per song sites, or the subscription sites that are cheap?
  People think they deserve something for free. They see the artists on MTV, with 23 room houses, 5 cars, and a pool that could support a grey whale, and think "They dont need my money".
  And, from what I have read, the artist gets like 10% of the album cost. So instead of getting $1.80, they should get $0.18 per album? The artists make very little on the album sales. They make most of it by touring.
Avg rating: (+1/-0 1)
anarchy
Dec. 11, 2006, 7:09 p.m.

The same with theaters. Too much money. Very few good movies worth paying the kind of money they want.