why RIAA is so bad??

[NullDevice]

hellooo friends,

we all know piracy is illegal be it online or offline. Trying is putting efforts to stop piracy and fine the ones who do it.

but anyhow everyone seems to be saying same thing RIAA is bad. I am an india...not a US citizen...so dont know much abt US laws. I am asked to prepare some info regarding RIAA. I am collecting points on why RIAA is so bad? Where it lacks in its efforts to stop online piracy? what are your views to improve it?

hope to find many answers.

[catch]

the RIAA is bad because it allows record lables to take such advantage of their artists. Most artists make virtually nothing off of CD sales and everything off of concerts and endorsements.

Online music sharing gives established artists even greater exposure and gives aspiring artists more even footing and will eventually lead to greater diversity of popular music since it will not be filtered through the RIAA channels but will all have grass roots.

Does this mean the RIAA is dead? No of course not, it simple means that they are going to need to get with the times and find ways to take advantage of the internet rather than attempting to fight it. All copy protection schemes are flawed and can be broken in a matter of minutes yet they continue to waste time here.

I however have several questions:

Music sharers... downloading copywritten music is legal, sharing it is not... so why in god's name do you claim to be sharing it when you are sued? Just say that it is for your personal use and you are too stupid to secure it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of computers is one, otherwise there would be no hacking laws. (since the hacker can never say they were entrapped or whatever)

Music sharers, if you don't like that approach, why are you not falling back on your rights to transfer copywritten material via telecommunications lines? This law was established back in the 70's as i recall when silly people were doing things like copywriting the sounds of all possible 7 digit combonations on the new pulse dialing systems as songs and where some copywritten protocols were being used between servers and unlicensed clients. It was not intended to protect things like mp3, but that is why we have the "letter of the law." to keep lawyers in demand.

Used CD stores, not only have the same effect on new CD sales as online music piracy does, but they are actually making money off of it! Why is this ok?

Bleh, the whole music industry is due for a change, the MPAA soon to follow and I hope they realize soon that the more resistant they are, they more money they will lose in the transition.

catch

[Maverick811]

Originally posted here by NullDevice
hellooo friends,

we all know piracy is illegal be it online or offline. Trying is putting efforts to stop piracy and fine the ones who do it.

but anyhow everyone seems to be saying same thing RIAA is bad. I am an india...not a US citizen...so dont know much abt US laws. I am asked to prepare some info regarding RIAA. I am collecting points on why RIAA is so bad? Where it lacks in its efforts to stop online piracy? what are your views to improve it?

hope to find many answers.

Methinks this could open up a can worms...

I'm kinda just sitting back and watching how all of this plays out, so I don't have too much of an opinion on the matter. But if you want to see some info about the RIAA being 'bad', you may want to check these sites:

http://www.boycott-riaa.com
http://www.dontbuycds.org

You may find some info there that will give you a better understanding of the people who are against the RIAA - their views, thoughts, etc.

[NullDevice]

well buddy i have alread been to these sites...and these sites (as it appears to me) doeasnt have too strong points in their favour..( i am kinda unaware of worm thing with RIAA)

[VicC]

Another reason that there seem to be so many people opposed to the RIAA is that they are using the P2P services as a scapegoat. There are many other reasons that they are seeing a decline in revenue aside from music sharing, which, while not the best thing that ever happened to them, is probably not nearly as bad as they are making it out to be, and does have positive benefits for the musicians as stated above

Here's one reason:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/28588.html

There is also the fact that in terms of piracy, the average kazaa user is not the real problem, but rather the bootleg CD dealers across the world selling cheap CDs which they don't see a single penny of. These vendors make a living doing this. The average Kazaa user is downloading the song for personal use and that's it. www.arstechnica.com had a link to the story with some actual figures but I couldn't find it.

They are also suing their own customers, which doesn't really make people happy.

It seems obvious to many people that music distribution in the future (and other media as well) will be done through downloading the content, but instead of concentrating on changing their business model to adapt, they are using their resources to try to hang on to their outdated distribution methods by any means possible.

Lastly I would say that many people really like getting free music, and even though it's wrong it's not seen as "wrong enough" by the general populace to warrant the kind of actions the RIAA is taking. Alot of people think of it as speeding, or picking from the salad bar in the grocery store. I download music, but I don't really share any, which is what the RIAA is going after. So I'm really not too worried about them.

[RoadClosed]

There are about half a dozen RIAA threads here and you will find some very good discussions on both sides of the fence. In a nutshell, this is why I don't like the RIAA. I know you have a very objective viewpoint because you live in India and you are not a part of the culture that is intimidated directly by the organization.

Here goes: My "personal" take (without my usual dissertation, I hope):

The RIAA represents major recording artists in the US. They are an organization for them much like the NRA is for gun enthusiasts, IBA is for Bankers, AARP is for retired U.S. people, and on and on. Major focus groups are incorporated into our society to promote their own particular cause, both with public opinion and political and economic goals. That is a good thing.

The RIAA feels threatened by seriously declining music sales. They believe that online file distribution via MP3 and CD images are the root cause of this decline in the industry. I can see their point of view. If I was a business man and I saw a projected continued loss of capital then I too would be very concerned. Even if my company or organization was still making a profit, declining revenue would still be a concern.

The problem for me is, I don't see the RIAA representing artists in a true artistic form. I see them as an established greedy organization the will bully and intimidate its OWN customers into buying their music. There really isn't an argument in defense of copying music that you do not own. I can say I wish to sample a song before downloading, but you can already do that. Sure it's not the same quality but you can do it. I could also argue that I don't want the whole album because the industry wants to milk a CD for all it's worth and save up good hits and spread them across multiple album releases that are mostly crap. But you can also buy just a single song from many sources. Then I could argue that I can record it off the radio and that's OK. Well sure, but it doesn't sound as good and you have to set there and wait for a particular song to come on. But you can just record the entire programming of a radio or satellite station and get the music anyway. The real issue with a radio argument is, the RIAA and artists ARE getting compensated for that already. So it's really about money. The RIAA isn't being compensated properly for their efforts at promoting artists and taking a risk on artist who do not make CD sales to recover the investment.

SO, in retaliation the RIAA has waged a war on its own supporters. Even one’s who don’t download! And a nasty one at that. In their pursuit of fairness and compensation they have threatened any means possible to shut down peer to peer networking. I see the downside to peer to peer, and again I can see the RIAA's position. But to "fix" this problem the RIAA seeks to invade the privacy laws and culture that Americans hold dear. Coming from India that may seem ludicrous; You may not have the capacity to believe things could be held "secret" from the state (government). I don't believe that is your case, just a general statement between to very different cultures.

It is the attack on those principles that I hold in contempt. Contempt to the RIAA for threatening its own customers and spending millions if not tens or hundreds of millions on legal fees to systematically seek out and attack those who will not adhere to their threats. Many of these are children whom I believe would not buy the music anyway. In addition the RIAA has asked for and threatened the use of virus and worm programs to release on Kazza and P2P networks that could seek out and destroy pirated music. On top of all that the are bullying and threatening 3rd party internet service providers with threats and repercussions to those companies which will not hand over names of individuals sharing files.

All arguments aside for or against piracy: the RIAA and recording artist that support their efforts are attacking some of the fabric that holds our society together. And they don't care about the repercussions or precedence they set for future rights a corporate entity may have to violate our society. They are blinded by bottom line dollar amounts and growth figures.

Do a search on RIAA here at AO, there are hundreds of postings.

Hmm somoene a while back posted an "Artists" point of view of the RIAA from a recording artist. I can't find it now but hopefully they will repost it for a different perspective.

[Lansing_Banda]

The sad thing about the music industry these days is that they don't care about music...all they care about is money. Just take a look at all the "Musicians" that have come out after 2000. All they do is recycle the crap that everyone likes because they tell them to like it and give it back to them for 20$ a cd.

The reason that the RIAA does't try and sell their music online is becuase they won't make as much money. Many people who buy cds today but them for the current single that is playing on the radio. If they put the songs online, then instead of making $17.99 from someone, they will only make $1.

But who wants to buy a $20 cd that has nothing special about it? Another idea, if they are going to charge $20 for a cd, put something good in it that you can't get online: a cool book insert, a DVD, something.

Before I end, I have a little story to wrap things up.

Tony Braxton, a female singer who you should all know, is multi-platinum musician. When whe first went platinum, she was instantly bankrput. HOW? Becuase the record lable that she was signed with was giving her less than a penny for every cd sold.

The whole music industry needs a few kicks in the ass, some new ideas, and THEY NEED TO STOP THINKING ABOUT MONEY! That isn't what art is about.

[roketman441]

The RIAA tracks so many of us that it is hard to coutn and it is quite annoying i got kicked off of kazza the other day because those rat *%#@&^$ messed with my connection

[Abtronic]

.. got kicked off of kazza the other day because those rat *%#@&^$ messed with my connection

Not only highly doubtful, this falls under the catagory 'illegal'. I know the RIAA is bad, but dont blame *everything* on them. I mean, its not _their_ fault that world hunger is a massive problem...

well, dont quote me on that..

[cerebus21]

David Draiman, lead singer for Disturbed, had some very direct things to say about the RIAA himself in an interview that was posted to Launch this month:
("This is not rocket science--instead of spending all this money litigating against kids who are the people they're trying to sell things to in the first place, they have to learn how to effectively use the Internet." Draiman asserts that the actions taken by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) are protecting corporate profits, not artists: "For the artists, my ass...I didn't ask them to protect me, and I don't want their protection." )
Kinda says it all I think...

http://launch.yahoo.com/read/news.asp?contentID=214602