Riaa - Get a Life - VideoHelp Forum

12th Jul 2004 08:47 #1

Banned

I ran across this earlier. It is interesting reading.

RIAA: You need to get a life!
Posted by on July 11, 2004 at 6:21 PM (printer friendly)

http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2004/07/10/entertainment/columnists/rewind/ginn.txt

The iPod people must make their stand against the recording industry

The following is a message to the Recording Industry Association of America, more commonly known as the RIAA: If I can't put it on my iPod, you've got nothing I want.

Wow, is that a simple concept, or what? That's right RIAA, if I can't put it on my iPod, it ain't happening, my friend. The CD is as dead as Marley's Ghost, get over it. The digital age is here; come on in, the water's fine.

It's been awhile since I've written about the RIAA. A year and a couple of months at least. In late April of 2003, I wrote about the launching of Apple's iTunes Music Store, in which I predicted the emergence of a whole new distribution model for the music industry. For years, the model had been in place to a certain degree: a large portion of music distribution had been turned into digital files being traded on peer to peer networks online. What was missing was the exchange of money in the transaction, a way for artists to get paid for the work they produce, and a way for them to protect, to the extent that it is possible, their ownership of their work.

Apple's iTunes store seemed to be the answer to many of these issues. The digital files it sold had digital rights protections included for artists, but they were also loosely structured enough that most "fair use" consumer issues would also be protected. It also gave consumers more control in that, with rare exceptions, they were allowed to download and pay for only the tracks that they wanted. No more having to buy a whole CD just to listen to one cut from the disc.

By just about any measure, the ITMS has truly been a revolutionary success. Its introduction spawned many imitators, but ITMS remains the market leader. Albums have debuted on ITMS, as well as exclusive bonus tracks. By April of 2004, in its first year, the store had moved 75 million songs; and with the recent addition of markets in Great Britain, France and Germany, the tally is closing in on 100 million songs.

But (you knew there was a but coming; there's always a "but" lurking around the corner in any discussion of the RIAA) the picture is not as rosy as I had hoped it would be. In my 2003 article, I foolishly declared that the RIAA's war against consumer trends was over. To a point I think that is still correct; it is hard to remember now what a sea change ITMS was. The RIAA had been fighting such a model to the bitter end.

But my idea that the RIAA was done fighting? Well, as Fonzie famously said in that Happy Days episode, "I was ... I was ... I was wrrrrrrrrrrrrr ..."

If anything, in the months following the opening of ITMS, the RIAA stepped up the battle even more, taking file traders to court, suing little kids in an appalling attempt to terrorize other little kids. Bullies, cowards!

Continuing their weird and unsupportable assertion that each and every downloaded file was a lost sale, they claimed that the kids (many of the kids having no money to spend) were costing them billions in lost profits. This despite plenty of counter evidence, some from the artists themselves, that file sharing actually increased sales by allowing fans to discover music they might otherwise have never heard.

The RIAA can crunch numbers all they want from now until Britney Spears records a tribute album to Paul Robeson, but they will never be able to produce a "lost revenue" number that actually makes sense. It's a waste of time, a downloaded file is not a lost sale, and can't be tallied as such. There are way too many variables left out of the equation: downloaded files that led to the listener to search out the CD and purchase it being the most obvious one, followed by downloaded files that the listener thought were so bad that they cleared it from their hard drive with all due speed. There are, no doubt, that portion of downloaders who have no intention ever of buying any music. Still, the "lost sale" scenario-building has so many logical fallacies built-in that it is literally pointless; and yet it seems to be the RIAA's overwhelming obsession. Surely it would be better to address the things that can be known?

Tops on that list is the one fact that consumers have consistently told the RIAA: CDs cost too much. They cost way too much. The price of CDs is the number one cause of any supposed "lost sales," and yet it is the one area that the RIAA refuses to address, preferring to obsess over non-numbers rather than genuine real-world numbers.

So what's all this have to do with your iPod, you ask? Thanks for asking and getting me back on track. Senate Bill S.2560 is what it's about, "A bill to amend chapter 5 of title 17, United States Code, relating to inducement of copyright infringement, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary." Recently, Senator Orrin Hatch took the floor to introduce proposed changes that would make certain technology, software and hardware manufacturers liable for prosecution for the behavior of some of the people using their technology.

The theory here is that these companies are "inducing" children to break the law, thus causing irreparable harm to children. This is not satire on my part, this is the language Hatch uses again and again. He compares the technology companies to "Fagins" and the children as hapless little Oliver Twists, forced to do the bidding of the techies. "Honest, Guv'nah! ‘Twas he who made me do it. I'm just a poor ‘armless little urchin, I am."

You can read Hatch beating the metaphor yourself at http://thomas.loc.gov. Search S.2560 and follow a couple of links, and you'll find it. I'd print the actual link, but it's way too long. Suffice it to say that you always know someone's on their last desperate argument when they roll out the old weepy "Who will think of the children?" routine.

This is not to say that the bill can't do harm. In spite of Hatch's and the other bill sponsors' assertions to the contrary, the description of what exactly constitutes "inducement" does seem rather broad to my non-attorney eyes. It is easy to see where, given this law, the RIAA could use it as a weapon in court to sue pretty much whomever they wanted. Is Apple, with its iPod, inducing children to steal music? Let's take it to court to find out! Many articles have speculated that Apple could be forced to stop making the iPod.

As I said at the start, RIAA, and you really need to hear this, because this is not just me talking, if I can't put it on my iPod, then you've got nothing I want. If you are that worried about "the children (sob)" then quit suing children in court. This fantasy you have that you will maintain total control of music is delusional and harmful and not even in your best interest; nurture and build the market you have while there is still time!

And as to all the little Oliver Twists out there, I don't want to induce you to anything — stealing music is bad — however, given no other choice, by legislation that continues relentlessly to constrict your options, you need to fight like hell, fight ferociously like spitting-mad cornered wolverines, against corporate bodies like the RIAA who see you as nothing but soulless obeying consumerbots, and would have you defined as such in the law of the land.

Fight them, fight them!