The RIAA speaks--and it gets worse

CNET ^ | 1/14/2008 | Don Reisinger

[Red in Blue PA]

The RIAA has quickly become one of the most disliked organizations in the world. Working ostensibly with the interests of the artists in mind, the organization has single-handedly instituted a policy of lawsuits and education in an attempt to curb the piracy of music.

Although this has been going on for quite some time now, I recently read a press release from the organization outlining its successes and what 2008 will look like for its College Deterrence program.

The press release tells us that the RIAA (on behalf of the music industry) has sent out "a new wave of 407 pre-litigation settlement letters to 18 universities nationwide as part of an ongoing campaign against online music theft. The letters reflect evidence of significant abuse of campus computer networks for the purpose of copyright infringement."

Once those students receive the pre-litigation settlement letters, they have the opportunity to surf over to the P2P Lawsuits Web page to settle with the RIAA before a court battle ensues.

Of course, the story doesn't quite end there.

To get a feeling for why the RIAA has implemented this strategy and has seemingly ignored the piracy cartels all over the world, choosing the soft target instead, I got in touch with the organization and asked a representative 10 questions to clear the air. This transcript will be made available tomorrow on The Digital Home.

Unfortunately, the answers given proved even more damning to an organization that is already sitting on a powder keg.

[Red in Blue PA]

Nice guys they are not:

http://riaa.com/newsitem.php?news_year_filter=&resultpage=&id=36720A8F-FF55-2886-C2A2-EAB629C662BD

[Anti-Bubba182]

With these people, all the strikes, and the skanky behavior of some entertainers it will be a wonder if the entertainment industry survives.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

How “nice” are the guys engaged in massive theft of intellectual property rights?

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Ping

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Here we go...

[mysterio]

RIAA needs to be broken up with an antitrust suit. Not to mention prosecuted for its payola scam with the radio conglomerates.

[ohiobuckeye1997]

What we are witnessing here is another old media institution in its death throes. If they wan too survive they will embrace the Internet and find ways to make money off of it, if they stick to their old ways they will fade away.

[steel_resolve]

It didn’t have to be that way. They refused to give up their business model, even when the evidence is striking them in the face that it is a losing one. So instead of attempting to change and create new revenue streams, they are suing, which is their right, but won’t change the fact that their actions are only hastening their demise.

[Red in Blue PA]

So you have never (not once in your life) shared a CD with someone?

If so, you are a criminal in the eyes of the RIAA.

[Tanniker Smith]

Some of their lawyers are arguing that copying music from a CD that you bought onto an iPod that you own is illegal copying of music. Apparently, they believe that if you don't buy it offline, it's copyright theft, despite the fact that you purchased the music and are listening to it in the form you choose.

There was no outrage with ripping and burning CDs for personal use in your car, but this bothers them.

FWIW, I will never download music, legally or illegally, because of the fraud perpetuated ON ME when my daughter tried to use an iTunes gift card last Christmas.

[Biggirl]

I heard today that EMI is planning layoffs. The RIAA is getting desperate.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Right now they’re trying to make sharing a CD with yourself a crime.

[Red in Blue PA]

I wonder who, if anyone, will shed tears when the RIAA becomes defunct?

[Arthur McGowan]

I might care about any of this if the music being downloaded by college students weren’t 99.44% crap and nothing but background music for fornication. If the “artists” have to go back behind the counter at 7-11 and their labels fold, the world will be better off.

What’s pathetic is how our Congress, awash in bribes, repeatedly extends the copyright on the great music of the Golden Age of American popular art—1920-1940.

[Red in Blue PA]

Imagine buying a book from Barnes & Noble and being sued by them for allowing your brother to read it.

[Arthur McGowan]

No one, although that curve of theirs is really great.

[Arthur McGowan]

You do that? You like to live dangerously, don’t you?

Whatever you, don’t REMEMBER anything you read or listen to! They’ll be coming after your brain soon.

[babygene]

“How “nice” are the guys engaged in massive theft of intellectual property rights?”

Just because this crooked industry has bought off congress to make what once was “fair use”, a crime, doesn’t make it immoral or even wrong.

If the same copyright laws were applied the same for other copyrighted material, the companies that make copiers, as well as well as almost everything on the internet would have to go away.

[weegee]

Are European imports illegal? They didn’t renew copyrights there and just about anything 50 years old seems to be PD now. There is some fear about what this means in England and they are looking at changing the law because the Beatles may soon become Public Domain there (10 years left until even Sgt. Pepper would lapse). But I ask, why does it take “the Beatles” for the laws to change? Why didn’t the other artists also get to keep their works?

In the end, it only protects whoever owns the music publishing which is rarely the artist/creator.