Of course it’s not working. It’s built on a lie.
Much of the music I buy now is from Independant artists, frequently at their performances.
The old record companies are no longer the “Gatekeeper” for music, just as newspapers and the networks are no longer the “Gatekeeper” for news.
The RIAA knew this was coming over a decade ago, when they attempted to sue the original MP3.com Indie site out of existance.
Yes they have piracy, but more than that - they now lack the ability to prevent a deluge of new artists from oversaturating the market.
The old days are never coming back.
I've pretty much stopped listening to music on radio and purchasing CDs. Ditto for music via the internet. Most of it isn't worth the trouble the RIAA can inflict upon you. The "creators" may think RIAA is looking out for them. Instead, they may be driving away potential customers/listeners.
Poor Tom Edison had no idea of how much he enriched the lawyer and lobbyist professions with his invention of playback sound.
RIAA wants legislation that makes others responsible for policing the Internet, so RIAA can benefit from that policing.
According to some reports, even the artists/musicians do NOT benefit from such actions, only RIAA does. hmmmmm
The RIAA started out saying “per format” and got it.
now they are saying regardless of format.
This is sour grapes and they deserve to rot.
RIAA needs new business model
To force other private organizations to enforce on their behalf is crazy.
Without the big money we would not see the great bands like Metallica, and dozens of others, anywhere.
We'd have only Billybob and the Jerk-offs from the local Holiday Inn...but it would be FREE.
“[We] cannot monitor all the infringements on the Internet. It’s simply not possible. We don’t have the ability to search all the places infringing content appears...”
Let me be the spoiler here and inject some rather painful logic into this gossamer web of RIAA fancy. If the “content copyright holders”, who are the ones who KNOW for sure that they hold their copyrights, can’t monitor all the internet for infringements, then exactly how is it that websites, large forums, ISP’s or server companies - who have NO KNOWLEDGE of who holds the copyrights or even IF the material is copyrighted - are supposed to be able to “police” the bits and bytes of all the packets and databits that are sent or stored on their copper, fiber optics or server arrays?
And if I’m not mistaken, the RIAA and it’s memeber companies are not “content creators” as they claim, but “copyright owners”. They have not “created” the materials they hold the copyrights to, the artists did, who were then forced one way or the other to sign over those original creator copyrights. The RIAA always claims to be the champion of the little artist or musician who actually had the creative thoughts and capability when in fact they are large, faceless corporations who have held the gun to the head of the creators and forced them, economically or otherwise, to give up the very copyrights the RIAA is whinging about. The artist usually gets paid no royalties based on the creative accounting used by the RIAA member companies.
“...current U.S. copyright law is so broken that it “isn’t working” for content creators any longer.”
And exactly why is copyright law supposed to work “for content creators” any more than it should work for “content enjoyers”? Silly me. I thought that Copyright was originated to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”, not work for content creators. But then, again, I’m one of those bitter clingers to the original intent of the Constitution.
The RIAA and MPAA bought Congress and wrote the DMCA. Now they’re crying and whining that they don’t like it and want it changed. Why can’t I even find the world’s smallest violin to play “Hearts and Roses” for them?? Poooooor Babieeeees!
Actually, I’d like to see copyright law work better for content creators than it does now: it should be impossible for an artist, author, or inventor to completely alienate their rights to their own work by selling those rights to another person (natural or juridical).
Oh, that’s not what the RIAA meant? Gee, and here they claim to have the artists’ interests in mind.
Frankly, I hace zero sympathy for the bottom feeders at RIAA, MPAA, etc. Until copyright terms become sane again, I’m much more inclined to just ignore it entirely.
What I don’t understand is why Republicans aren’t actively working to strip away the Clinton-era giveaways to Hollywood.
And that's a good thing, because otherwise it's a violation of international law because RapidShare is based in Germany.