More RIAA talk…

Today I was reminded of the difference between a rant and a good argument. Tuesday & Wednesday I spouted off about the RIAA and this afternoon I caught a well thought out post over at Bitch Has Word. (Side Note – If you are not reading this blog you should be, it’s been on my link bar for a while now)

I can’t argue a lot of the points BHW made, but I did want to clarify my rantings. I agree from a legal standpoint file sharing is copyright infringement. I also agree the issue has become an issue because the Internet exponentially increases the accessibility and volume of pirated media.

Perhaps BHW is right, maybe most people don’t care about whether the RIAA is a greedy corporation or if they work in the artist’s best interests. Downloaders think “No harm, no foul” and when the pressure is finally put upon them they’ll either make the purchase or find something else to spend money on.

I know that thousands of people downloading my sister’s CD would directly impact her pocketbook. It’s only sold for $10-12, but the production costs were significantly higher than anything the RIAA would pay.

A co-worker made the point the other day that he believes in a free market economy and if you can make $20 million a picture as Jim Carrey can than more power to ya. Cause if it were a matter of trading places almost everybody would volunteer.

It’s mid afternoon and I have no idea where my point went. We can all agree the RIAA is very bad. I guess I’m frustrated because I see life as we know it becoming too commercialized. I see a growing distinction and larger gap between the Haves and the Have-nots. I want to believe that most people are decent folk and it’s easy to get caught up in the Robin Hood syndrome when it comes to taking on the RIAA. I still stand by the points I made earlier this week; they could pay a little more attention to what their customer actually want and improve on their products.

Of course, I also wonder if my site turned pay-per-view would any of you still come by?

You may also like

8 comments

  • hmmm how much are we talkin on the pay-per-view?

    i think more people would pay than you think =)

  • Thanks for the props!

    I’m not sure I stated this effectively enough or not in my post, but I’m not necessarily a fan of the record labels and their business practices. I think that the way they have handled themselves regarding some, but not all, contracts can’t be defended from an ethical standpoint.

    But, really, neither can copyright infringement. We may not want it to be illegal, but it is.

    Also, I agree that more exposure of artists and a truly free market are better and won’t really hurt the record labels in the long run. But they, for some reason, don’t see it that way. I also think the “try before you buy” model could work, if record labels would allow it. But again, they seem afraid of it. Don’t know why.

    Thanks again for the link and kind words.

  • Point #1 – Make halfway decent Music
    Point #2 – Lower Prices
    Point #3 – Investigate other business options

    Maybe I agree to committing illegal acts when it comes to music. Isn’t many CD’s out there now that I could stand the whole thing to dish out some hard earned $16 – $20 for.
    Piss poor excuse, I know, but I want to get my dollar’s worth. And I’m not going to spend $20 on one song.

    “because the Internet exponentially increases the accessibility and volume of pirated media.”

    take out the word pirated, and you have a profound money making business.

    RIAA could set up a share filing system at a monthly member cost. People could get their music legally. As much money as they could bring in with that, they could hire people to take the copyrighted music that they represent off Kazaa and such. Everyone would be happy.

    But… that’s too easy, instead they file lawsuits against 12 year olds.

    I used to tape music off the radio, place the songs on different tapes. I used to share that with my friends. CD’s the same way. Been doing it all my life… I think I came out of my mother’s womb with a recording of her heartbeat.

    I didn’t sell it to anyone and she didn’t sue me for the copyright.

    On a side note: I also read paperback books that other people have bought.
    I’ve not paid the author for those either.

    Might as well come and lock my media mongering ass up.

  • If music where cheaper, I’d buy CD’s all the time. I like buying CDs, if I *really* like hte artist, I’ll get their CD. But for me, wanting a ’in’ song is not worth buying $20 worth of crap. $20 = 4 meals, about 1/3rd of my lit book, and a shirt or two at the Gap.

  • *or. not all 3, good lord.

  • I agree with Lauren. It’s been a long time since I bought a CD, just because I haven’t listened to anything “great” in a while. And why buy a whole CD just for one song? That’s why there’s MP3’s…well, for that and for poor suckers like me.

  • Simple answer to all of this sillyness: the iTunes Music Store. Currently available for Macs, coming soon to Windows. $0.99 per song, NO subscription fee, and you OWN the files with practically no restrictions. You can burn ’em to as many CDs as you want, you can copy them onto up to 3 computers at any one time (if you sell or give away one computer, just de-authorize that one and you can re-authorize a different one), you can use ’em in home movies, slideshows, etc., and they’ll work with iPods and other AAC-enabled music players. 100% legal, and you only pay for the music you actually want.

    Over 10 million tracks sold so far, over 300 of which are mine, every one legitimate.

  • Roland   Reply →

    My views are:
    Obviously there are people who download all their music and never pay a cent (or penny) for a CD, but personally, downloading music had caused me to buy *more* CDs, since I can sample them in advance and am no longer worried about getting a CD having heard a couple of singles from it and finding the rest of the album sucks.

Leave a reply to Lauren Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.