RIAA Angst

Why is there so much anxiety about the RIAA? In the 24 hours since Jammie Thomas was found to have infringed on some copyright laws there have been several articles that seem to insinuate that the RIAA and the major record labels are trying to mandate how a music enthusiast can listen to his or her purchased music. For example, some believe they are trying to prevent music enthusiasts that have purchased and downloaded music from playing it on multiple devices like an iPod, laptop or car stereo. That's just not the case. What they are saying is that if you want to listen to music that you do not own, then you must pay for it, and not download it from places like free P2P sites, or rip it from a friend. What's wrong with that? If you built, created, painted, developed or engineered something to sell to the general public, wouldn't you want to be compensated for your work? Hardworking people created the music you listen to, and most artists want to be compensated for their efforts, even if it is just a few bucks a month. I don't understand why some post-modern consumers feel as if they are entitled to free music, but I'm open to hearing the reasons why.

Please note, I do believe Jammie Thomas' judgment was far too harsh, and I do hope she is able to work out a monetary agreement far less than what the jury awarded. If not, than the RIAA and the labels will be making an unfair example out of her.

I am also aware that there are some musicians and bands that do not want to charge for their music, as they believe by not charging they will actually develop a larger audience. That's a bit misguided, as 1) people are willing to pay for quality music and 2) poorly written free music does not equal a larger fan base. However, there's a simple solution for these individuals - give your music away for free. That is your prerogative. No one is making you sell your music not even the RIAA, but for the musicians that do want to sell their music, it seems only fair to have some systems in place that help prevent widespread free sharing and royalty-free distribution of their music.

Now, I too am not a fan of DRM in its present form, but there has to be some kind of middle ground where musicians can be fairly compensated and their music protected from royalty-free sharing and distribution, while at the same time providing listeners with the flexibility to play music they have purchased in any non-commercial way they desire. We can't have an "us vs. them" mentality.

As always, I welcome your comments as I really would like to hear your thoughts on this subject.

Peace.

Comments

[Netvalar]

I think all the angst comes from the RIAA lawyer who said that rip a song off the cd you purchased from the store to listen to on your ipod amounted to stealing. Someplace I have the actual words used and will be back with them for you. Though I have to admit all the RIAA lawsuits I feel is overplayed the major lables are here to stay and the indie artist is here to stay the industry needs to work together to move forward.

[netvalar]

O.K. I found the words that sets the stage and I presume has put even those sitting on the fence of this issue to arms against the RIAA.

"Then Gabriel asked Pariser if it was okay if a consumer makes just one copy of a track they've legally purchased. She said no -- that's "a nice way of saying, 'steals just one copy.'"

Thus with that 1 statement she says that buying a cd does not allow you to encode that song on any other medium you have to buy the song on the medium you want to listen to it on. Thus paying 4 times for every song you want to have access to on 4 diff mediums. I am also against giving music away for free except as promotional tools.

[Snap Music]

Hi Netvalar:

Thanks for your posts. I found the quote you referenced < http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/sony-bmg-exec-t.html >. I agree with you that what Jennifer Pariser apparently said is ridiculous, but it will not fly with the consumer, nor will it fly with the courts as it runs contrary to fair use. Regardless, this statement was not made by the RIAA, part of my point; rather, it was made by Sony BMG's Anti-Piracy Chief. Additionally, it's important not to take this quote out of context, as we do not have access to the full transcripts at this time, especially since this case was not about transferring music to multiple formats, but whether or not music was freely distributed to individuals in a P2P network without royalties being paid.

The bottom line is that if musicians want to make a career out of their music, than it seems they are going to have to support some mechanisms that help prevent pirating.

Have a good one!

[netvalar]

I agree in regards to this case her statements along these lines are irrelevant. And piracy is a problem that needs to be dealt with. However anything said for the plaintiff in a closely watched case gets represented as coming from the plaintive. I for one can't wait till the Major labels finally decide on a permanent direction for the industry. Though the newer companies may end up making that decision.