Slashdot Mirror

RIAA could be much, much bigger assholes about it.
You are correct. Make a copy of a song , without even stealing it : get slapped with fine, eventually get your credit destroyed and inserted on some sort of parallel state database of "crook". Really a criminal !

Steal billions, corrupt people, destroy the savings of millions of people , a-la Enron: get a slap on the hand and get elected.

Justice works, except when you are rich then you can buy the outcome and you are more equal then others.

Now here's The list of companies that factually support RIAA behavior regardless of their pro-customer statements. Do you want your money to support RIAA ?

The Magnetbox link provided by Dachannien's reply also has a link to a list of RIAA members. Since I buy mostly classical music, I looked at that list for "classical" and only three label names were explicitly classical. Also, a couple of other labels for CDs I own are not on that list. I find that somewhat re-assuring. Perhaps this is due to much classical music being public domain, aside from the performances themselves.

However, a quick estimate shows that there are well over a thousand labels on that list!

Also any member of the DMAA can not also be a member of the RIAA

Well, that would go without saying since your proposed DMAA is apparently for artists, and the RIAA is for record labels. http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

You could start with the RIAA

Or, did you mean the bands that were represented by RIAA members? I could not find a list for that -- perhaps someone else may have a link for you.

http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

I plan on boycotting every one of these labels until the RIAA stops ruining kids' lives with these draconian lawsuits. Sure, illegally downloading copyrighted songs is wrong, and I don't oppose the idea of some kind of legal action against people who, say, download and redistribute 10,000 of them. But the penalties for small-time downloaders are getting totally out of proportion to the offenses committed. The RIAA is using a sledgehammer to kill flies, and it will continue to do so as long as we continue to give its members money.

-K.Ai.-

one can view all of the RIAA labels at their site.

a nifty tool can also be found here to search the RIAA radar database

Run Over by the RIAA Don't Tap the Glass

By Cassi Hunt

Either since the day I visited my first aquarium or the day Goldie came into my family's life, our parents have told us not to tap the glass of the fish tank. It's cruel to Goldie -- I understand and respect that. I mean, heck, I am a vegetarian. But would we have many qualms over a little water perturbation if Goldie were, say, a bloodthirsty shark? I'd knock on that glass to the near-cracking point. And in that spirit, I decided to call up my new friend at the RIAA negotiation hotline again. (Hereafter I'll refer to her as Bowie, which means "yellow haired," as I'm pretty sure that's the case.)

Last time I spoke with Bowie, the conversation was pretty much over after she named $3750 as the settlement amount. (I haven't actually agreed to settle yet.) So when I called her again, I asked -- again -- about how to negotiate that amount. I counted on the fact that self-important types wouldn't be inclined to remember a lowly pirate like me. Bowie didn't disappoint. She launched into her spiel about how the RIAA doesn't negotiate settlements. I told her that it was too much to ask for thousands of dollars from a college student who only makes just enough from term and summer employment to still come out a couple thousand in debt.

Bowie replied that the RIAA was oh-so-kind enough to offer a six month repayment plan. At this point, I was beginning to speculate on Bowie's hair color, and decided to switch tactics. I concisely and calmly explained how the situation was ridiculous: they weren't offering a settlement, they were issuing an ultimatum! Let us screw you over gently now, or with chains and whips in court. Surely there must be some flexibility for individual cases.

Well, she replied, they do make allowances if something like a medical emergency comes up. Now we're getting somewhere. "And who would I talk to about a situation like that, because I'd like to talk to them now."

"Me," she replied. Ever feel like your nose has just been flattened by something large and solid? I mean, besides the doors at 77 Mass. Ave. "But you're not in a situation like that."

Oh, but I am. The Institvte has left me with severe bouts of p-set-induced insomnia and a case of stuck-to-desk-itis that recurs two to three times in a semester, then again just before break. And my wallet certainly takes a hit for it.

But as much as I tried to argue that I was in as unique a situation as someone with medical expenses, there was no getting through. Bowie even had the audacity to say, "In fact, the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements."

Are. You. Shitting. Me.

There you have it, fellow Techsters: proof of the fantastic levels of absurdity to which the RIAA attack has sunk. The Recording Industry of America would rather see America's youth deprived of higher education, forever marring their ability to contribute personally and financially to society -- including the arts -- so that they may crucify us as examples to our peers. To say nothing of wrecking our lives in the process. I finally understand what the RIAA meant when they told me "stealing music is not a victimless crime" -- the victims hang for all to see.

Please, RIAA -- if any competent representative happens to enjoy flipping through The Tech -- please tell me Bowie is a moronic tool who can't help what the Superior Gray Coverage Golden Blonde hair dye does to her mental facilities. Please tell me you actually care about the futures of the age demographic that buys most of your music (http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/pdf/2004co nsumerprofile.pdf). Your evil pirates are people too, people who enjoy music and almost always still purchase it legitimately. Each has an individual life and circumstances that deserve consideration, if not for the sake of empathy for your f

Here's TFA (in case of an unlikely slashdotting):

Run Over by the RIAA Don...t Tap the Glass
By Cassi Hunt

Either since the day I visited my first aquarium or the day Goldie came into my family's life, our parents have told us not to tap the glass of the fish tank. It's cruel to Goldie -- I understand and respect that. I mean, heck, I am a vegetarian. But would we have many qualms over a little water perturbation if Goldie were, say, a bloodthirsty shark? I'd knock on that glass to the near-cracking point. And in that spirit, I decided to call up my new friend at the RIAA negotiation hotline again. (Hereafter I'll refer to her as Bowie, which means "yellow haired," as I'm pretty sure that's the case.)

Last time I spoke with Bowie, the conversation was pretty much over after she named $3750 as the settlement amount. (I haven't actually agreed to settle yet.) So when I called her again, I asked -- again -- about how to negotiate that amount. I counted on the fact that self-important types wouldn't be inclined to remember a lowly pirate like me. Bowie didn't disappoint. She launched into her spiel about how the RIAA doesn't negotiate settlements. I told her that it was too much to ask for thousands of dollars from a college student who only makes just enough from term and summer employment to still come out a couple thousand in debt.

Bowie replied that the RIAA was oh-so-kind enough to offer a six month repayment plan. At this point, I was beginning to speculate on Bowie's hair color, and decided to switch tactics. I concisely and calmly explained how the situation was ridiculous: they weren't offering a settlement, they were issuing an ultimatum! Let us screw you over gently now, or with chains and whips in court. Surely there must be some flexibility for individual cases.

Well, she replied, they do make allowances if something like a medical emergency comes up. Now we're getting somewhere. "And who would I talk to about a situation like that, because I'd like to talk to them now."

"Me," she replied. Ever feel like your nose has just been flattened by something large and solid? I mean, besides the doors at 77 Mass. Ave. "But you're not in a situation like that."

Oh, but I am. The Institvte has left me with severe bouts of p-set-induced insomnia and a case of stuck-to-desk-itis that recurs two to three times in a semester, then again just before break. And my wallet certainly takes a hit for it.

But as much as I tried to argue that I was in as unique a situation as someone with medical expenses, there was no getting through. Bowie even had the audacity to say, "In fact, the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements."

Are. You. Shitting. Me.

There you have it, fellow Techsters: proof of the fantastic levels of absurdity to which the RIAA attack has sunk. The Recording Industry of America would rather see America's youth deprived of higher education, forever marring their ability to contribute personally and financially to society -- including the arts -- so that they may crucify us as examples to our peers. To say nothing of wrecking our lives in the process. I finally understand what the RIAA meant when they told me "stealing music is not a victimless crime" -- the victims hang for all to see.

Please, RIAA -- if any competent representative happens to enjoy flipping through The Tech -- please tell me Bowie is a moronic tool who can't help what the Superior Gray Coverage Golden Blonde hair dye does to her mental facilities. Please tell me you actually care about the futures of the age demographic that buys most of your music (http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/pdf/2004co nsumerprofile.pdf). Your evil pirates are people too, people who enjoy music and almost always still purchase it legitimately. Each has an individual life and circumstances that deserve c

Marszalek says the NPR ad-sharing arrangement described by Thomas largely benefits stations that produce content of interest to folks beyond their localities, and only a few of the largest stations do that.

"It is the local affiliates who popularize these programs at their expense, and then the producers are going to reap the benefit on podcasts," he says. "All of the new delivery systems are great for the stations that produce the content. It's not good for the local affiliate in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. They're really, really reliant on programs from elsewhere to draw listeners and members."

This suggests to me that the local stations are no longer adding any value to the situation. If they can't generate enough listeners for their local content, then their primary purpose is as a distribution mechanism for the national content. But the podcasts are turning out to be a more efficient mechanism for that distribution. Which means that the local stations aren't necessary.

I see a couple of options for the local stations all based on this assumption: if an entity is adding cost to the supply chain without adding value, that entity can and should be removed. In this case, the local station is no longer providing a valuable delivery of national content, so here are the options that I think the locals have:

1. Shut down altogether.
2. Stop broadcasting the national content and broadcast only local content.
3. Stop broadcasting all content, but podcast local content.

Is this wrong? If so, wouldn't it invalidate the oft use argument around here that the RIAA should be removed because they're also no longer providing value?

Owning rights of the number 1 on that http://www.riaa.com/gp/bestsellers/topartists.asp list makes them a VERY relevant producer entity.

In case you are afraid of RIAA site or boycott it, I paste it:

BEATLES, THE 168.5 million "certified" units JUST IN USA.

One Trick Ponies!!!

But they don't - because their corporate partners are more important then their customers wishes.

Course the thing is that the labels I'm buying from arn't part of the RIAA.

I call bullshit. If it's sold on Amazon, over 99.9% chance that it's an RIAA label. Check the list.

I think the retail-CD is dead in the long run if the price stays where it's at or climbs. But I don't think they have to be that expensive. See:

http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/cost.asp

From the RIAA link above:

"For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn't just happen! Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive."

Duh! promotion _is_ expensive when you buy a Porsche for a DJ so he'll play your crap!

Oliver / http://www.treasuretunes.com/

Excuse me where are my manners... Have you met the RIAA and the MPAA yet? So how about that internet, talk amongst yourselves.

http://www.riaa.com/issues/ask/default.asp#stand

Someone's got some 'splainin' to do.

Well, its still up on their website [...] http://www.riaa.com/issues/ask/default.asp#stand

And if they remove it from their site, don't forget that the Internet Archive is your friend.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.riaa.com/i ssues/ask/default.asp

"This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet. MP3 is just a technology and the technology itself never did anything wrong! There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of thousands of people. That's not fair. If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn't make it right. "

Could they be contradicting themselves, or just trying to see what they can get away with? It irks me, because I do exactly what they describe above. I rip all of my CDs to a central server at home that is connected to my stereo, and queue up tracks all day long. I also burn custom CDs to listen to in the car. All of this I would consider fair use. I bought the CDs. I'm not uploading them to a file sharing service. Quite frankly if the RIAA is going to take this position described in TFA, then I am thinking that it may be time boycott them all together. I found a really great site that allows users to choose not to buy from any artist that supports them. I think it's been listed here bfore but I'll post it again.

Here is sample text to send to webmaster@riaa.com:

The web page http://www.riaa.com/issues/ask/default.asp#stand needs to be updated. Specifically the following quote needs to be removed to reflect the RIAA's new stand on fair use:

"If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail."

The quote should be replaced with the following:

"... the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even "routinely" granted, see C6 at 8, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization. In this regard, the statement attributed to counsel for copyright holders in the Grokster case, is simply a statement about authorization, not about fair use."

Your website should make it clear that ripping a CD may or may not be authorized by the RIAA, yet in all cases it is a violation of copyright law and therefore illegal.

I discuss this topic frequently with others, and often refer them to the above link. Please update the information so that it will continue to be a useful reference on the legality of CD ripping.

Well, its still up on their website. Someone should let their webmaster know that their site needs updating to reflect the RIAA's new position on ripping CDs.

http://www.riaa.com/issues/ask/default.asp#stand

"If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail."

What is your stand on MP3?

This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet. MP3 is just a technology and the technology itself never did anything wrong! There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of thousands of people. That's not fair. If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn't make it right. (emphasis mine)

This is the only valid email address on the RIAA website. I liked reading this article as much as it pisses me off. I think if we all took the same effort as we did in this forum to email the RIAA ( mailto:webmaster@riaa.com ), I'm not saying they would listen but maybe they would be as equally pissed off. On the side of the discussion that points out the ignorance and gall of the RIAA, if rock stars are starving artists then why do they have shows like Cribs. Please don't sue me for the use of that name. Why do we see musicians kids with $40,000 necklaces laced with diamonds. It's all just smoke and mirrors. They're trying to play both sides of the coin by saying they're starving artists to the courts but showing us that we can't have what they have because they've got more money then us.

If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail.

Source

Anybody ever consider something that might get some attention....such as seeing what the /. effect has on the riaa site? http://www.riaa.com/default.asp

Here's a list for all your boycotting needs.

Your friendly neighborbood RIAA boycotter. PS. You also might want to check the artists here for an alternative.

... I hope the RIAA get a really embarrasing and well publicised dressing down.

• Will there still be $1 billion in music sales even if you can download for "free"?
  
• Would the RIAA make everyone pay, or just those who want to? If the average person spends $4.50 per month on music, I would think the heavy users of this new system would be those on the top % of users, those who don't blink at spending $100-$200 per month on CDs. Likewise, if its optional, its feasible to say that many who don't pay a lot for music now will suddenly want to do that.
  
• How do CD costs factor into this? Surely, the manufacturing and printing is part of the cost. That won't exist anymore if there's no CD, right? Depending on your source (CNN, Rolling Stone), the physical costs of making and shipping CD are somewhere between $1 and $2. So, realistically, you'd be looking at cost savings of $1-$1.5 billion at least, if all CDs were gone. Whether online or offline, there will still be retailer markup (Best Buy vs. iTMS), distribution (servers, bandwidth), etc. I would imagine these costs would be lower too.
  
• How would artists be compensated? Does their share of downloads cut into the overall pie?
  
• Will labels cut costs and reduce their overhead? Will this make them more able to gamble on smaller artists?
  

Nettwerk: By standing up to the RIAA like this, we're sticking it to The Man!
Generic Lackey: But, you are The Man. So does this mean you're sticking it to yourself?
Nettwerk: ... Maybe.

Your post made me think about something. The RIAA gets it's power from it's members, so why does it make sense to fight the RIAA directly? Seems it would be more effective to go after their individual members instead. Here a list. Even finding one label who isn't happy with membership and convincing them to drop out could be great press for RIAA fighters (and a nice chunk of publicity for the label in question), and every one that quits would weaken them financially.

Just a thought.

I didn't think ludicris was signed with a member of the RIAA but I seem to be wrong (Disturbing Tha Peace)!

This is a list of labels under the RIAA. Those labels cover pretty much every major band in the US and beyond.

My point? Well, ever been to a bands website where they let you stream their songs? That is a form of sharing, which the RIAA says is illegal. That means that well over half of the companies the RIAA represents are breaking their own rules, sharing copyrighted music to millions, unlike your average P2P'er who might share the file with a grand total of between ten and a few hundred people.

And, as many people here have pointed out, the internet itself is a giant sharing of information. So, according to the RIAA, we better hurry up and abolish the internet...

Don't you wish sometimes you could just shoot the RIAA's in their big, dumb, ass?

The file at http://www.riaa.com/images/pics/pic2.jpg, which is served by their web site?

The RIAA is the Recording Industry Association of America - it's basically what it says on the tin. A lobbying and management group that represents its record company members by bribe^H^H^H^H^Hlobbying the US government for new laws, and suing alleged copyright infringers of the RIAA members copyright for obscene damages. They are not a part of the US government, merely a corporate association.

Not all US record labels are members of the RIAA, though it often acts as if they are. Their list of members is rather lengthy, but they are largely sub-labels or labels for a particular favoured artist of the 4 big international companies - Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, EMI group and Warner Music. These are the companies that control 85% of US music and 70% worldwide, and the RIAA is their mouthpiece in the US. They have other industry associations in other nations; the BPI is the equivalent in the UK, for example.

Remember, the RIAA itself is only acting on behalf of the big 4. They are the companies directly responsible for music DRM, retarding new music business methods and any technology that they don't control. If you wish to avoid purchasing music from these dinosaurs' stable of artists, use the RIAA radar to determine if the label on a particular CD is actually a RIAA member or truly an independant.

I haven't stopped buying music, I've just stopped buying it from the big 4. If we want music to survive in its current form, as opposed to windows-only DRM restricted versions backed up by permanent copyright, then only buy from true independent musicians and labels. For example, CDBaby.com is a big site for truly independant musicians, as is magnatune. As a bonus, you know most of the money you spend will go directly to the artists, rather than the tiny percentage they get when selling through the major RIAA member labels.

I find it MORE interesting that the RIAA recently sued almost 650 "John Doe"s.
RIAA Brings New Round Of Lawsuits Against 751 Online Music Thieves"
And I quote: "In addition to the "John Doe" litigations, the major music companies filed lawsuits against 105 named defendants."

Don't you guys think it's funny that all seven of the 'latest news' section from http://riaa.com/ relates to Lawsuits and Music Piracy. Funny, but not surprising.

They may be illegally listening to average americans, but that's illegal as a technicality.

Bullshit. It's either legal or illegal. The phrase 'illegal as a technicality' makes about as much sense as 'pregnant as a technicality'.

If you're listened to by the NSA, who cares really?

I CARE. I have a fundamental right to privacy, like every other American citizen. The argument of 'if you're innocent, you have nothing to fear' is a recipe for oppression.

YOU'RE NOT THEIR TARGET

Not yet, anyway...

It's illegality on a technicality like sharing music with friends so they can go buy their own copy of a CD. Not immoral and not reprehensible.

Really? I think the RIAA might take issue with you on that. What a perfect refutation of your entire argument.

I can't RTFA because SOMEONE /.'d it.

allofmp3.com is not illegal in russia, that's why RIAA bought a resolution on the american senate on an atempt to bully russia into passing some sort of DMCA. here.

now let the "soviet russia" jokes begin.

As far as PR goes, performing these actions through a consortium name like RIAA does shield the actual companies a bit from the PR fallout. Everyone knows the "RIAA" is evil but the average person may not even know the names of the companies that compose it:

http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

How about we start naming this evil by its true name.

Everybody is thinking the Riaa is the bad guy. Take a look at who they are though, its Sony, Warner music, Walt Disney Records, EMI Records and so on. All the Riaa name is for is to make sure there wont be a newspaper headline saying something like "EMI Records sues granny" or something like that.

So no its not a rogue lawyer for a faceless organization. Its Sony, its EMI, its Disney and they are trying to not get their name dragged through the mud by hiding behind the name Riaa

Full list of members of the Riaa http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

learning which companies do support RIAA. Let them know what is RIAA doing so that they can do some image-issues calculus.

My question is how does the money raised by these levies find its way to the copyright holders? (Artists, publishers and so on.)

Basically, all the people not signed by an RIAA label get a net 4% of the goods taken by blank media taxes (they don't have RIAA lobby dollars working for them). RIAA-signed artists get a total of 38.4% of the take, and the RIAA member publishers get 57.6% of the take. Note that this is a description from the RIAA, so that 38.4% may potentially be siphoned off into that 57.6% via fees orwhat-have-you.

It's irritating knowing that a percentage chunk of sales of many computer storage devices goes to lobbyists working to punch holes in free use, and even more irritating knowing that despite the fact that I have to pay for potential infringement, I *still* don't get to infringe legally.

You know...every time the RIAA complains that they need to be around to fund artists, and it's important that they exist to do so, and if they didn't get federal protection in the form of funds...I wonder what would happen if *100%* of that tax went to artists -- publishers not included. That *would* fund artists, presumably cutting out the middleman. Never going to happen, but an fun thought.

Another interesting idea -- an artist can choose to be supported by blank media sales *but* need to place all their work into the public domain *or* be supported by regular retail sales but not get any blank media sale funding.

Ah, 'harmonization'. The word striking the most fear into independent and unamerican countries across the world.
The fact is that in EVERYWHERE in the world where you are likely to be reading this IP laws have been harmonized to the point where the basics are the same. - and the reason why? Pressure from one of the most powerful economies in the world. Can you honestly suggest that countries have spontaneously passed US type copyright legislation? Bullshit.
The original poster's point, that one of the RIAA's precepts is that 'The US's laws apply to everyone in the world, and are superior to every other law' is accurate. As long as the RIAA is able to buy law in the US, it will exert all possible pressure to ensure that the US's laws are exported to the rest of the world.

http://www.riaa.com/default.asp

their site.
look at the news:

RIAA Lauds Senate Passage Of Measure To Stop Russian Intellectual Property Theft
RIAA Targets Retail Establishments Hawking Pirated CDs
RIAA Brings New Round Of Lawsuits Against 751 Online Music Thieves
MPAA/RIAA Offer Tips To Help Holiday Shoppers Steer Clear Of Counterfeit CDs, DVDs
DiMA and RIAA Beckon Holiday Shoppers to Give the Gift of Legal Online Music This Holiday Season!
RIAA Praises Department of Justice, FBI and Nashville Police Department for Efforts Resulting in Recent Indictment of Music Pirate
Music Industry Files New Lawsuits In Ongoing Enforcement Against Online Theft

what did they do before all this? why do we need them now?
Artists? where is a single mention of artists? I see "illegal" "theft" "money", and now "congress", but no "artists"

and the news item: "we own the congress" is also missing..

america america land of the free.... oh wait....

I think this article itself proves the corporate stronghold on American Politics.

"greatest economic assets."

Such a statement is ill-worded. The world wide record industry, according to the RIAA site , is a mere 40 billion dollars. Now, this may seem grand, but on the scale of the entire United States GDP, it's only...

...subtract the one...

...carry the two...

...that's really only about 8.5% of the US economy, which totals at about 11 trillion.

If that's bad math, which I have a rousing suspicion that it is, then please be a good samaritan and fix it.

I would also consider it good samaritan-ship to be generous and share music, isn't that what they teach us to do in school? To share? It's not as if a bucaneer would ripping it directly off their site w/o permission, they'd really only be sharing music with their friends?

Is their really any difference between lending a CD to friend and sharing music via online?

Isn't what Sony did exactly what DRM was meant for?? Screw the users, control their lives, and do it legally?

I think Linus is the only person I've ever heard talk about DRM as just a pure technology. Everyone else (e.g. media companies) talks as though it's a means to an end for user control. So how is what Sony did not right in line with that?

I'll get excited when I see the collective realization that just the technology we currently have enables the defeat of many entrenched, obsolete social constructs.

It's the withering away of the state; Lenin forsaw it but mistook it. It turns marxism and capitalism both ass-over-teakettle.

Why not use these techniques to defeat fearful democratic and republican governments, as well? They are equally egregious, just the authoritarian regimes are less duplicitous and a damn sight rougher.

http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/about/index.htm

http://www.riaa.com/issues/parents/advisory.asp

The major problem with the legislation is that its not necessary. For this to work, all you need to do is convince the retailers to embrace it. For example, any five-year old can legally buy a porno, but any retailer will refuse them, legally.

So the RIAA has those little http://www.riaa.com/issues/parents/advisory.asp"Ex plicit Lyrics" Parental Advisory stickers placed on various albums, with the goal "to help parents make the choice about when -- and whether -- their children should be able to listen to a particular recording". So now child wants to buy album, responsible parent decides to investigate lyrics themselves, to determine appropriateness. Where are they going to find them if they can't find them online anymore?

Check the RIAA members list. See who's on there? Allow me to abbreviate it for you...

• Grateful Dead Production
• Grateful Dead Records

Why is anyone here still listening to them? You all read slashdot. Surely you know what the RIAA has been doing for the past few years...

Boycott the RIAA. ALL OF THEM.