Slashdot Mirror
Would a Boycott of the MPAA/RIAA Help Matters?
ChrisGoodwin asks: "Why do geeks support MPAA and RIAA? Here on Slashdot, the talk is all about how evil the film and record companies are. But when the next Star Wars or Matrix or Lord of the Rings comes out, it's all about camping out to get tickets. According to RIAA's web site, member companies distribute 90% of the legitimate sound recordings in the United States; chances are, if you've ever bought music, you've given them money. (Take a look at their list of members.) Heck, most of the film companies own, are owned by, or share a corporate parent with a record company, and many of us get our internet access from part of the MPAA/RIAA conglomerate. So why is it? Why do we continue to buy their product? Why are we giving them money so that they can harass us? Why hasn't there been a call for a boycott of the record and film industries?" This is in the FAQ, but this is certainly a discussion worth having. With the pervasiveness of media in our society, for some it is not as easy as "boycott" or "no boycott", and it may be unfair to the artists we like for us to do so, and as Big Media diversifies, a boycott on movies and music may still not be enough. So do you feel a boycott of mass media will help matters, or would such be counter-productive in some way?
Sure it would help. If you could actually convince people outside of Slashdot to do it.
I'm sorry, but it's just not feasible.
No one wants to stop buying from their favorite artist, who is most likely distributed through the RIAA. And no one wants to miss a much-anticipated movie, even though the MPAA is involved. I don't want to say we have no willpower or convictions, but there are just things people will always want to see and hear, and these things are provided by an evil company. Asking someone to give up these things is maybe asking a bit too much. Sure there are those of us who don't want to see LOTR, but there's a good chunk who would stop at nothing to see it, despite its "evil" ties.
There have to be alternatives to a boycott. Because if you're basing your entire revolution on something of that magnitude, you're going to be sorely disappointed. The masses need their entertainment, and will get it from the easiest source.
I would like to boycott the MPAA, but if I want to see a good movie they're the only game in town. I can't really see a movie in any way (except when on TV) without supporting them. The best I can do is to send a dollar to the EFF for every dollar I spend on movies.
However, I do boycott the RIAA.
In order to be successful, any boycott would have to be: 1) Well-Planned. Without sufficient planning, it would be too little to matter. 2) Big enough to matter. Remember, these are large companies. Fluctuation (both up and down)is nothing new to them, and your boycott would probably go unnoticed unotherwise. 3) Thourough. It doesn't do much good to boycott the RIAA, then turn around and give the money to them some other way. 4) Publicised. They would have to _know_ they were truly losing money, and why. Otherwise, any real loss could be considered a sign they need to _increase_ their stranglehold on the market. Let them know who they are losing money to, why they are, and what they can do to stop it. I have yet to see any attempt which did not fail in at least one of these aspects.
Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
A boycott would hurt more than it helps. All that the elimination of the slashdot market would do is make us a market not worth pursuing--and so we'd have a return to the days when all movies sucked, instead of having a good one every few (6-36) months.
A better idea would be for us to find RIAA/MPAA a business model adapted to the digial age--one that's more effective than the "Street Performer's Protocol" and more flexible than the current "pay per copy."
(Of course I have an idea. I'll write a journal about it, and y'all can see it there!)
What we need is someone to step up and provide what we DO want and then buy from them. So long as there is no alternative, then "boycotting" can never work. If you feel strongly about the issue, buy from and support those that are not funded or owned by the bad guys.
Anything you say will be held against you.
RIAA is disproportionately controlled by the Big 5 labels, despite the large membership including dozens of indie labels, few of those labels have anything to do with what RIAA says or does. Furthermore, many of those labels are members of RIAA more to gain legitimacy and access to basic distribution channels etc - not to fight your digital rights.
We'd be much better off boycotting the Big 5 of the music industry - Sony, Warner, EMI, BMG, Universal, and leaving indie labels and musicians that need every last bit of support alone.
The hard part is actually getting enough people to understand the issues and join the boycott. It's not simple, you can't tell people they're slaughtering cute little puppies for fur or something. You have to go into a huge explaination of the issues at the end of which, most people's response is "So what?".
I personally no longer purchase new CD's unless I'm buying them directly from an unsigned artist. I go to the used record store if I want something published by a label. It might take a little while for something specific to show up but I always have a list of 20-30 CD's that I want to buy at a given time anyhow. I would certainly participate in an official boycott and do my best to explain the position to non-geeks. However, my gut instinct is that the only way you can get a boycott against the record companies to work is to say they're drowning bags of kittens to make CD's or something.
Don't expect any support from the media either...
These companies have spent billions brainwashing us to think that we actually want these things. The new evolutionary strength is going be people's ability to filter out media and advertising. Wise Up.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Those with children:Try explaining to little Suzy why she can't have the latest Britney cd, or why you
/.ers use products everyday made by large, greedy corps. So, you make the call. Boycott? Me thinks this would work only if you got enough people together to hit the bottom line of these companies. Something on the order of Napster's followers when it was popular.
Now, I am going to get flamed for this opinion, but that's ok. The truth is out there.
don't want her to go the movies because of your beliefs.
I doubt she will care.
[sarcasm]I'm sure the looks you'll get when you explain to her why the **AA's are bad will justify it.[/sarcasm]
Those without children:is it ok to support a large corporation that's greedy? Well, apparently so, since the majority of
Sent from your iPad.
I must have it...
I must watch it...
I must own it...
My own...
My preciousssssss
Put your energy and time and $$$ into lobbyists who will push your agenda in Washington.
otherwise, cut out your eyes and ears. 'cause, really, there's no way of stopping yourself from putting money into their hands. When you listen to the radio, you are supporting the RIAA via advertisers. Same with network television. a media boycott is just not feasible in a media saturated country (it's one of the US' largest exports)
If you want a boycott to be effective you have RIAA/MPAA has to be aware there IS a boycott. To quote Dr. Strangelove "What good is a Doomsday weapon if you don't tell anyone you have it?!?"
A bunch of people suddenly stopping use of a product(s) does not send a company a message. It must involve some sort of media frenzy so that the message is clear. If we just stop buying/supporting RIAA/MPAA without letting them know that there is a boycott, then they'll just see that as further justification that pirates are cutting into their profits.
"I drank what?" - Socrates
There is a simple way you can take action against the MPAA and RIAA. Donate your old music CDs and movie videos to your public library.
If you later decide that you want to hear or watch something you donated, just get it out of the library.
At least, that what's the RIAA is going to say.
If sales happened to go down because of this, they would probably blame lack of sales on file sharing and piracy. They've done it before.
For this reason and because we geeks make up a small portion of all who give money to them, it's probably best for us to increase awareness of all the bad that the MPAA/RIAA are doing and support groups like the EFF.
Wow.. great minds think alike (whilst fools seldom differ)
:-)
/. community proclaimed a boycott and refused to buy CDs for a month.
I was just pondering the practicalities of a RIAA boycot this morning (okay, who installed the trojan on my PC???
Unfortunately, such boycotts can backfire very, very badly.
Imagine if the
If CD sales remained unaffected then the RIAA could simply turn around and say that this proves most people are happy with their pricing, their product and their attitudes to the marketplace.
Or, even worse, if such a boycott did affect sales in a negative way, they'd simply say that this was due to piracy and that it endorses their stand on copy-protection, the DMCA, etc.
In effect, we'd be hoist by our own petard.
Anyone contemplating a boycott ought to be very sure they've got the numbers (and I'm talking *big* numbers) before they embark on such an action.
A better way might be to incite people to get active in starting a petition protesting the loss of fair use due to recent and proposed moves by the RIAA/MPAA.
This would have to be a petition where signatures are collected in ink, on sheets of paper. Cyber petitions are too easily discredited.
I'm sure, given the seven degrees of separation principle, that if everyone here solicited everyone they knew to sign such a petition, and got them to do likewise, it wouldn't be too hard to dump a very large truckload of dead-tree pulp and ink on the doorstep of Congress.
That's the way democracy works isn't it?
It wouldn't be counter productive, but just like anything else, one has to determine what they are trying to achieve and choose the best way to get there.
/. is composed of many technical, knowledgeable people (well one or two and then everyone else ;), why don't we as the open source community do the unthinkable, and come up with a os technology to help the MPAA/RIAA attain their goal of making their content harder to illegally copy, but yet still allows fair use use. We regularly bash their attempts at doing this because they would rather err on the side of making the thing totally uncopyable, so why not pitch in and help to try to achieve a mutally agreeable (well as much as possible) solution.
As far as I can tell (and this applies to me personally) the biggest gripe that people have about MPAA/RIAA is that they want to squelch a persons right to fair use. I don't think anyone begrudges their attempts to keep actually pirating at bay, it's only when these attempts prevent the legitimate owners from doing things that the copyright laws appear to allow is when hackles get raised. Please feel free to add anything else (like artists rights, but I don't really have an opinion on this personally as it is more contract law imho).
OK, so we want to make sure our fair use rights are kept intact. How is the best way to go about doing this? I see two possible approaches. One approach that falls into the category of "why can't we all just get along", is this.
The second approach (and probably more realistic) is to say, "hey, no matter what technology we throw at it, people will copy it". Fine, this is a valid point. But lets be realists here and accept that the MP/RIAA will not take this for an answer. So again, I think having us as a community help them come up with a solution to their needs that is mutually beneficial. Suggest alternatives, create/push these alternatives. Put youself into their shoes, say "I need to protect my IP from those who would illegally gain/attain it" and say, how would I solve this issue?
I guess both my suggestions fall into the category of, lets solve the problems instead of fighting wars. Not that I have anything against fighting wars, it's just that, like in "War Games", there can't be a winner. Sure we could "boycott", but would that REALLY do any good? We're just to small a segment to make any real impact with our wallets, but we could potentially make more impact with our heads.
I've been boycotting the RIAA since they first went after Napster. What took you guys so long? The only CD's I've purchased in the last 2 years have been from indie labels. Not that my small boycott will make much difference, but I was kinda hoping the idea would catch on eventually.
I haven't bought a CD in 15 years. Got little use for Hollywood films. Your entertainment dollar goes a long way at small clubs and art houses. Buy used CDs and used books. And refine your tastes.
illegitimii non ingravare
Boycotting is a complete waste of time in this case. We are not talking about boycotting fur which has a negative stigma attached to it, nor are we walking about sticking it to some small company that doesn't want to play by the rules. Media is just too pervasive in society and the next round of teenyboppers can keep the big media companies afloat with their rampant desire for the next N'Sync and Power Rangers.
Beyond that, while there are many Slashdotters who have no problem skipping Star Wars or LOTR until it comes out on video, ask them to not purchase the next Resident Evil when it comes out. Video games (something geeks love) and the movies are hopelessly intertwined. When you support the video game or the console (hello!?! PS2 is made by SONY!) you support the DRM bills we all hate.
If the geeks on Slashdot want to make a difference, they should
There are a lot of smart people reading Slashdot. I read a number of posts on any given topic that the author should just cut and paste into a letter, throw it in an envelope and send it to his or her legislator.
That is how you make a difference... not by boycotting.
-AThe church where I go pays a license fee (based on the size of the church) to sing a bunch of the newer songs. I protested to the guy who pays the bills, saying we should only sing public domain stuff. The fee (which is not all that much, really) goes to some company which is part of the RIAA. I figured all this out and am still trying to determine how upset I should be. I love the image of a Christian musician offering his works to the church "for the glory of God", and looming behind him is the dark visage of the State: "don't even think about singing these without paying!"
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Just give equal (or more) money to the EFF?
See a movie, make a donation.
Then at least you're not contributing to the net evil.
So why are you AC? Afraid a friend might see you getting popcorn for the late showing of LOTR?
How many posts have the theme "I've been boycotting RIAA for years -- the last new CD I bought was xx years ago."
News flash -- this means that RIAA doesn't care about you. By definition, you are not their customer. Hell, you're not even close to their target demographic. Why would they care if you love/hate/support/boycott/praise/condemn them?
You, personally, have absolutely zero impact on their bottom line.
Zip
Nada
--
An unsucessful boycott would simply demonstrate the impotence of the high-tech community with respect to any kind of political action, particularly since success in terms of affecting sales would require selling this outside the community, and would be worse than useless.
However, there will be a consumer boycott, and it will be effective. The next generation of DRM disabled audio gear with no analog or digital outputs, i.e. encrypted from source to speakers or CRT is on its way and was discussed yesterday here.
The public will scream its heads off when they find out what's in it, "You mean my VCR won't work, either?" and when they're told "DRM TV or NO TV", will be calling their Congresscritters telling them to tell the FCC to put off digital-only TV.
Hollywood won't lose any money over this, but the high-tech manufacturers who bought into Hollywood bullshit will lose billions, and a lot of jobs are going to get lost. Hopefully, including those of the CEOs who were stupid enough to roll over and play dead for their new masters.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Give some of their bucks to EFF or EPIC. That doesn't mean "don't go to the movies"... it just means offset your media habit with some donations to the people who fight for you!
That's what I do. I give 65 USD every year to the EFF, and I don't spend any more than that on major-label music or movies.
Want to know more? Take the Lessig Challenge
Will I retire or break 10K?
The problem is that only a small percentage of the money I pay to see a movie is going toward funding the evil lawyers attacking fair use law. The vast majority is going toward stuff I *want* to support. I *want* to vote with my wallet by giving Peter Jackson money for Two Towers. I *want* to give money to the actors. I *want* to give money to the scriptwriters. I do *not* want to live in a world where there is no more entertainment industry. So what's to do? If you say a policy of zero tolerance is in order, such that as long as a company does any small thing I don't like I should never buy their products, then I'd never be buying anything at all, and would have to go off into the mountains to live as a hermit, growing my own food, sewing my own clothes, and so on.
So what's the *practical* answer? What can drive the message home to the entertainment industry without making it cease to exist? From the point of view of the MPAA members, reduced movie attendance because of a grievance over their legal policies looks indistinguishable from reduced movie attendance because people don't like their movies. It just looks like there is less of an audience.
This is especially a problem with the kinds of movies geeks like to see. If the industry sees that geek-friendly movies are not doing well, their reaction is NOT going to be to change their legal policies to appeal to the geeks. Their reaction is going to be, "Oh, I guess we should stop making movies like this - they don't seem to do very well for some reason." And then no more movies we like get made.
So, yes, I *am* going to be giving my money to see The Two Towers - multiple times. But I will be sure to balance that out with donations to the EFF.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Even if all the technogeeks in the US boycotted the MPAA I don't think there would be much impact. Geeks are a huge minority in the US, and I don't think non geeks really care.
/. are preaching to the choir about such initiatives.
Most of the time people on
-shane
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Hey, guys:
;)
Boycotting the MPAA and RIAA won't do any good, for one major reason: the number of people who actually care about this issue is so small compared to the population at large that the RIAA and MPAA is unlikely to even notice that a boycott is occurring.
What WILL happen is that the people involved in the boycott will punish themselves, suffering weeks without internet access, movies, music, and so on, all just to find out that their suffering has all been in vain.
Then, there are the logistical problems. How, for instance, will boycotters coordinate their activities if they cannot read Slashdot because their ISP is their cable company? And, if they cannot coordinate their efforts, isn't it possible that at least some of them will never realize the boycott is over, ending up forty years from now like latter-day Rip Van Winkles, trying to plug decades-old Linux boxen into some hyper-modern network? Hair down to their ankles, teeth rotten away, eyes frozen into a thousand-yard stare?
Let alone the withdrawl symptoms they'll experience when they give up their favorite games. Public-service wards will fill with people whose thumbs continually twitch, twitch, twitch in a memorized UT sequence... Periodically they'll yell "BUY A BIGGER GUN!" The orderlies will be nervous wrecks. Electroshock will certainly follow.
No, friends, I think I'll pass. I think it will be a lot more fun if one of us creates a half-life mod oriented around the MPAA and/or RIAA headquarters and posts it to a friendly mirror. Surely at least ONE employee of one of these agencies reads slashdot? And, surely SOMEONE out there likes doing game mods, and has a few hours to spare?
I'd just like to see the boss battle against Valenti. THAT would be SOMETHING. Do a sort of "ROBOVALENTI" theme, maybe. Use really bad, color mug shots from the media. Animate it like on SouthPark. Maybe do something like the "bedroom" scene between Saddam and the devil? Um... Or not.
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
When you watch network television, you are contributing by being an eyeball.
Only if you're a Neilson family.
Movies: Only attend matinees, if you MUST see it in a theatre.
MPAA still gets a cut; even if not directly, the cost is offset in the feature price.
DVD's: Only buy used. Period. It's not that difficult to find a pawn shop, or ebay, or whatever.
Music: Only buy used. Again, it's not that hard to find your favorite artists.
Sorry, somebody originally had to buy it in the first place, which means that MPAA or RIAA still got its share. Creating a demand in the secondary market is only going to stimulate a surge in supply in the primary market.
Wanna support the artist? Go see their show, buy their ts-shirt or cd AT THE SHOW.
Sorry, the RIAA gets its cut here as well, at least from the CD sales (the T-shirt sales and concert tickets will vary depending on the artist's contract).
You are missing out on another thing: even if somehow the distribution channel is completely bypassed, that means that the artist didn't get paid either.
The problem with both RIAA and MPAA is that neither one consists of a single corporation, but that they are "trusts" which have succeeded in sustaining oligopoly power.
A boycott truly means: never watching movies outside of independent films, and never listening to music outside of independent music. Most of us (myself included here) are all consumerist victims to the mass market.
Sorry, we can't beat them using these tactics.
Put money into supporting artists signed with non-RIAA labels, and support non-MPAA movies. No, it won't hurt the RIAA or MPAA directly, but it financially supports these companies, and makes them a more feasible choice for artists. If more and more artists are able to work for more scrupulous record labels and film studios, we will begin to have more choices, and be able to purchase more and more stuff that isn't distributed through the **AA.
Take a look at websites like www.cdbaby.com that sell stuff by independent artists, you might be surprised at the quality of stuff they distribute.
I say boycotting RIAA/MPAA will *hurt* the cause. Furthermore, if you don't buy (license) MORE movies and music, you just might be responsible for new draconian laws designed to keep content dealers afloat.
(irony intended)
Sound absurd? Not really. All of the television and much of the print news has some affiliation with the RIAA/MPAA. On the news, slumping music sales are attributed to piracy by kids. If THAT is true, then declining automobile sales must be caused by little green men from mars, because the media is pretty much ignoring the economy right now.
News outlets like CNN run -- unedited -- the RIAA's claim of 400 burners siezed in that NY piracy raid. Never mind that it is NOT TRUE, the news doesn't care about accuracy and even if they are aware of an error, they have a vested interest in the RIAA/MPAA.
Anyways, they'll just spin it so the boycott gets no mention, and dropping sales is because of filesharing on that evil Gnutella network, and obviously the RIAA needs a license to hack your system looking for loot... blah blah
-S
"They're grups! bonk, bonk, on the head."
I have pretty much quit going to theaters since they've all been turned into claustrophobia-inducing shoeboxes with cardboard walls. Not much of a Big Picture, Big Sound experience when you hear half the dialogue and all the effects from the movies playing on either side of you.
In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
I don't watch movies - too expensive for too little return. I barely watch tv - 50,000 channels of bad programming. I only have cable b/c it's the only broadband I have access too. I hardly listen to radio - it's all value-removed repackaging and advertising. As such, I buy one cd a year now (a HUGE change for an ex-dj). Print media is ok from time to time b/c of of pricing and depth and choice. I get most of my news, information and entertainment from the net, libraries and books. I'm a pop-culture hermit.
:)
I've been doing this for years now, after having worked in the media. And you know what, they don't care and wouldn't notice if we all did it. Why? They never do an actually random sample when they do ratings. People such as my self are consider an anomoly and are automatically dropped - you can't even fill out the forms. They argue dropping the extremes makes for a better sample (like in some olympic judging), but they seem to always leave in the guy who has colostomy bag so he doesn't have to miss his show.
The important word here is that they are a cartell. In a monopoly, you have no choice. With a cartell, you have very very little choice. Boycotts do not work against monopolys, cartells, utilities and commodities. Sadly, it may be time for regulation - the ultimate vengence. However, after having read about their accounting practices, I don't see why they couldn't be taken down through the RICO laws.
Democrats and Republicans only disagree about how to enslave you
Unfortunately the latest LOTR DVD has very important uncut scenes not shown in the theater. The fight scenes were twice as long.
A review on Amazon says it all:
In every aspect, the extended-edition DVD of Peter Jackson's epic fantasy The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring blows away the theatrical-version DVD. No one who cares at all about the film should ever need to watch the original version again. Well, maybe the impatient and the squeamish will still prefer the theatrical version, because the extended edition makes a long film 30 minutes longer and there's a bit more violence (though both versions are rated PG-13). But the changes--sometimes whole scenes, sometimes merely a few seconds--make for a richer film. There's more of the spirit of J.R.R. Tolkien, embodied in more songs and a longer opening focusing on Hobbiton. There's more character development, and more background into what is to come in the two subsequent films, such as Galadriel's gifts to the Fellowship and Aragorn's burden of lineage. And some additions make more sense to the plot, or are merely worth seeing, such as the wood elves leaving Middle-earth or the view of Caras Galadhon (but sorry, there's still no Tom Bombadil).
The business model was once good, but times, technology and people's expectations have changed. Now the business model is shit .... let me explain.
First, manufacturing costs have been rapidly dropping. Has that translated into lower prices for end consumers? No. Has that translated into more royalties for the artists? No. So the raw materials suppliers (artists) and retail consumers (you and me) are both wondering where the money is going.
Second, new technologies have opened the door for cheaper distribution methods. The industry has made a step in this direction, but early reviews indicate it is not very sincere. The consumers are clamoring for using computers and networks for music distribution, but the industry doesn't really want to lose their control. Instead of the industry joining with consumers and better integrating music into people's psyche, they are taking an antagonistic view.
Third, new technologies are allowing consumers to integrate music into more parts of their life. Today one can easily listen to their favorite music from the moment they wake up, through their shower, drive to work, etc, until they go to sleep. Has the industry participated in this revolution? No. They have instead been figuring out ways to kill it. Again they are fighting to keep their customers from listening to music on their mp3 players, computers, etc.
Fourth, the marketing plans were born of an era when ideas could be pushed to consumers through a small number of controlled outlets (radio and tv stations). With the internet, consumers can easily talk amongst themselves about what is good and what isn't. It shocks me that the industry is not jumping on the internet and providing a service to match people with artists/songs based on their current listening preferences. Up until now they focused their marketing on a few groups (so as not to confuse the consumers). However with the internet, they can market many more groups to many more customers and in the process increase the amount of music that people listen to.
It's unbelievable. Consumers want to listen to music -- but the record industry doesn't seem interested in actually supplying them with the product they want. On the other side, their raw material suppliers (artists) are actively trying ways to circumvent the media giants and RIAA so they can feel their work is not being taken advantage of.
In any business when you've got both your customers and suppliers by the balls -- you should be commended for your business acumen. But you should also know that your situation is unique and it is only a matter of time before these people come back and break your balls.
The business model is shit because it is adverserial. Work with suppliers, customers and technology to create a win/win for everyone and then I'll say they have a good business model.
The reason the ??AA don't get my money is that my standards for what is 'good' are higher than 99% of the crap they generate. I'm just not interested. If they can find a way to make me interested, they'll get my money. This is the way most people think. The problem everyone seems to be having is that most people settle for what the ??AA is putting out, and it's not good enough for this crowd's tastes.
So what's your problem? Don't go to the movies. You won't be missed, and you won't miss it. Just don't whine about a useless and impractical boycott for ideology's sake. Heaven forbid, you might actually try doing something about it, like starting your own production house. But OMG, that'd require, like, getting off your ass and going outside. And being slightly intelligent and business-savvy. And dealing with liars, cheats, VCs, and all sorts of other unmentionables. Naw, much easier for you to sit down, bitch about how much life sucks on /., and munch Cheetos.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
About 5 years ago, there was a huge drive in the church community to boycott Disney, their movies, and all things associated with Mickey Mouse and friends. The reasons were inane: they had marketing offerings for all types of Sexual Orientations at their theme parks, and had pro-orientation awareness politics in their workplace culture. Thousands of parents threw away their kids copies of the Disney Classics, forbid their kids from watching those movies and shows, and thought they could actually make a difference.
/. readers are huge, but we are still a small piece of the pie. Get something big enough to get on MSN, CNN or Yahoo that is not bias and you've done something. Support the artists through their website and concerts, though even there, you're feeding the beast (who do you think the artists have to buy their CDs from?) and not completely free from them. The key to this game is exposure, and getting some people that have power. All the negative press out there won't help until someone who can do something reads it, and then acts on it.
There is a difference here, of sorts, in that the MPAA actually has reasons to deserve the boycott and bad press. They're about as close to evil as a company can get. But it would still do no good.
We're not talking about something easy to get around. I cannot blame a company's product for actions on the company. I don't care how bad the RIAA is, I will still support the artists I love and get their CDs. Used isn't an option on New CDs, and that is the surefire way to guarantee that the artist will not get any money from your purchase. At least they get something from a retail sale.
As a proud member of the masses, I enjoy purchasing things like CDs, DVDs, and Video Games. There are incentives to buying a DVD these days. All those bonus features, deleted scenes, etc. There is no other medium that moves around the RIAA/MPAA that offers these things. This problem is not new, and will not go away, it just simply is part of capitalism.
There is no true alternative for a lot of entertainment venues out there. Movies are movies, and even if you download them, you trade quality and extras for that "freedom". And there is a rule... if enough people do it, and they actually lose money, then things will vanish. How many bands out there have been affected by poor album sales, and then been dropped by a label. There is no way that I can tell if they were killed off by KaZaA or the other Napster clones, but I'm sure at some point it helped. The same could some day be true with movies.
The problem is in what the RIAA does now, and how much of a drain they are. Boycotting perfectly good movies and artists will not make the RIAA/MPAA go away. It will strangle out the good artists, and we will be covered with every clone and "corporate success" artist out there. Even if the artists are only getting $1 a CD, they are still getting that dollar, and boycotting them affects that too.
What I would look at doing is trying, like some others, to bring the truth about the RIAA/MPAA to light for all to see. Passing around those articles, writing letters to congressmen, or making those visible posts. The
It's good to see that people are actually talking about this again. As the founder of boycott-riaa.com on July 13, 2002, I've been at this for quite sometime. When the original threat of Napster being shutdown loomed, people got incensed and it made difference. That lasted right up until other file sharing programs became available.
We still get a large number of visitors who drop by the site on a daily basis, to check to see what the news is. Some of the most recent articles include: "RIAA's Statistics Don't Add Up to Piracy" (article) and The RIAA's response to "How many CD Burners were there actually in the Queens Bust?"(article) seems there were a heck of a lot less than the equivalent the stated. Straight from the horse's mouth
My personal boycotting lead me to start buying independent music and I've actually been buying more music than I ever did from RIAA artists and labels. Partially because its often cheaper, around $8.00 -$10.00, and partially because the music is often much better, than what the majors are putting out.
In 2001 RIAA sales were down 5% and they RIAA laid off 16 people in Jan 2002. This year the sales are down 7% to 9% (depending on whose numbers you read) hopefully we can look forward to more layoffs. Less staff less impact. The RIAA membership dues are a portion of the labels sales, lower sales=smaller budget=less impact.
Those that say there is no affect on the RIAA and MPAA are misguided. In the past 2 1/2 years I've bought over 150 CDs from independent musicians, money that went to them, not to RIAA labels. But the largest affect that has taken place is that people are begining to discover independent music, are buying it, ignoring the majors offerings, and as a result the RIAA is becoming the Maginot Line of the music industry. We make them irrelvant by bypassing them. What else is happening is that artists are beginning to wake up speaking out as well, Joni Mitchell, Janis Ian, Elton John, The RAC headed by Don Henley, just to name a few. The RIAA's positions coupled with a loss of sales, has come to the attention of Congress, The DOJ to name but a few and many former backers in congress are finding that the RIAA isn't always right or even telling them the truth. Unethical business practices are coming to light that have been the industry standard for years, that are forcing changes in the way the industry works, in their actions toward artists and consumers.
This is not an if/then type of thing, there are a lot of varibles involved, that each action has an effect somewhere, maybe very subtle, but the overall result is that while the RIAA is winning the battles, they are losing the war. And their desperation is showing.
Doing so, that is, "ignoring" what RIAA/MPAA sell to you means ignoring the work of the artists behind all that stuff....so yes. It harms the RIAA/MPAA, but it harms the artists even more....and it's the artists that are essential for the industry, or your interest in music/movies/snips to survive.
The solution is the other way around, "artists and producers" need to "ignore" the RIAA/MPAA and find alternative distribution models, alternative promotion models, and change the way they deal with customers....as of now....every customer who pays $14 to a retailer, and gets one CD, is paying the retailer around $2, and the rest goes to RIAA distributors, who keep another dollar and a half, and pass on the rest to the record company. So the record company gets around US$ 10.5 per CD sold at full price.
Out of that, depending on how good a deal the lawyers of the band managed to cut out, the artist gets somewhere between US$1 to US$3 per disc, plus the check they got for recording if they were lucky. Record studios keep the rest, and account for production/promotion costs.
Let's say "Public Enemy" did an album, got paid US$2 a disc ("good" payment), and a bill of US$ 0.5 million for recording it (highly unlikely), and they sold a million copies, then overall, RIAA managed to get US$ 8 per disc, let's deduct US$ 1 for production (too much, but then let's take the worst case), and put a hefty big promotion worth US$ 1 million for the overall project, then too, the record label made a total of US$ 6 million on this recording in just the base first week/month sales of the album. Whereas artists made US$ 2.5 million, but then that's the best case for the artist, and the worst for the company.
In real world, not only do the artists get paid far less, they also loose the rights to their own work, and that means being unable to "re-sell" their own old music to another company, when their contract with one company expires, or breaks out.
The artist got only US$ 2.5 (in an optimal case) for 1 million copies of his album, lost his music; fans got Costlier CDs, RIAA got rich.
Let's say the artists did everything all by themselves, produce, market, promote and then sell, one album for US$ 7 for a physical "CD", and an electronic download for US$ 5.5 for the entire album download, or US$1.5 for the "best singles".
It costs US$ 0.5 million to get two weeks for a final recording in a good sound studio. It costs US$1 to make a CD with jewel case and covers, a nice poster and a nice lyrics booklet. Let's say they spent US$.5 million in making and spreading a music video, US$0.5 million in promos and adverts, and outsourced distribution from one of the underground low-price distribution networks, pay them US$ 1 per CD sold, the total cost, other than the artistic talent, comes to around US$ 3 to produce an album.
Let's say they sold 1 million CDs, because other than their talent, the marketing was better because they spent more money, and went the right way, and then, the album is cheaper, and has more goodies. They still own their music, they earn from the online sales in "full", and that single the public really fancied will sell so much for US$1.5 that it would make them even more money to pump into promos. This lands the band on a cash pit of over US$ 5 million, while making it cheaper for customers to acquire their music.
Now, obviously, a new artist won't have so much money to pump into all this, so the established ones need to begin on this first, and the others will soon latch on. Obviously, there will be other music companies, those who will be the "breeding ground" for new upcoming artists, invest in their effort, and overall, make money, but then, the internet makes it so much easier to begin small, and then grow up big for any artist.
Now, the dynamics for the movie industry are a little different, and i'm not so familiar with those, but i guess similar things apply there too, specifically in the DVD sales area.
So guys, it's the artists who need to "ignore" the RIAA/MPAA alliance, and find alternative means to reach their audience. Not the other way around.