Still More RIAA News

We just did an article about the RIAA's mendacity with statistics, and here come some more: first, someone has gone to the trouble to deconstruct their income figures over the past few years, showing that the RIAA's lack of investment in new releases is in itself sufficient to explain any dropping sales, and second, this website concerning the music industry settling a price-fixing lawsuit, which I believe is this one, filed two years ago.

Comments

Quibble

[squiggleslash]

We just did an article about the RIAA's mendacity with statistics, and here come some more: first, someone has gone to the trouble to deconstruct their income figures over the past few years, showing that the RIAA's lack of investment in new releases is in itself sufficient to explain any dropping sales, and second, this website concerning the music industry settling a price-fixing lawsuit, which I believe is this one, filed two years ago.

Ok, first off: The RIAA is not a record producer or publisher. It's an industry group that represents producers and publishers. I assume the comment suggesting that the RIAA hasn't invested in new releases actually means that RIAA members have not invested in new releases, or even that record producers in general have not invested.

I point this out because it gets grating every time it's suggested that the RIAA is some giant monopoly that controls what gets published and whatnot. It isn't. That's about as sane as headlining a report describing a "going postal" type massacre as "NRA goes on shooting rampage in post office".

The RIAA is an industry association. It does not control its members, its members control it.

Re:Quibble

[Guppy06]

"I point this out because it gets grating every time it's suggested that the RIAA is some giant monopoly that controls what gets published and whatnot. It isn't."

It's a price-fixing cartel that has established oligopoly control of the entire market, just like OPEC. I feel it's perfectly justified to call its actions "monopolistic" since they're identical to what a monopolistic entity (like Microsoft) would do.

I've heard of splitting hairs before, but sheesh...

RTFA

[ajs]

The article referenced is quite clear on this point. It is quotoing the RIAA's announcements regarding income industry-wide (though presumably the RIAA's definitaion of "industry-wide" refers only to it's members).

The differnce between saying that the RIAA's income statistics are incorrect and saying that the NRA shot someone is that the NRA was likely not involved in the shooting, and likely did not colude to make the shooting happen the way it did.

The RIAA is directly reporting these statistics. They are the RIAA's collective industry statistics. Also, the RIAA members have been shown to actively colude to make these statistics what they are through price-fixing and other tactics.

On the point of calling the RIAA a monopoly, I think it's perfectly fair. Just as a corporation can act as a single entity even though it is made up of many individuals, so too does the RIAA act as a single entity for the purposes of controling retail sales of music and lobbying (i.e. buying politicians) for music-industry causes like passing the DMCA. BMI did not lobby to pass the DMCA independantly, the RIAA did. This is a tactic for gaining control over the market and over the technologies that affect the market by the RIAA.

Monopoly tactics? Yep.

Re:many perspectives

[MacAndrew]

Amen.

I'm glad also not to hear you (quite) say, "Well, I'd stop stealing if they'd just lower prices." Stealing will always be free (esp. when P2P cuts out the street corner middle man in the trenchcoat), and they can never compete with free. Just say "no" to extortion. :)

CD prices have fallen surprisingly little in 20 years -- about a third in inflation-adjusted dollars. I don't remember prices like this with vinyl, and when CD's came along there was a hefty premium for them. Yes, they provided higher quality, but I bet their production costs are now far lower.

I think the RIAA members need to do some serious introspection about their business model. That doesn't mean ignoring infringement, but realizing that the boat is sinking because of a lot of larger holes in the hull. Direct sales are a great concept; other methods to lower costs must exist. Note however that we do live in a society that somehow manages to buy $130 Nikes that cost $30 wholesale. (Astonishingly, Nike only makes a few dollars profit on each pair.) The record industry is far from the only industry with big markups, so don't rush to any conclusions.

The RIAA members should not abuse market statistics or fix prices to promote their cause. Resentful consumers should not steal to promote theirs. Now, all join hands and sing....

The funny thing is I'm sure 99% of the public has no idea what all this talk is about. The one-quarter who do don't even talk to the three-eighths of the 10% of the last ninth who uh... Well, I'd like to see some statistics on that, I'm 110% certain.

Hate RIAA? Sign up for your free $20

[mbstone]

As the article mentions, there is a proposed settlement in a class action price fixing lawsuit filed by 43 state attorneys general against several major record companies and music retailers.

The terms of the settlement are that people who bought music CDs, records or cassettes between 1/1/95 and 12/22/00 can apply for a refund of up to $20.

But: Like most class action settlements, the terms are not necessarily favorable to consumers. For example, the settlement fund is $67,375,000 in cash plus $75,700,000 "worth of" prerecorded CDs. If "the number of claims filed would result in refunds of less than $5.00 per claimant, there will be no cash distribution to individual consumers. Rather, the cash portion of the settlement shall be distributed to mot-for-profit, charitable, governmental or public entities[.]"

Find out more at musiccdsettlement.com

Disclaimer: The poster (me) expresses no opinion as to the merits (if any) of this class action settlement, and this post is not legal advice nor is it an advertisement or solicitation for legal services.

Someone please help me out here...

[sdo1]

OK, I read the settlement pages.

Between the dates mentioned (Jan. 1, 1995 to Dec. 22, 2000) I bought hundreds of CDs and LPs. "Up to $20 per claimant" does justice to someone who bought 5 or 10 CDs during that time... but completely screws those who bought a lot more.

I read the section on my legal rights which states...

If you do not wish to be a member of the Settlement Group, you may exclude yourself by writing to the Compact Disc MAP Antitrust Litigation Administrator as outlined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement . Your request must be postmarked no later than March 3, 2003. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing to determine if the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate on May 22, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, United States Courthouse, 156 Federal Street, Portland, Maine 04101. If you remain a member of the Settlement Group, you or your counsel have the right to appear before the Court and object to the Settlement. However, you must file a Notice of Intention to Appear and Object as outlined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement. Objections must be filed by March 3, 2003.

I'd assume that I could opt out of the settlement group and then file a claim independently... but that sounds expensive and time consuming in order to (doubtfully) recover what would be, at most, a couple bucks per CD/LP (maybe $1K total if I calculated that way).

The other option, and maybe more preferable, would be to become a member of the settlement and then show up a the courthouse to object (Portland, ME is a couple hours away... could be an interesting/educational trip to be sure). Maybe if we could organize a small army of people from nearby with LARGE music collections to come and (hopefully) testify/object. What do you think folks? I'm game.

-S