RIAA nominated for "Internet Villain of the Year"

Joey Patterson writes "Slyck reports that the UK's Internet Industry Awards organization has nominated the RIAA for its Internet Villain of the Year award because they support "'right to hack' proposals and other unworkable solutions to curb copyright abuse"." Congratulations to them on being nominated for this prestigious and appropriate award ;)

Comments

For those who post without reading the article

[ninewands]

The nominations are:

BBC Watchdog: 'for a report on the important issue of spam that was more intent on vilifying ISP's than educating consumers'

The Home Office: 'for the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security (ATCS) Act and continued delays associated with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA)'

Oftel: 'for (amongst a host of other things) failing to ensure expedient local loop unbundling by BT which has hindered both competition in the telco sector and the development of Broadband Britain'

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA): 'for supporting "right to hack" proposals and other unworkable solutions to curb copyright abuse'

Telecommunications analysts: 'for their substantial contribution to the meltdown in the telecommunications and Internet sector'

That really is a nasty group of suspects, but we might want to add:

John Poindexter: 'for attempting to destroy world-wide privacy.'

The United States Congress (both houses): 'for (among too many other offenses to list in detail) passing the PATRIOT Act and other privacy-invading and security-compromising legislation that will be completely ineffective in stopping terrorism.'

Re:For those who post without reading the article

[WPIDalamar]

I'd have to go ahead and vote for Congress. They passed the PATRIOT act AND the DMCA, and refuse to do anything about ICANN.

2002

[rjamestaylor]

Maybe 2002 will be remembered as the year that the RIAA began to unravel. This year the RIAA has been exposed as a self-profiting organization--not caring for the artist or the consumer but for the pockets of the "radio execs." Maybe 2002 will be the year that the heretofore unknown consortium became a household byword. This is Not Good becuase the RIAA stands as an unpopular middleman between two parties that want each other: artists and their public. Common everyday folk in America began to understand in 2002 that the RIAA doesn't represent the ARTIST but the RECORDING STUDIO and RECORD LABEL. What happens when two parties are attracted together (say a lovely teenage girl and a handsome teenage boy) but are restricted in contact by a third party (say a domineering dad)? At first the girl may appreciate the protection of her dad, but the desire will grow so that the daughter and boyfriend will seek a channel of communication without the father's interference.

Maybe in 2003 the girl and boy begin sneaking around to date behind the father's back (via limited direct distributions direct from the artist's website?). How long until the couple are enagaged (using the Internet to directly market the music?)? The question is, will the father walk the daughter down the aisle or will the couple elope?

In 2002, the public began to dislike the RIAA. I predict wedding bells by 2006.

Re:2002

[SuperDuG]

Well here's what really gets me about the MPAA and RIAA. This is an industry of complete capitalistic control (lets face it entertainment has a whole lotta money), but even more strange is that in this "dog-eat-dog" society that these groups are able to get along.

I think what everyone needs to remember is a rather funny quote "remember even your closest friend will sell you out for the price of a extra value meal". They'll go to battle destroy each other, and the bottom feeders are looking to pick up what pieces fall. Many people are still there to make great albums or movies, but in the wake of Britney Spears and NSync along with "The Hot Chick" and "Analyze That" these aren't things that will "make history" or even be remembered in 3 years, but look at Lord of The Rings or quite a few bands out there today Incubus, Foo Fighters, and many more.

People will get tired of the bullshit, and when that time comes, change will come. The MPAA and RIAA are fueled by lack of alternative entertainment, as is true for even the computer world. But as has been proven in the past, you can only be king of the hill for so long before you get knocked off.

Good Post BTW

A Humble Suggestion

[Badgerman]

Why isn't Slashdot doing this? Let's have a Slashdot villain of the year contest.

Yeah, we can joke. We KNOW one of the nominees will be CowboyNeil. But in all seriousness, perhaps this is another way Slashdot can do some good. Have people suggest villains, send the reasons why, and the most popular and best-explained ones go up.

Sure, it may seem silly, but today, on the net, a little spectacle and some humor can break down barriers and make a point.

Re:This is getting silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Disrespect for private property (see hacking into personal computers to 'look for' and 'remove' various things), the equivalent of running sweat shops (Google for how much artists really get per disc) and directly/indirectly stiffling the march of technological progress (It's fun to get sued under the D - M - C - A!)...

If the first two aren't enough, the third ought to be considered a crime against humanity. I will label anyone who dares interefere with the progress of our race, be it technological, spiritual or what have you, as evil.

Re:This is getting silly

[lungs5i9]

I think the RIAA is stupid for its militant stance on the destruction of a technology that could have saved their industry from their own extinction, and personally, I think the music industry deserves to be pirated, as it costs aprx. $0.17 to completly manufacture a compact disc (including booklet, case, and other factors.) From each $15.99 unit sold, the artist usually only recieves $0.04 per unit sold in royalties. And as far as the retailers are concerned, they have no choice but to charge that $15.99, as they buy the units for about 20% to 35% less than the consumer pays, which I assume is the general markup of pretty much everything these days. So if the retailer pays $12.79, less $0.04 to the artist and another $0.17 for manufacturing costs, they gross aprx. $12.58 per unit sold. My point is this: I have been paying these prices for years; they aren't in any financial difficulty, and the artists themselves aren't making $12.50 off a cd. This justifies the "piracy" of the music industry, in my mind, so long as you aren't bootlegging. Fight fire with fire, I say.

Re:new villians on the block

[Guppy06]

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but perhaps Boris & Natasha would be a good icon for a new MPAA/RIAA category.