Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Continues Distributing Dud CDs to Satisfy Settlement
cosyne writes "Part of the music industry's recent price fixing settlement involves giving free CDs to public libraries. Although they are technically complying with the the letter of the law, they're abusing the spirit by giving the libraries large piles of crud. According to the Stevens Point Journal, '[the] Milwaukee Public Library received 1,235 copies of Whitney Houston's 1991 recording of "The Star-Spangled Banner," 188 copies of Michael Bolton's "Timeless," 375 of "Entertainment Weekly: The Greatest Hits 1971," and 104 copies of Will Smith's "Willennium."' The recording industry obviously wouldn't want to have libraries loaning out music that people might otherwise buy." See also a related story about shipments to another state.
I've seen so much bitching about the RIAA and MPAA, and I agree with a lot of it, but you have a choice. Vote with your wallet. Do not buy their product, that is the only way you can have change. I've been RIAA free for almost a year now..perhaps even longer and I now listen to better music as a result.
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
Not a chance in hell. One of the many breakdowns of where the money goes from record sales in the wake of Courtney Love's now infamous anti-RIAA tirade was fairly clear on that. All of the percentages are based on sales, specifically excluding "good will" copies, which are issued at the whim of the RIAA but the artists indirectly get to pay for.
Given the way they have just shown their contempt of the ruling by following the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit I expect they will do the same thing for the contracts too. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if these CDs are classed as "good will" copies too and the artists essentially get sent the bill. I just hope that they build a monument to the RIAA at some point so I can go and piss on it.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Yeah, one megacorporation is going to punish another megacorporation for mistreating consumpers. Right.
Besides, this is probably illegal in the US. I remember there was an incident where a restauraunt refused to serve OJ Simpson, citing a "no murderers" policy. They lost.
But since the RIAA pays to get songs on the chart instead of it being based on quality or popularity, this is what you get.
Blame the lawyers this time. They knew what they were doing.
My wife's school just got a box of CD's (which was out of the blue for them) It's a grade school. "Spooky Scary Sounds for Halloween from Martha Stewart" was one of the few CD's that was even useful. The principle basicly wanted the CD's off the school property. A letter with the CD's stated the following:
"We note that the CD's that are being distributed were selected will an eye towards making a distribution that is representative of all generes of prerecorded music. For that reason we wish to caution you that some materials being distributed may be suitable only for use by teenagers, yough adults or adults."
Um, ya. On a brighter note on things, despite the fact that a lot of the CD's where in fact cut-outs the letter goes on to state:
"If you receive CD's which are not appropriate or useful for you collection, or which are duplicative, you may wish to use those CD's for fund-rasing purposes, such as through library sales or auctions. However, if you do so, any funds raised must be used in a manner that complies with the settlement agreement as noted above."
So let me get this straight, they couldn't sell them, but we're welcome to try... Yah, thanks. Someone dropped the ball here. The music companies just basicly got a chance to clean out the warehouse. One of the CD they got was even smashed. I'm sure that the record companies where able to claim the full value of the CD as being donated, hell they are probably even going to get to write it off!
Ah well, at least this halloween the kids will have really spooky music to listen to. (Even spookyer now Martha's going to be an ex-con, eh?)
Uh, there are plenty of indies who are in the RIAA. Most of the big indies are. Indie effectively refers to any company not in the top 5/10/20 of record labels. RIAA has at least a hundred member record companies last time I checked, which cover nearly all commercially released albums. Sure, the band of 14 year olds that lives in your town and has never toured out of county might not be involved with the RIAA, but the situation is not encouraging.
I'd rather bitch about the media on this one. I looked at the complete list from the other article, and I have to say it was pretty easy for them to go through the list pick out some crap and make it look horrible. For example, they mention "Entertainment Weekly: The Greatest Hits 1971" well what about the other ones that were included 1965 - 1993. For a library that is a pretty good set.
Not that I like the RIAA, but really I don't think it is as bad as it looks from the articles.
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01101101 01100101
Got a link to back up that story? Most restaurants reserve to the right to deny service to anyone, and they do so legally (as long as it isn't in a broad stroke to a protected class).
I was thinking that if I stopped supporting RIAA attatched bands that I respect, that they might get a clue, and start some independant release scheme, but them realized that that is dumb.
They cannot start an independent release scheme because they are bound by contract to produce music exclusively for the label that they signed with for a long period of time (typically 7+ years). If that is not bad enough the costs of producing the albums, including recording studio time, promotion (er..payola), and marketing fees are paid for by the label, but charged to the artist as a LOAN. Thus, many of the bands are trapped in their contracts with the labels until they can pay off all the money that they owe. If an album doesn't sell well then the artist can be left with little to show for months or years of work other than a six figure debt.
I've come to the conclusion that until the RIAA makes some serious changes in the way they treat their artists and their customers I won't buy a thing from them. Does this mean I'm giving up music?
No, though it does mean I won't be buying some of my favorite artists. It also means I need to find some new ones and the place I've been looking is Magnatunes, they're true to their slogan, "We are not Evil", and have a fairly large selection of artists, not all of them are my taste but then again I don't like a lot of big label artists either. You're probably not going to find a Paul Simon or The Beatles here but I've found some nice music. No harm in checking out of course, no harm worrying that you'll buy an album that you won't like. You see all their music is available for listening right on their website so you can listen to a particular album as many times as you want before buying (in a good but lossy format though), then if you decide you want to buy you get to pay anywhere from $5-$18 US, the artist gets half of course. Of course you're wondering if people will actually buy when they can get the music whenever they want for free? Well I've bought two albums already and am quite close to buying a third. Go ahead RIAA, make as much trouble as you want, I don't need you anymore, whine until you end up on the street with the other crackheads, I'll be helping the good guys.
I stole this Sig
Chicken of the Sea Girl
I heard she got a job modelling for Nvidia.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
From the meager data available, it sounds as if the settlement specifies certain popularities of artists, but not particular CDs. So the libraries are getting the dud albums of artists whose other works have sold well.