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'm wondering if the artists are being paid for their product, or if this is eventually coming out of the artist's pockets.
The reason I'm asking is that the record industry usually charges everything that it can back to the artists: production costs, advertising costs, warehousing costs, everything. Any incoming funds are applied against the record company bottom line first, and the remainder goes against the "debt" accrued by the artist.
So, are the artists getting any money from the disbursement of their product?
RomSteady - I came, I saw, I tested. GamerTag: RomSteady / http://www.romsteady.net
Here's what I think would have been the fairest to the consumers.
Every time an album hits #1, the industry must give out 10,000 copies. When they've given out their quota this practice stops.
How hard was that?
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
I don't understand why these groups are allowed to give away items by "value" rather than being required to drop cash. I'm pretty sure that those CDs aren't worth $15 but will probably be charged against the settlement to the tune of $18 because of the suggested retail price.
Makes you wonder if they're the exception or us.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
" If you really hate the RIAA so much, you should not only vote with your wallet by not giving them money, you should also refrain from obtaining their products illegally."
For the record, I haven't downloaded music in over a year now. I subscribed to a music service called Rhapsody, and haven't looked back in P2P's direction.
I still have some bitterness here because I was called a thief by the *AA before I downloaded music simply because I had a CD burner. I was called a thief AFTER I did download music even though the main use of it was to find new CDs I wanted. (in my 56k days, downloading albums was damn near impossible.) Despite this, I went ahead and subscribed to the music service. I'm 100% legit now. I did NOT want any of my money going to the RIAA.
Here's the problem, though: There will always be music trading of some sort going on. There is no practical way I can stop other people. The best I've got is to let them see what I'm doing for music these days. There are always going to be people using MP3s legitimately, though the RIAA doesn't see MP3 players as being anything but tools for stolen property. Basically, I am of the belief that no matter how many people stop, the people that don't stop will keep the RIAA in its crummy position.
It's not that I'm trying to shoot your point down, it's just that I don't see it as being all that practical. The music services these days are suitable enough for me that I don't care if P2P music trading lives or dies. However, the RIAA needs a stronger message. It really shocks me that the brilliant success of iTunes hasn't changed the RIAA's tune at all. (Err, that I've found.) That kind of shoots down my idea of spending $100 there. *Sigh*
I think you're right, but I don't think it can happen on a big enough scale. I'm aching for something that sends a bigger message.
"Derp de derp."
Given the mentality of the RIAA, it's only a matter of time before they launch a serious attack on public libraries. After all, libraries allow people to freely take CDs home, listen to them (consume RIAA product without a per-use payment), and then bring them back if they don't like them (actually bring them back whether they like them or not).
This situation seems just guaranteed to make the RIAA foam at the mouth. And these are the guys that wanted Congress to put DRM in every $1.50 Digital-to-Analog convertor chip, so you know their enthusiasm is not tempered by logic.
So an attempt by the RIAA to force the public libraries to remove all the CDs and DVDs from their shelves seems inevitable. They probably think that they can file one brief with one judge someplace and the next day all the CDs and DVDs would be removed from the all of the stacks. They probably think that putting pressure on the libraries is going to be even easier than setting 100 Harvard Law Graduates on a high school girl downloading Britany outtakes. They probably think that they're going to wake up the day after filing their little brief and find hundreds of millions of dollars in checks piled up at their doorstep sent to them from librarians in unpaid royalities from all the people who checked out CDs, took them home and listened to them,... Without Paying the RIAA anything!
Personally, myself, I wouldn't mess with the librarians. They handled many yahoos before. Bozos like the RIAA are nothing new to them.
Every generation, someone NEW to the publishing industry makes the observation that people who read books from the library aren't actually buying the books that they read... and this ain't right. The other publishers point out that they might sell 500 copies of some fool's first novel if he stands on his head long enough on TV, but the public libraries buy 50,000 copies on the basis of a thumb's up review in NY Review of Books, at full list price.
The RIAA isn't all that bright, so, maybe, messing with the Public Library institutions of America may be the force that knocks them back to their caves.
Why didn't the judge do like they normally do in term of damages: require money that the court gives to the plaintiff? And the libraries could by, as per market, what will interest their readers? Or is that solution too obvious?
Isn't this a bit close to the alimony giver controlling how much the victim gets?
The mistake the court made is that they expected the RIAA to be fair. Well, the RIAA schooled them on that.
Fact is, the RIAA is arguably the most consumer-hostile trade group today. This cynical move on their part cetainly proves it beyond all doubt.
So how to fix them?
The court should re-value the RIAA's "donation" at fair market value. Now here's the beauty: in this case, these CD titles are scrap, so they have negative value. They cost more to dispose of than they're worth.
So the RIAA owes libraries for tossing their (RIAA's) trash. I say fine RIAA that amount, and little extra to punish them for being asshats.
Now since RIAA cannot be trusted to secure and distribute titles of value for the libraries, simply take that job away from them. Impose a cash settlement from RIAA and let the libraries use those funds to acquire the titles themselves, from whomever they choose (including non-RIAA artists, out-of-prints, and so forth.)
I doubt the RIAA will learn any lesson given their track record of dogged hostility, but at least they could be forced in actually bringing about improvements in library media stocks.
LINKCat, the library catalog system that SCLS uses, keeps track of all those dusty titles virtually for free, and gets them in the hands of the public with a minimum of effort on the part of all involved. Notwithstanding this technology, the library employees I have dealt with at member libraries have been helpful, courteous, and efficient. I have requested titles held in the basement archives a mere 10 minutes before library closing. About 8 minutes later someone returned from the basement with my book, apologizing for her tardiness, explaining that the lights had been turned off already, and she had to hunt through the stacks with a flashlight to get me what I wanted.
Though this level of service seems not to be universally available, public libraries certainly *can* maintain large inventories and be an incredible community resource without exceeding budgetary constraints - I've seen it happen.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
The Mint doesn't pay alimony. Giving the RIAA the choice of which CDs it can use to pay, when they clearly do not have the same value over time allows them a lot of control over what the "payment" is actually worth.
Considering that the said value also presumably includes a portion for RIAA dues paid by the publisher is also a consideration.
How would the court view a lawyer normally charging 150$/hour, value his hours at 300$ and "give" them in place of alimony(say giving them for charity). Such payment in kind would not be accepted, why do they allow the RIAA to do so? The idea here is not that the RIAA can choose which form of payment it wants to use, but that the RIAA also influences the value of the good, before it makes the gift...