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.

Comments

They had an opportunity to look good

[erick99]

It is shameful that the RIAA clearly attended only to the letter of the law. I believe that the ruling judge assumed that they wouldn't do something so despicable as to not only send exceptionally outdated/unpopular/fringe CD's but send them in ridiculous quantities.

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," and nearly everything in between.

I hope that someone brings this to the attention of the judge(s) who could then provide a remedy that includes some sort of formula for how many CD's have to from the current or near-current top-whatever list. The RIAA should be ashamed of themselves. They had an opportunity to look good and to look generous but, instead, they took yet another dump on their customer base. For God's sake, will they ever learn and stop acting like spoiled children?

Cheers!

Erick

Re:They had an opportunity to look good

[Ieshan]

Yeah, and the worst part is, it's almost an admission that they don't know the value of public libraries.

If the public library has a complete and total music collection and sued publishers to provide them with books, only to recieve 593 copies of "Martha Stewart's: 'Cooking with the Neighbors", 1,989 copies of "Maxim: The Uncensored Cut", 184 copies of "Pete Rose: How I Gambled and Stuff", and 8,948 copies of "A Year of Baseball Cards: The 1947 Digest", NO ONE WOULD USE THE SERVICE.

Re:They had an opportunity to look good

[yintercept]

The RIAA is using libraries to dump overstock: "Give 'em the printed CDs that we can't sell."

The RIAA could have accomplished the goal of protecting their precious main stream pop collection by giving the library volumes of cultural stuff like Brahms, the pipers of Scotland and what not that teeny boppers never buy. The libraries would have ended up with stuff worth keeping in the collection.

The sad thing about the RIAA using the library system to dump unsold CDs is that it stifles the overstocked market. In the book industry, you end up having the unsold books flowing through dollar book stores where the less affluent can pick up new cds for rock bottom prices. Of course, the dud cds will just be distributed to the public through the library's used book sales, but the buyer doesn't get the satisfaction of breaking the seal.

BTW: There is one big difference between music and books in public libraries. It generally takes a person a week or two to read a book, while it only takes an hour or so to copy a CD. Thinking in terms of checkout days, if it takes an average of 14 checkout days for people to read the Da Vinci Code and a library system has 10,000 readers interested in reading the book in the first year then the library might do something like divide 14,000 by 300 and see that they need 47 copies of the book to fit their demand.

If a music CD averages two check out days, then they will need only 6 copies of American Idol

Re:They had an opportunity to look good

[innocent_white_lamb]

There is one big difference between music and books in public libraries. It generally takes a person a week or two to read a book, while it only takes an hour or so to copy a CD.

And therein lies the problem from the RIAA's point of view.

You aren't supposed to copy the cd that you borrow from the library, just the same as you aren't supposed to photocopy the book that you borrowed from the same place. Read and return; listen and return.

The fact that you stated this viewpoint in such an offhand manner indicates that you didn't consider that difference at all.

Re:They had an opportunity to look good

[angle_slam]

If the public library has a complete and total music collection and sued publishers to provide them with books, only to recieve 593 copies of "Martha Stewart's: 'Cooking with the Neighbors", 1,989 copies of "Maxim: The Uncensored Cut", 184 copies of "Pete Rose: How I Gambled and Stuff", and 8,948 copies of "A Year of Baseball Cards: The 1947 Digest", NO ONE WOULD USE THE SERVICE.

I think that's the point. Dump enough bad CDs on libraries, no one will go to libraries and people will be forced to buy CDs instead of checking them out.

Re:They had an opportunity to look good

[ThisIsFred]

It's obivious that they don't value a lot of the stuff they actually produce. Just goes to show, a release is worth $0 until the one payola-promoted song is on the CD, then it's worth $20. What's seriously funny about this is that the RIAA and crew are actually screwing themselves, because music production, distribution, and promotion is so vertical (and apparently expensive), that there is little opportunity to either let someone else experiment, or to get feedback from consumers. Well, they got their feedback when they didn't sell millions of "Willenium" CDs, but it was a tad late by then.

I can't say that I believe they don't value public libraries, but they certainly have no idea how they work. Public libraries get their funding based primarily on how much they circulate. They wouldn't need any more than maybe one copy of Willenium per 5,000 patrons. You could use anything in that example - one book title, one audio cassette title, whatever. This is good and bad. It's good because it rewards the libraries that best serve the taxpayers. It's bad because libraries are no longer a big archive of collected books (costs too much to track all those dusty titles), and have something more like a B&N store.

Anyway, that explanation aside... Anything donated beyond a handful is really worth nothing, since it is going to circulate. I think the RIAA's message is, "public libraries are an evil hotbed of piracy!" I still maintain that this was a terrible settlement idea, I have no idea what libraries have to do with price fixing when I (former CD buyer) am seeing no benefits, and the government got what it deserved for trying to directly fix the situation.

Re:They had an opportunity to look good

[perlchild]

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?

Re:They had an opportunity to look good

[yintercept]

Actually, I was thinking about the digitizing problems. If I were in the RIAA, I would do everything possible to avoid filling libraries with the pop culture music that sells well in stores. I would try to get the libraries to stock up on boring educational oriented CDs that people are not likely to copy to their MP3 collection.

For that matter, on rereading the attached articles, I actually find myself sympathizing with the RIAA's choice of donated CDs. The articles are upset because the library didn't get a boatload of the popular music that people want. To a large extent, I think collection of music at the library should be about expanding the exposure to different types of music, rather than just playing the greatest hits of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

What I want in a library collection is a large number of obscur titles that I am likely to listen to once or twice. The only problem I have with the RIAA's selection is the large number of duplicates. It is not with the obscurity of the titles.

Re:They had an opportunity to look good

[ottffssent]

The more I gain experience with foreign library systems, the more I respect the South Central Library System, which I grew up using and had rather taken for granted. Within about 3 days, for free, I can get any book in over 50 public libraries covering the entire southern half of the state of Wisconsin shipped to my local branch.

It's bad because libraries are no longer a big archive of collected books (costs too much to track all those dusty titles)

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.

Re:They had an opportunity to look good

[perlchild]

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...

Sorry. I hate the RIAA

[Ckwop]

The RIAA expects the customers to hand over cash for overpriced CDs, appealing to morality for justification, and yet in act of gross duplicity it gives libraries crud just to spite them because they lost a court case. This isn't about morals, it isn't even about the artists.. it's about the bloody dollars.

Don't get me wrong. I don't support piracy but the RIAA's approach isn't exactly making me willing me to go out and buy their dross. Fear not, technology has destroyed industries before. The nice thing to know is that it's usually pretty ruthless in that it takes no prisoners. I doubt the RIAA will be the exception. No amount of law making saved the canal boats from the invention of the automobile.

We now have the infrastructure to pay the artist not the army of lawyers, executives and other useless staff. I think all artists would prefer a return to the music and less of the obsession with the dollars. I'd be more willing to fork out the dollars (will pounds in my case) if I knew the artist was the key beneficiary?

Simon.

Re:Sorry. I hate the RIAA

[smkndrkn]

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.

Re:Sorry. I hate the RIAA

[NanoGator]

"Vote with your wallet. Do not buy their product, that is the only way you can have change."

Yeah, like DMCA2. The RIAA will chalk up any losses to piracy. They won't get your message, instead they'll twist that data and use it to get new really bad laws in place.

Wish I had a strong alternative, but really I don't. This is as good of time as any for somebody to speak up.

Re:Sorry. I hate the RIAA

[rppp01]

Vote with your wallet?

Some of us have for years now. But realize the more we don't buy anything from them, the more they claim that piracy is stealing money from their pockets. This in turn will get them to lean heavily on Congress to push more laws that force people to pay more for less.

This isn't simply capitalism anymore. This is extortion. What's the next step? Fascism?

Re:Sorry. I hate the RIAA

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I really do wonder where this is going to end. In 100 years, will people look back on this as the time when corporate greed destroyed the American music industry?

People will look back and laugh at the quaint historical anomaly called "the music industry" -- a beast that did not exist prior to 1890 and probably won't survive past 2040 or so.

Re:Sorry. I hate the RIAA

[NanoGator]

" 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.

Does using the word "continue" in the headline...

[DeepHurtn!]

...mean that we can't complain it's a dupe?

On the Road to Utopia

[mfh]

> 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.

I think the problem is that the RIAA only has access to large piles of crud. Let's face it -- Britney, Justin, which other Mousekateers-turned-popstar are there? Chicken of the Sea Girl, Nick whatever-his-name-is, and the list goes on and on.

Indies are being given a huge door to stroll through and every time the RIAA screws up, it helps the indies get more market share. So I'm all for the RIAA being asshats, because they are on the road to Utopia.

Re:On the Road to Utopia

[Jeff DeMaagd]

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.

Damn

[gordgekko]

This totally explains why I haven't been able to buy a copy of Willenium anywhere. All the copies are in Milwaukee!

Re:Damn

[jb.hl.com]

Or as it is now known, Willwaukee.

Michael Bolton

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should I change, he's the one who sucks!

Artists

[RomSteady]

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?

Re:Artists

[Zocalo]

So, are the artists getting any money from the disbursement of their product?

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.

Blame the Judge on this one

[nurb432]

He should have been savvy enough to predict a stunt like this, and specified what was 'acceptable' in a bit more detail in order to prevent it..

Give a snake an inch, and they will try to eat you...

Not so!

[SpooForBrains]

This can't be true. Only yesterday I loaned out a copy of Sounds of the Supermarket: 20 Shopping Greats.

What's this going to cost in storage?

[JayBlalock]

It's kind of sweet, how the people in charge are attempting to put some kind of positive face on this. Yes, they DID get a lot of CDs, and they might potentially be able to sell them (at pennies on the dollar) in fundraising. But in the meantime, what's it going to COST the schools \ libraries dealing with the mess? Cataloging and storage isn't cheap. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the end, this ended up costing the schools (and therefore, the taxpaying public the RIAA was originally convicted of ripping off) more money than it brings in.

You can almost imagine some high mucky-muck at the RIAA laughing maniacally and twirling his moustache as he pronounced this.

Prior Art

[Qrlx]

AOL lawyers will be in court Monday seeking an injunction against the RIAA. A company spokesman said "Mass-mailing the same useless CD over and over again is but one of many valuable innovations in AOL's patent portfolio. We find it ironic that the RIAA, purported champion of Intellectual Property rights, has adopted our highly successful business model without ever paying us one cent in licensing fees or royalties."

Another Day...

[One Childish N00b]

...another tantrum from the RIAA.

When are they going to realise that when people hear about them doing this stuff, it makes them less inclined to buy their content? RIAA tantrums induce piracy because of the affect on thousands of people every time who will refuse to buy crap from such a selfish company.

All companies are out to make money, but haven't the RIAA heard of a little thing called 'PR'? They spend enough trying to make their latest teeny-pop artist look 'cool' and 'must buy' - why don't they pool their marketing expertise and realise that when they do things like this, they make themselves look bad and in turn discourage people from buying from them - effectively inducing piracy.

Also, how many copies of 'Willennium' do they have to distribute? Every time I see an announcement like this they're handing out a new 3-figure sum of the damn things to some poor public institute!

Related Article

[TheFlyingGoat]

There's more info at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Among the quotes: 'She said there was even mold growing on a few of the 520 CDs received in Mequon - a five-disk 1999 set titled "Respect: A Century of Women in Music." ... It was disappointing because we could have actually used that one'. As a Milwaukee resident I know I'll be running to the library to check a few of these out. :P

Duh!

[HeyLaughingBoy]

What else did anyone expect? If you force me to give away 10% of my possessions of course I'm going to find the 10% of crap that I don't like, never use, or can't even sell at a garage sale. Goodbye argyle socks!

Want a real settlement? Should have made the terms such that they only give away Top 100 stuff or something like that (or better yet, cash!); otherwise there are no grounds for complaint.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that in a country of almost 300M people, at least a few like Whitney Houston

Idiots

[sheldon]

And I'm not talking about the RIAA.

What did you expect?

Frankly I think it's a creative point-making excercise by the RIAA. You complain about good CDs costing money, but you forget the fact that they've got 10,000 copies of Whitney Houston's recording of the Star Spangled banner sitting in a warehouse cause nobody wants that crap.

For every good CD that you want to buy, there are 20 others published that very few people give a shit about.

The CD prices are fine, quit your whining. If you don't like it, don't buy CDs! That's the only way you are going to hurt them, with your free market wallet.

Re:Idiots

[hendersj]

CD prices are fine? Then why were they convicted of price fixing?

The promise of CDs back when they first came out was that they were cheaper to produce than cassettes. Yet the cost of CDs has consistently - since the release of the CD as a format - has been higher than cassettes.

RIAA have the nerve to claim piracy is cutting into their profits, yet they are convicted of price fixing. Could it possibly be that the prices they've fixed are not prices the market will bear for the crap they produce? No, it has to be pirates, it couldn't be that RIAA turns out total crap and then tries to charge a price that the market simply won't bear.

Myself, I stopped buying large amounts of CDs years ago. I don't download, and I don't pirate songs, I just haven't found much worth paying any amount of money for in probably the last 5 years, and those that were worth paying for weren't worth the asking price. The few CDs I've purchased in the last few years have been used, because those prices are a lot more reasonable and in line with the actual value of the content on the discs.

Every year I vote against Hatch (I live in Utah) and every year that bastard continues to get elected.

Here's the best idea and it only took 15 seconds

[orionware]

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?

Classical Music

[nick.cash]

It seems like about half of what they got was classical music. To me, this makes a lot of sense for a library to have.

Now, the duplicates and Michael Bolton crap are certainly inexcusable, but the classical music seems perfectly legitimate.

these were all on the billboard charts

[treat]

The article says: To prevent the companies from dumping unwanted inventory, lawyers for the states came up with a formula based on how much time artists spent on the Billboard charts,

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.

Grade schools got this stuff too...

[WareW01f]

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?)

Not that bad

[challahc]

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.

Take some action

[serutan]

Does anybody still have sympathy for the RIAA any more? They've been acting like a bunch of selfish 4-year-olds for years. "They're only protecting their legal rights." Record companies excel at doing exactly what is required of them and nothing more. They've honed this skill over decades of writing usurious recording contracts. And when that's not enough they get new laws written to suit their needs. What they do is wrong.

If you live in Utah, please VOTE AGAINST Senator Orrin Hatch, the entertainment industry's number one toadie and one of the most technologically clueless legislators in the country. He's the guy who a couple years back said record companies should be allowed to attack the computers of people whom they suspected of copyright infringement.

If you live in Kansas, please VOTE FOR for Senator Sam Brownback, who introduced the bill last year that stopped the RIAA from getting rubber-stamped subpoenas for identities of internet users they decided had infringed them.

If you live anywhere else and you are interested in the copyright issue, don't just read Slashdot, look up your senator's voting record and vote accordingly.

Best quote of the article.

[u-235-sentinel]

"We definitely have duplicates and we have a lot of plain - is there a nicer word than junk?" Medenwaldt said.

Best quote of the article. It's no wonder that the music industry has been hurting for so long. They sell "junk" and people respond by not purchasing it. Obviously the RIAA is aware of this otherwise the CD's would never have been shipped to the libraries.

Very sad.

Is anyone really surprised?

[HangingChad]

A morally bankrupt industry pays off a judgment with crap product and probably has a good laugh about how it helped them dump excess inventory and they're probably getting a write off for it on top of that.

Makes you wonder if they're the exception or us.

You forgot the best line.

[Feztaa]

Samir: "You know there's nothing wrong with that name."

Michael Bolton: "There was nothing wrong with it... until I was about 12 years old and that no-talent ass clown became famous and started winning Grammys."

very close

[geekoid]

You are very close to using the power of IT to bring change.

Blacklist all the RIAA mail servers.

The music industry is amoral...

[Snaller]

... so what did you expect.

RIAA vs Public libraries? Only a matter of time..

[Simonetta]

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.

the remedy is simple...

[dvd_tude]

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.