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I believe that the ruling judge assumed that they wouldn't do something so despicable as to not only send exceptionally outdated/unpopular/fringe CD's but send them in ridiculous quantities.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

[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.

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.

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!

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.