Who Runs RIAA's Settlement Information Center?

eatonwood writes "Who is behind the RIAA's collections efforts? This comment at CallFerret says it is a company called PSC and lists a bunch of websites and contact information for them, but the connection to RIAA is still not completely clear (aside from the presence of a couple of clearly RIAA sites on the same server as PSC's). Anyone know anything more about who is doing RIAA's dirty work?"

Comments

I know I'll get modded down for this comment

[Auckerman]

I honestly don't understand peoples absolute preoccupation with the RIAA. Let me ask you something...

You're artist, designer, or coder. You make things. Doesn't matter what it is as long as it's easily copyable on the internet (music, images, web pages, software). You do this for a living. One day someone sets up a web page that gives what you sell for a living away to others for free. What would you do? How would you handle it? Would you just tolerate it? What if you began to notice you were no longer making $40,000 a year and ended up making only $20,000 a year? Would you give up the art that you love?

I'll admit, what I do know of the RIAA is they are extremely heavy handed, so much so that it's entirely possible that innocents are wrapped up in their vendetta. They are sloppy, thuggish, and an out right bully. What can they do? What would you do, just start giving away that which you make your living on? Is that the answer? Is that what everyone wants?

Maybe somehow I left behind on this whole internet thing, since I don't use Gnutella or Bittorrent. I pay for the stuff I use and listen to. I guess I'm a fool for seeing value in the arts that I love in my life, a value worth paying for.

Re:I know I'll get modded down for this comment

[Jugalator]

Well, I think I'd at least start collecting evidence that would hold up in court rather than trying to send people scary letters and cross my fingers that would do. RIAA's consistent abuse of the legal system is what I think stings me the most. Organizations set up to protect a business can and do survive without succumbing to such strategies.

But then again... Maybe I would on the other hand want to be a successful lawyer enough to fall for these things, I'm not saying I'm perfect. If I were a lawyer, I'd want to be successful, and it's obviously a reasonably successful strategy for them, or else they wouldn't keep doing it. It depends on how much of a jerk I'd be willing to become.

Re:I know I'll get modded down for this comment

[DingerX]

I'm against shoplifting, but I don't think that gives storeowners the right to summarily execute anyone they suspect of the crime.

That's really the point. For music, we all believe that artists should get remunerated for their work. Want makes the RIAA evil is that (A) they don't work in the interests of the artists, and (B) their approach to their customers is insulting, intimidating, disdainful and invasive. Some would use stronger words.

The RIAA right now is waging a campaign against music fans, in the name of artists (many of whom do not support their name being so used), and gee, if the people's rights, liberties and freedoms are caught in the crossfire, so be it. Hey, we can even reduce those too!

Re:I know I'll get modded down for this comment

[Gordonjcp]

What if you began to notice you were no longer making $40,000 a year and ended up making only $20,000 a year? Would you give up the art that you love?

I'd probably give it up when I realised I was paying $39,000 a year "protection money" to the RIAA.

The RIAA do *not* have the artists' interests at heart, except in so far as that if the artists aren't making money, the RIAA can't extort it from them.

Re:I know I'll get modded down for this comment

[Casualposter]

The RIAA represents a group of companies whose primary business model for the last 30 years has been to repackage the same product and sell it to the same customers, over and over. The big boom in music sales was the CD as customers moved away from the fragile vinyl albums of yore. Once the majority of folks realized that CD's were very expensive, and just as fragile as vinyl, they were disappointed. New music, such as it is, has not been selling very well, as over prices songs compete with other forms of entertainment. For the most part, music is used to enhance some other activity, not as the primary entertainment.

During the time that most people were switching to the CD, the record companies, members of the RIAA, colluded to illegally fix prices, and frankly the artists saw none of that money.

Now, the with the customer able to obtain in a fast, easy, and durable form, the music that they want, for as little as 89 cents a track, the record companies are finding that their "buy the same stuff in a different format" business model, isn't working. Rather than attempt to adapt to the new market, arguably difficult and risky, they formed a different plan: litigation.

The cost of filing a suit is trivial. The fear of being ruined in a lawsuit is tremendous, and most people will spend 4-5K dollars to make it go away rather than risk a lifetime of ruin trying to dig out from under a multi-million dollar debt. The fact that RIAA does not gather enough evidence to go to court, and that the evidence gathered is probably wrong as often as 20% of the time, is significant.

The RIAA set up a call center based upon the the techniques of debt collectors, with out the restraint of actually having to be debt collectors. These settlements, as we have seen, are little more than the promise that the RIAA won't sue you again. BUT having admitted that you did violate the copyright, the victim has been set up for a second bite, once the music writers sue for infringement, and then the performers can sue again. So it appears that the business model of suing for millions based upon listening to music will be with us for a long time.

Using the legal system to extort money from people is wrong. Making it a business, is particularly evil.

Re:Bespoke Software and Street Performer Protocol

[cliffski]

"People should be paid for doing, not paid for something they have done."

as a matter of interest, what is your view of inheritance tax?
Surly it should be 100% right?
23% of the richest 1,000 people in the UK did NOTHING to get the money but be born with rich parents. They are paid for doing nothing, and never have contributed anything whatsoever.
Surely if your principle holds, it should be illegal for your parents to leave you anything in their will right?
If not, explain to me the difference.

Re:Bespoke Software and Street Performer Protocol

[damienl451]

To put it another way: Imagine if bricklayers had to be paid by every person who visited a house they built several years ago. That would be almost impossible to police. But it is even more difficult to keep track of people who listen to music or watch video. That's even more difficult to police. Instead, bricklayers get paid for making new buildings, and not for buildings they've already finished. Equally, artists should get paid for making new art, not art they've already finished.

Those analogies are usually unhelpful. Bricklayers don't need to be paid by everyone who visits the house because a) they have never been granted ownership of any part of the house b) they agreed to be paid a finite sum of money upon completion of the job.

However, if I *own* the house, I am entitled to charge everyone who wants to visit it.

What I profoundly dislike about anti-copyright activists is their desire to force their views upon everyone else. At present, nothing prevents artists from doing what you have suggested above. It's up to the artists to decide whether they want to charge everyone who listens to what they have created, or simply want to give their work away for free.

You should never forget that copyright has tremendous benefits and, in many cases, protects the "little man" too. Do you think that a struggling artist would be happy to learn that a big-name band has "stolen" one of his songs, but he has no recourse against them?

I personally think that there is value in what was written 20 years ago! I enjoy listening to the artist's performance, and I believe that he should be compensated for his work. Do you think that all artists are immediately catapulted to stardom and have a fan-base that is large enough to make your proposal practicable? It might work, but only for well-known artists or bands.

Re:My sympathy is with you..

[CmdrGravy]

Bang on, technology provided the means for this whole business to thrive in the first place and now technology has changed and can take it all away again.

There has always been music, humans like music and it's never going to go away so if 'artists' can't make money using current technology then they need to stop trying, the world doesn't owe them a living, and do something else. Other music will come in to fill the gap and match up with the new technology. In short music is important, 'artists' or particular performers aren't and their marketing and manufacturing businesses definitely aren't important on any fundamental level.