RIAA About to Transform?

It has been reported for a while that the RIAA was suffering some cutbacks and dwindling support, but techdirt is reporting that the cuts may be even deeper than most originally suspected. Who knew suing potential customers would ruin your business? "I'm sure some will somehow 'blame piracy' for this turn of events, but it's hard to see how that's even remotely the issue. The real issue is that the RIAA has basically managed to run one of the dumbest, most self-defeating strategies over the last decade. Rather than helping major record labels adjust to the changing market, it continually, repeatedly and publicly destroyed its own reputation and the reputation of the labels — each time shrinking their potential market by blaming the very people they should have been working to turn into customers."

Comments

Worse

[nine-times]

each time shrinking their potential market by blaming the very people they should have been working to turn into customers.

Worse than that, they were shrinking their market by blaming the very people who already were their customers. Contrary to the way we sometimes talk about it, "people who download music in violation of copyrights" and "people who buy music" are not mutually exclusive groups.

Often enough, the same people who will spend money on high-quality convenient products that they feel are worth the price will also look for alternate channels in cases where they don't think the product they are being offered is high-quality enough, convenient enough, or worth the price.

Now I'm not trying to excuse people who download music illegally. It's illegal. I don't do it. I don't advocate that others do it. I don't approve of it. I'm just pointing out that all those nasty/evil group of "pirates" and "thieves" that the music industry keeps blaming, vilifying, and suing-- that group has a fair amount of overlap with that industry's legitimate customers.

Re:Worse

[LuYu]

Now I'm not trying to excuse people who download music illegally. It's illegal. I don't do it.

I am so sick of this argument. The RIAA never (as in: not once) sued anybody for downloading music. No matter what they said to the press, 100% of their "filesharing" lawsuits were for uploading. Further, it has never been conclusively established that downloading songs is illegal. In the Napster case, the judge stated that people using a service like Napster had the "effect of piracy". Just because something has the same consequences does not mean it is the same thing. On top of that, it has since been argued -- rather convincingly -- that music sharing increases sales because the heaviest downloaders are also the biggest music buyers.

You can listen to the radio for free. Are you or the radio station doing something "illegal" when you tune in? Are radio audiences "pirates"?

This whole "downloading == theft" thing is merely the RIAA's creation.

Re:Worse

[nine-times]

I didn't say that "downloading == theft". I wouldn't. In fact, I've argued many times here on Slashdot that copyright infringement is not the same thing as theft, and people who are trying to equate them are being dishonest.

However, there are many laws other than those against theft, and to the best of my knowledge, it's not untrue to say that copyright infringement is "illegal". Also, that copying copyrighted material without a license to do so is generally considered copyright infringement, and that the process of downloading something from the Internet includes "copying".

I'm not trying to be controversial here. I don't believe that copyright was intended to prevent private individuals from enjoying copyrighted material without a license. It was more to prevent professional publishers from poaching off of each others' work for profit. On the hand, copyright does have a valid role in ensuring that artists are compensated for their work, and in the current legal formulation, I believe copying songs without buying them (outside of "fair use") is illegal.

Re:Worse

[steelfood]

Yes, but what GP is trying to say is that downloading isn't copyright infringement. The burden of obtaining authorization to distribute is on the person offering the goods, or the uploader. And it shouldn't be on the burden of the receiver to know whether the copy is obtained through legit channels or not.

So people who download may be pirates, but they're not committing any crime or tort until they redistribute what they've downloaded. Whether it is moral or otherwise is another issue. But since copyright infringement is not theft, the data can't actually be "returned" and the owner of the files can't be charged with possession of stolen goods.

Meet the New Boss,

[Neptunes_Trident]

Same as the old boss. Heh, Just because the RIAA transforms, does not imply that the copyright laws they try to enforce or fight for have changed. Slam them all you want and call'em a failure, as far as I'm concerned this means nothing. When the laws change toward cultural liberation, (like they used to be) only then will I celebrate. Only then.

Re:give it a fucking break

[SCPRedMage]

Blu-spec CDs are just CDs. They hold no more data than a regular CD. The only difference is that the masters are made with a blue laser instead of the standard red laser, which supposedly lowers their error-rates.

Blu-spec CDs are nothing more than a marketing gimmick.

Who knew?

[Groo Wanderer]

"Who knew suing potential customers would ruin your business?"

SCO did. Worked for them as well.

            -Charlie