Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Admits SOPA Wouldn't Have Stopped Piracy
jfruh writes "One of the arguments against the now-dormant SOPA legislation was that, in addition to eroding Internet freedom, it would also be ineffective in stopping music piracy. Well, according to a leaked report, the RIAA agrees with the latter argument. The proposed laws would 'not likely to have been an effective tool for music,' according to the report. Another interesting revelation is that, despite the buzz and outrage over P2P sharing, most digital music piracy takes place via sneakernet, with music moving among young people on hard drives and ripped CDs."
Don't.
Make the labels feel guilty for making such a system possible by not upgrading their ways.
They are the ones who actually came out and straight-up said they don't give a damn about the digital age and won't support it, and will do anything in their power to destroy it.
Megaupload was the most successful thing they have ever had against such a digital service.
Of course, now the evidence is piling up that the entire case was illegal to begin with and not a single shred of evidence was in their favor in the slightest.
Just keep spreading around that the labels are corrupt, make as much noise as possible and let the artists themselves know about it.
They are the ones who need the most help.
They are the ones who are duped in to thinking the labels are even needed anymore. It was true over a decade ago, not so much now.
The labels job as-is is completely useless for any artist. You could take them out and artists, choreographers, singers, bands, CG modellers, stores, printing companies and so on could still find each other pretty damn easily.
Maybe one day we will have a world where creative content is free of these restrictions and it is loyalty that is rewarded.
So we knew RIAA were assholes, but up until now i always thought they were just deluded idiots who bought research that supported their imagination. After seeing the percentage slide from that ITWorld article, I'm still brimming with viking rage.
Assholes, every one of them - they just lost my one last excuse to at least feel a tinge of sympathy for them. Sympathy for their illness, mind, but sympathy nonetheless.
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams [...]."
The labels are not needed for the artists, but they are needed for the entertainers. Do you really think Justin Beiber would have gotten anywhere without a billion dollar marketing machine? With independent artists, music would be about the music and people would find the music they like. The marketed entertainment industry dwarfs the music industry, and that is what they are fighting for.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Once again the "Free Market" prevails. We have Justin Beiber instead of good music. Thank God! Who would want a world in which talented creative people are well rewarded for their work and untalented teen age boys were simply teen age boys instead of semi-iconic sex idols for prepubescent girls. I for one happily bow to the marketing overlords.
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
Justin Beiber wouldn't be popular unless a lot of people actually liked his music, as hard as that is to believe. A result of marketing he may be, but they are marketing something people clearly want. The fundamental problem is most people have terrible taste in music. The labels are just pandering to that.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
People do not want good music. People want to be popular. Entertainment marketing is about convincing people they will be popular if they like (and purchase) a particular kind of entertainment. The trick is producing entertainment watered down enough that you can get a large number of people to not hate it.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Justin Beiber is what people want, because it is marketed that way. People don't just have a terrible taste in music, they are also willing products of the marketing industry. (aka fashion)
Can I light a sig ?
And if SOPA had passed, we'd be hearing from the MAFIAA all about how it was a decisive, history-making victory for artists.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Justin Beiber wouldn't be popular unless a lot of people actually liked his music, as hard as that is to believe. A result of marketing he may be, but they are marketing something people clearly want. The fundamental problem is most people have terrible taste in music. The labels are just pandering to that.
Exactly right. If you went to some English-speaking desert island where they've never heard of Justin Beiber and you played a teenage girl his music, and some 'indie' artist's music and you asked her which she liked better, she'd pick Justin. His music is popular because his demographic likes it. Look at Rebecca Black. Her terrible song rocketed in popularity with no marketing behind it. Why? Because her demographic liked it.
Here's another thought: maybe some people out there are different from you, and prefer different forms of entertainment. Nah, crazy idea. We all love NPR, don't we? Every last one of us. I mean, if you don't love Peruvian hick music...I mean folk music...then you're hardly a person, eh?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Justin Beiber wouldn't be popular unless a lot of people actually liked his music, as hard as that is to believe.
No, I think most people dislike Justin Bieber. It just happens that the very specific demographic that likes his music is also a demographic that has nothing but disposable income, oodles of time to waste listening to bad music, immature musical tastes, and a greater need to follow the crowd than any other age group. Their customers are fools with nothing they're saving their money for. That makes it the most profitable sector of the music industry, and that's why they're the most influential.
It has nothing to do with popularity among most people.