There's no amount of spin-doctoring that can repair the RIAA's tarnished image at this point.
They've earned their place in hell.
Of course, I'm talking a proverbial hell, not the literal hell. I don't think the devil would want to be stuck with them for eternity.
I do agree that the big four record labels hide behind the RIAA banner. Furthermore, they have a myriad of label names under their umbrella, to further hide their identities. (So, if somebody is pissed with Univeral Music Group, they may still be buying UMG products from sub-labels, and be completely oblivious to it.)
Will students write perfect articles on Wikipedia? No.
Does anybody write perfect articles on Wikpedia? Not usually.
What helps Wikipedia is the peer review system. If one person messes up some of the details, there's an army of people who will go in and fix it if needed.
For articles, individuals make mistakes - a collective group of people is less likely to. (Not to say a collective group of people CAN'T mess up, since we all know that's rubbish.)
http://www.youtube.com/user/universalmusicgroup
This is UMG's official Youtube site. They have all the latest music videos their trying to promote available here.
Let's teach UMG that karma is a real bitch. We should descend on their Youtube channel like a swarm of locusts, and give the minimum possible number of stars to all their music videos.
Pass this along to everyone you know who has a bone to pick with UMG. You might be thinking 'it's a waste of time', but the Grand Canyon was formed from a gradual drip of water over a long period of time. If enough individual users do this, it will begin to affect the overall ratings of the videos in question.
If we can't do something this basic against the RIAA, we'll never be able to do anything more elaborate. You have to start somewhere.
In the case of Universal and Viacom, I'd go a step further, and mod the holy heck out of the 'official' releases they've put out on Youtube.
Give them the lowest rating possible.
If enough people were to do this, it might send them a very loud message that everybody is tired of all the litigation these corporations constantly throw at the very consumers who help to keep them financially adrift.
I did not read the user agreement, seeing that it did not make you read this agreement prior to visiting the page. I just copied the entire source code for the main page, and am going to use it as the lyrics for a rock opera that I am writing.
I'm kind of hoping they send me a cease and desist letter in the mail, since I can use that for the second verse in my rock opera.
If we boycott them outright, yes - they may turn around, and try and blame it on musical piracy, but if nobody is pirating them, it obviously makes it a much harder argument to make. People could respond "you're doing financially poorly because you suck, not because you're being pirated." This can be reinforced if people also buy more independent label music. I would LOVE to see independent music overtake the big four as the largest piece of the pie.
As far as musical piracy goes, do they have the right to try and prevent it? Yes! Whether you like the RIAA or not, they do have the legal right to prevent their music from being distributed freely to other people. My criticism of them is they often try and exercise this right even when they have a wimpy case that lacks credibility. Much of the time, it might as well be a witchhunt. As I've said before, they shouldn't be allowed to use the threat of a lawsuit as a form of extortion. Furthermore, even if they do have a strong case, the resulting fine should be a reasonable amount. (I'm thinking it should be closer to the size of a parking ticket. $9k per song is not a just punishment.)
If you don't like when the RIAA does the above, boycotting them is ALWAYS your consumer right. The major labels are slowing fizzling out. I would love to see this happen even faster. (It's not just a matter of boycotting the four big labels - support the little guys that don't behave like corporate asses. If you do this, it will help the music industry to evolve into something better than it currently is.)
No, it's slightly different. It's more like running from a cop who is holding you at gunpoint. If you do it, will the cop shoot? Yes. If you're lucky, he may just pursue you and tackle you, depending on the threat level.
If you're legitimately breaking the law, then you are opening the door for a penalty of some kind. I don't endorse the RIAA at all, but even I acknowledge this. If they can collect penalties on you, that serves as a substitute for album sales. We don't want them finding any other means of getting that revenue. We want them to die a painful financial death. Boycotting them outright will do this. Pirating their music will not.
I've given some of the videos the lowest possible rating, and made intelligent comments about why I feel UMG is rotten to the core. Most people don't see it as an attack on the label - they see it as an attack on the band. The notion of boycotting a band they love due to the behavior of the record label is completely alien to them.
You do get some people there who can make an argument against boycotting RIAA purchases. I don't want to give the impression that they're all airheads with a combined IQ of 3, since that's not entirely true.
(P.S. - If you do visit the UMG Youtube site, thumb down all the videos!!! It feels really, really, really, really, really, really good when you do it. It's the ultimate euphoric rush.)
I have a relative that was in law school, and she explained the RIAA's reasoning here.
They don't honestly intend to collect a quarter million dollars in damages. They were trying to make a statement with a giant exclamation point against music piracy, and that's where the figure comes in. Obviously now, they'll drop the price, out of the 'goodness of their hearts' (HA!!).
My issue with the RIAA is they should only be allowed to sue if they have a legitimate case. I do think the US judicial system needs to step in and prevent them from using the threat of a lawsuit as a form of extortion - either they HAVE a valid case, or they do not.
As far as pirating music goes, the answer is simple - don't do it, otherwise you're just giving record labels some means to try and earn revenue (via litigation). A better option that yields more results in the long run is to stop purchasing major record label discs outright. Every time you see a major record label album you want to purchase, just stop and think of all the asinine comments the various major record labels have made over the years. (You know - stuff like "if you rip your music onto your iPod, that's stealing".)
Better yet - think of the obnoxiously smug RIAA website. I find that visualization by itself will force me to put the CD back on the store shelf 99% of the time.
Be aware that there are some artists out there who actually realize that it's GOOD for them to get their music onto as many iPods as possible, and offer it for free download on sites like www.jamendo.com. There are alternatives out there. (www.last.fm also has a lot of freely downloadable music.)
I don't trust UMG any further than I can throw them. Then offering free music is like a fox offering 'free meals' for hens.
At this point, there is only one thing Universal Music Group could do that would make me happy - and that would be GO BANKRUPT. On the day they finally fall apart, I'll be the first person dancing on their proverbial grave and rejoicing.
Are they going to give the phone a computery voice so it can lecture the smokers every time they try and light up? I think it would be cool if you could choose between different voices. I would include a HAL voice as well as one for a 'lecturing Jewish grandma', at very least. You could also have an 'irritating second-hand smoke whiner' voice.
Obviously, the HAL voice would refer to everybody as Dave, regardless of their name.
I wonder if they could make the phone capable of extinguishing the cigarettes? Years ago, it probably wouldn't have been feasible. (It would have made the phone too big.) However, nowadays with all this nanotechnology, I suppose anything is possible.
She's definitely not a saint, but there's no way each of those songs were worth $9k a pop. That's ludicrous. It's not a reasonable fine. Even a criminal deserves a fair penalty.
I'm going to have a hard time ever purchasing a major record label album ever again. Piracy isn't the answer - I'm all for boycotting the bastards outright. They can all rot in the hell they dug for themselves, as far as I care.
In order for this to work, somebody needs to educate the fanboys into why they shouldn't be purchasing CDs from major record label artists.
Is this still an issue? You bet.
If you want proof of that, go here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/universalmusicgroup
WARNING: It's the Universal Music Group official Youtube channel. It may leave you feeling a little bit nauseated.
If you read over some of the comments on the individual UMG videos, you'll realize that for all the people who are convinced the major record labels are scum, there are plenty of people who still follow them around like obedient puppy dogs.
Actually, while you're there, why not give these UMG videos the lowest rating possible? It feels really good when you do it. =)
I agree. I used to run a BBS, and I had the file available for download. After I read a story about how some kids nearly blew themselves sky-high trying to construct one of the bombs, I took the file down. To me, it was more an issue of liability and conscience.
I found the text fascinating as a curiosity, but it's not the sort of thing you'd actually try, if you value all your body parts remaining arranged in the proper order.
I agree. Do not steal their music. Don't listen to it at all. Encourage your impressionable friends to get into equally talented acts who post their music for free online. (www.jamendo.com is a real hotbed for this.)
Furthermore, if you know musicians who have recorded obscure albums that haven't been in distribution, or even seen the LIGHT OF DAY for years - encourage them to make their music freely available online. It's not like it's going to cut into their profits! (What PROFITS?)
At best, it might give them a crapload of free publicity that can help support their more current projects. If they can get it onto people's iPods, the possibilities for exposure are endless. (If some of the people scrobble their listening habits, these artists can get some incredible exposure via Last FM.)
Point in case ---> Splashdown. Their music is freely available online, and they've developed a serious cult following despite the fact they've been broken up for a considerable number of years.
Hm - I've never tried to drop the comments on Youtube in larger numbers. I've done a couple brief ones where I haven't repeated the same text, and have been fine.
It may be similar to a mechanism that the Yahoo Suggestions forum uses. If you post comments to suggestions in rapid succession, it will temporarily block the IP address. (It's a measure they use against spammers, but it will periodically misfire on legitimate commenters who post too quickly.)
Oh, darn it. It never gets the formatting right when I try and quote. Just to clarify, in the above comment, my response begins at "Well, you.." Prior to that is the quote.
>You can't have a war without violence. You seem to be opposed to violence. So, I don't know why you're >advocating war.
Well, you have different kinds of war. There's the old-school bloody war, but in this day and age it's often more a war of ideas, where you're fighting over public support.
Obviously, if we went in bombed the RIAA headquarters, it would actually be counterproductive for several reasons:
1) It would be bad press for people who opposed the RIAA. Yes, we'd get media exposure, but it would be the wrong sort of exposure to say the least.
2) One word ---> terrorism. Need I say more?
We need to go further - it's not just a matter of us not buying their products. We need to convince the people who are still record label zombies that it's in THEIR best interest to do so as well.
For every one person who has stopped [or reduced] purchasing major record label releases, there's probably a few thousand who still mindlessly buy every last piss-poor album that the major record labels throw their way.
This is going to sound rude, but sadly - there are a LOT of naive people out there. They've been indoctrinated through hours of endless advertising into thinking they would die without these big label artists. We need to create counter-propaganda. If the record labels are spending tons of money to convince consumers they are corporate gods, then somebody needs to convince these consumers that record labels are lower than cow dung.
Realistically? It's pretty easy - who needs libel and slander when all you have to say is the truth? Sometimes facts are far uglier than fabrication.
Okay, okay - I meant 'war' in a figurative sense. Obviously, we're not allowed to blow stuff up.
Although, I suppose we could burn that Cary Sherman person in effigy. Obviously, we would need the proper fire permits to do this. (If that's a little too extreme, what about some other symbol related to large record labels that we could burn in effigy? I'm thinking something that the news media would completely EAT up, and broadcast.)
We can sit around in forums, yapping non-stop about how horrid the RIAA is, or we can really begin to take the fight to them. I think it's time we do that. Let's do everything we possibly can to tarnish their reputation.
Sadly, despite treating consumers like crap, a lot of music fans still follow them around like puppy dogs.
A good starting point is to target Youtube. Universal Music Group has an account they use to post videos of their artists. These music videos can be rated. Comments can be left for them. Let's all go there and give them the lowest rating possible. Let's fill the comments section with relevant information about the unethical tactics groups like the UMG are using against consumers.
If they play dirty, it seems MORE than fair that we RETURN THE FAVOR. Why should we respond to them with kid gloves? They certainly wouldn't do that for us.
Amen to this. These companies constantly treat consumers like dirt, yet how many consumers still mindlessly buy whatever these companies are selling? While I'm not a martyr to a cause, every time I go into a music store to purchase a CD from a RIAA-affiliated label, the first thing I'm thinking to myself is "by doing this, I'm helping those bastards fund their next round of file-sharing lawsuits."
9 times out of 10, I put the CD back on the store shelf, and walk away. (There are a couple of cases where I can forgive a band for being on a large label, because they put out quality music - but these are few and far between.)
I think there's a significant difference between bringing a light saber into space, and one additional person riding a bus.
A better bus analogy would be for the bus company to charge somebody an additional fee for walking onto the bus with the light-saber versus walking onto the bus empty-handed. How often do you hear of bus companies charging more if a passenger brings some object on the bus with them?
I personally have never heard of this, at least not for an object of that size. So, I think, based on this example, it is commonplace for buses to give objects 'free rides'. (Just not people.) One must make the distinction.
(On a sidenote, if somebody did try and board a bus wielding a light-sabre, I could see them being mistaken for a terrorist in this paranoid society we live in. Don't laugh - remember the Etch-A-Sketch scare in Boston last year?)
Slashdot Mirror
There's no amount of spin-doctoring that can repair the RIAA's tarnished image at this point.
They've earned their place in hell.
Of course, I'm talking a proverbial hell, not the literal hell. I don't think the devil would want to be stuck with them for eternity.
I do agree that the big four record labels hide behind the RIAA banner. Furthermore, they have a myriad of label names under their umbrella, to further hide their identities. (So, if somebody is pissed with Univeral Music Group, they may still be buying UMG products from sub-labels, and be completely oblivious to it.)
Will students write perfect articles on Wikipedia? No.
Does anybody write perfect articles on Wikpedia? Not usually.
What helps Wikipedia is the peer review system. If one person messes up some of the details, there's an army of people who will go in and fix it if needed.
For articles, individuals make mistakes - a collective group of people is less likely to. (Not to say a collective group of people CAN'T mess up, since we all know that's rubbish.)
You're totally on the mark. Based on what you said, I think I can assist and translate Mr. Zucker's comments into something more easily understood:
WAH, WAH, WAH!!
It sounds like a classic corporate temper tantrum to me.
http://www.youtube.com/user/universalmusicgroup This is UMG's official Youtube site. They have all the latest music videos their trying to promote available here. Let's teach UMG that karma is a real bitch. We should descend on their Youtube channel like a swarm of locusts, and give the minimum possible number of stars to all their music videos. Pass this along to everyone you know who has a bone to pick with UMG. You might be thinking 'it's a waste of time', but the Grand Canyon was formed from a gradual drip of water over a long period of time. If enough individual users do this, it will begin to affect the overall ratings of the videos in question. If we can't do something this basic against the RIAA, we'll never be able to do anything more elaborate. You have to start somewhere.
I couldn't agree more.
In the case of Universal and Viacom, I'd go a step further, and mod the holy heck out of the 'official' releases they've put out on Youtube.
Give them the lowest rating possible.
If enough people were to do this, it might send them a very loud message that everybody is tired of all the litigation these corporations constantly throw at the very consumers who help to keep them financially adrift.
I did not read the user agreement, seeing that it did not make you read this agreement prior to visiting the page. I just copied the entire source code for the main page, and am going to use it as the lyrics for a rock opera that I am writing.
I'm kind of hoping they send me a cease and desist letter in the mail, since I can use that for the second verse in my rock opera.
Now - I just need to learn how to sing.
If we boycott them outright, yes - they may turn around, and try and blame it on musical piracy, but if nobody is pirating them, it obviously makes it a much harder argument to make. People could respond "you're doing financially poorly because you suck, not because you're being pirated." This can be reinforced if people also buy more independent label music. I would LOVE to see independent music overtake the big four as the largest piece of the pie.
As far as musical piracy goes, do they have the right to try and prevent it? Yes! Whether you like the RIAA or not, they do have the legal right to prevent their music from being distributed freely to other people. My criticism of them is they often try and exercise this right even when they have a wimpy case that lacks credibility. Much of the time, it might as well be a witchhunt. As I've said before, they shouldn't be allowed to use the threat of a lawsuit as a form of extortion. Furthermore, even if they do have a strong case, the resulting fine should be a reasonable amount. (I'm thinking it should be closer to the size of a parking ticket. $9k per song is not a just punishment.)
If you don't like when the RIAA does the above, boycotting them is ALWAYS your consumer right. The major labels are slowing fizzling out. I would love to see this happen even faster. (It's not just a matter of boycotting the four big labels - support the little guys that don't behave like corporate asses. If you do this, it will help the music industry to evolve into something better than it currently is.)
No, it's slightly different. It's more like running from a cop who is holding you at gunpoint. If you do it, will the cop shoot? Yes. If you're lucky, he may just pursue you and tackle you, depending on the threat level.
If you're legitimately breaking the law, then you are opening the door for a penalty of some kind. I don't endorse the RIAA at all, but even I acknowledge this. If they can collect penalties on you, that serves as a substitute for album sales. We don't want them finding any other means of getting that revenue. We want them to die a painful financial death. Boycotting them outright will do this. Pirating their music will not.
Follow me?
Sadly, no - if you want evidence of how brainwashed some people are, go here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/universalmusicgroup
I've given some of the videos the lowest possible rating, and made intelligent comments about why I feel UMG is rotten to the core. Most people don't see it as an attack on the label - they see it as an attack on the band. The notion of boycotting a band they love due to the behavior of the record label is completely alien to them.
You do get some people there who can make an argument against boycotting RIAA purchases. I don't want to give the impression that they're all airheads with a combined IQ of 3, since that's not entirely true.
(P.S. - If you do visit the UMG Youtube site, thumb down all the videos!!! It feels really, really, really, really, really, really good when you do it. It's the ultimate euphoric rush.)
I have a relative that was in law school, and she explained the RIAA's reasoning here.
They don't honestly intend to collect a quarter million dollars in damages. They were trying to make a statement with a giant exclamation point against music piracy, and that's where the figure comes in. Obviously now, they'll drop the price, out of the 'goodness of their hearts' (HA!!).
My issue with the RIAA is they should only be allowed to sue if they have a legitimate case. I do think the US judicial system needs to step in and prevent them from using the threat of a lawsuit as a form of extortion - either they HAVE a valid case, or they do not.
As far as pirating music goes, the answer is simple - don't do it, otherwise you're just giving record labels some means to try and earn revenue (via litigation). A better option that yields more results in the long run is to stop purchasing major record label discs outright. Every time you see a major record label album you want to purchase, just stop and think of all the asinine comments the various major record labels have made over the years. (You know - stuff like "if you rip your music onto your iPod, that's stealing".)
Better yet - think of the obnoxiously smug RIAA website. I find that visualization by itself will force me to put the CD back on the store shelf 99% of the time.
Be aware that there are some artists out there who actually realize that it's GOOD for them to get their music onto as many iPods as possible, and offer it for free download on sites like www.jamendo.com. There are alternatives out there. (www.last.fm also has a lot of freely downloadable music.)
I don't trust UMG any further than I can throw them. Then offering free music is like a fox offering 'free meals' for hens. At this point, there is only one thing Universal Music Group could do that would make me happy - and that would be GO BANKRUPT. On the day they finally fall apart, I'll be the first person dancing on their proverbial grave and rejoicing.
Are they going to give the phone a computery voice so it can lecture the smokers every time they try and light up? I think it would be cool if you could choose between different voices. I would include a HAL voice as well as one for a 'lecturing Jewish grandma', at very least. You could also have an 'irritating second-hand smoke whiner' voice. Obviously, the HAL voice would refer to everybody as Dave, regardless of their name. I wonder if they could make the phone capable of extinguishing the cigarettes? Years ago, it probably wouldn't have been feasible. (It would have made the phone too big.) However, nowadays with all this nanotechnology, I suppose anything is possible.
She's definitely not a saint, but there's no way each of those songs were worth $9k a pop. That's ludicrous. It's not a reasonable fine. Even a criminal deserves a fair penalty. I'm going to have a hard time ever purchasing a major record label album ever again. Piracy isn't the answer - I'm all for boycotting the bastards outright. They can all rot in the hell they dug for themselves, as far as I care.
In order for this to work, somebody needs to educate the fanboys into why they shouldn't be purchasing CDs from major record label artists. Is this still an issue? You bet. If you want proof of that, go here: http://www.youtube.com/user/universalmusicgroup WARNING: It's the Universal Music Group official Youtube channel. It may leave you feeling a little bit nauseated. If you read over some of the comments on the individual UMG videos, you'll realize that for all the people who are convinced the major record labels are scum, there are plenty of people who still follow them around like obedient puppy dogs. Actually, while you're there, why not give these UMG videos the lowest rating possible? It feels really good when you do it. =)
I agree. I used to run a BBS, and I had the file available for download. After I read a story about how some kids nearly blew themselves sky-high trying to construct one of the bombs, I took the file down. To me, it was more an issue of liability and conscience.
I found the text fascinating as a curiosity, but it's not the sort of thing you'd actually try, if you value all your body parts remaining arranged in the proper order.
Hey, one has to start somewhere. If you want to up the ante, by all means, be my guest. =)
I agree. Do not steal their music. Don't listen to it at all. Encourage your impressionable friends to get into equally talented acts who post their music for free online. (www.jamendo.com is a real hotbed for this.)
Furthermore, if you know musicians who have recorded obscure albums that haven't been in distribution, or even seen the LIGHT OF DAY for years - encourage them to make their music freely available online. It's not like it's going to cut into their profits! (What PROFITS?)
At best, it might give them a crapload of free publicity that can help support their more current projects. If they can get it onto people's iPods, the possibilities for exposure are endless. (If some of the people scrobble their listening habits, these artists can get some incredible exposure via Last FM.)
Point in case ---> Splashdown. Their music is freely available online, and they've developed a serious cult following despite the fact they've been broken up for a considerable number of years.
Hm - I've never tried to drop the comments on Youtube in larger numbers. I've done a couple brief ones where I haven't repeated the same text, and have been fine.
It may be similar to a mechanism that the Yahoo Suggestions forum uses. If you post comments to suggestions in rapid succession, it will temporarily block the IP address. (It's a measure they use against spammers, but it will periodically misfire on legitimate commenters who post too quickly.)
Oh, darn it. It never gets the formatting right when I try and quote. Just to clarify, in the above comment, my response begins at "Well, you.." Prior to that is the quote.
>You can't have a war without violence. You seem to be opposed to violence. So, I don't know why you're >advocating war. Well, you have different kinds of war. There's the old-school bloody war, but in this day and age it's often more a war of ideas, where you're fighting over public support. Obviously, if we went in bombed the RIAA headquarters, it would actually be counterproductive for several reasons: 1) It would be bad press for people who opposed the RIAA. Yes, we'd get media exposure, but it would be the wrong sort of exposure to say the least. 2) One word ---> terrorism. Need I say more?
We need to go further - it's not just a matter of us not buying their products. We need to convince the people who are still record label zombies that it's in THEIR best interest to do so as well. For every one person who has stopped [or reduced] purchasing major record label releases, there's probably a few thousand who still mindlessly buy every last piss-poor album that the major record labels throw their way. This is going to sound rude, but sadly - there are a LOT of naive people out there. They've been indoctrinated through hours of endless advertising into thinking they would die without these big label artists. We need to create counter-propaganda. If the record labels are spending tons of money to convince consumers they are corporate gods, then somebody needs to convince these consumers that record labels are lower than cow dung. Realistically? It's pretty easy - who needs libel and slander when all you have to say is the truth? Sometimes facts are far uglier than fabrication.
Okay, okay - I meant 'war' in a figurative sense. Obviously, we're not allowed to blow stuff up. Although, I suppose we could burn that Cary Sherman person in effigy. Obviously, we would need the proper fire permits to do this. (If that's a little too extreme, what about some other symbol related to large record labels that we could burn in effigy? I'm thinking something that the news media would completely EAT up, and broadcast.)
We can sit around in forums, yapping non-stop about how horrid the RIAA is, or we can really begin to take the fight to them. I think it's time we do that. Let's do everything we possibly can to tarnish their reputation. Sadly, despite treating consumers like crap, a lot of music fans still follow them around like puppy dogs. A good starting point is to target Youtube. Universal Music Group has an account they use to post videos of their artists. These music videos can be rated. Comments can be left for them. Let's all go there and give them the lowest rating possible. Let's fill the comments section with relevant information about the unethical tactics groups like the UMG are using against consumers. If they play dirty, it seems MORE than fair that we RETURN THE FAVOR. Why should we respond to them with kid gloves? They certainly wouldn't do that for us.
Amen to this. These companies constantly treat consumers like dirt, yet how many consumers still mindlessly buy whatever these companies are selling? While I'm not a martyr to a cause, every time I go into a music store to purchase a CD from a RIAA-affiliated label, the first thing I'm thinking to myself is "by doing this, I'm helping those bastards fund their next round of file-sharing lawsuits."
9 times out of 10, I put the CD back on the store shelf, and walk away. (There are a couple of cases where I can forgive a band for being on a large label, because they put out quality music - but these are few and far between.)
I think there's a significant difference between bringing a light saber into space, and one additional person riding a bus. A better bus analogy would be for the bus company to charge somebody an additional fee for walking onto the bus with the light-saber versus walking onto the bus empty-handed. How often do you hear of bus companies charging more if a passenger brings some object on the bus with them? I personally have never heard of this, at least not for an object of that size. So, I think, based on this example, it is commonplace for buses to give objects 'free rides'. (Just not people.) One must make the distinction. (On a sidenote, if somebody did try and board a bus wielding a light-sabre, I could see them being mistaken for a terrorist in this paranoid society we live in. Don't laugh - remember the Etch-A-Sketch scare in Boston last year?)