January 14, 2008 7:00 AM PST

The RIAA speaks--and it gets worse

UPDATE: You can now read the full transcript of the RIAA interview here.

The RIAA has quickly become one of the most disliked organizations in the world. Working ostensibly with the interests of the artists in mind, the organization has single-handedly instituted a policy of lawsuits and education in an attempt to curb the piracy of music.

Although this has been going on for quite some time now, I recently read a press release from the organization outlining its successes and what 2008 will look like for its College Deterrence program.

The press release tells us that the RIAA (on behalf of the music industry) has sent out "a new wave of 407 pre-litigation settlement letters to 18 universities nationwide as part of an ongoing campaign against online music theft. The letters reflect evidence of significant abuse of campus computer networks for the purpose of copyright infringement."

Once those students receive the pre-litigation settlement letters, they have the opportunity to surf over to the P2P Lawsuits Web page to settle with the RIAA before a court battle ensues.

Of course, the story doesn't quite end there.

To get a feeling for why the RIAA has implemented this strategy and has seemingly ignored the piracy cartels all over the world, choosing the soft target instead, I got in touch with the organization and asked a representative 10 questions to clear the air. This transcript will be made available tomorrow on The Digital Home.

Unfortunately, the answers given proved even more damning to an organization that is already sitting on a powder keg.

Perhaps more than anything, college students simply don't trust the RIAA and its questionable practices. As Cara Duckworth explained to me, "It was becoming clearer that despite cool new legal services and the ongoing educational efforts, too many students--some of music's biggest fans--were getting their music illegally and learning the wrong lessons about stealing and the law. Bringing lawsuits was by no means our first choice, but a necessary step we had to take."

Of course, whether or not lawsuits were not truly the first choice is debatable. In fact, judging by the lack of other alternatives offered except to say that the RIAA is "actively investing resources in the education of students of all ages on the value of music and importance of copyrights," there isn't too much evidence to suggest lawsuits isn't the organization's favorite form of deterrence.

Beyond that, the general theme of the interview with the RIAA could be characterized by a general lack of understanding and at some points, somewhat insulting.

When asked why the RIAA is going after an easy target--college students--the response made me cringe: "College students have reached a stage in life when their music habits are crystallized," Duckworth said. "And their appreciation for intellectual property has not yet reached its full development."

Sadly, this statement tells you everything you need to know about the RIAA. Does this organization actually believe that people who have the right to vote and go to war don't have the ability to make sound decisions about intellectual property? Maybe it has nothing to do with lack of development and everything to do with an extreme distaste for the recording industry.

The RIAA's discussion on students (and the general lack of understanding thereof) doesn't quite end there. Duckworth went on to explain that college students "used to be some of music's greatest fans, unfortunately that is no longer the case."

According to Duckworth, students who steal copyrighted music are not fans of music? I simply don't understand the logic. Look, I'm not here to endorse the stealing of music and I encourage everyone to buy it. But by undermining the intelligence of college students and insulting them because of their perceived "lack of development," I don't see how anything could (or will) change.

Beyond that, the real issue lies not with college students stealing music, but with huge piracy cartels overseas that have created a bit of a cottage industry out of stealing and redistributing media. Because of that, I asked Duckworth about it. After telling me that college students have become the world's largest group of pirates, Duckworth explained that the RIAA wants to "take action against the services themselves" and indicated that the organization is "working with policymakers in Washington to encourage countries whose copyright laws have not kept up with the times or who do not appropriately enforce intellectual property violations" to catch up.

Regardless, it doesn't seem to me that the RIAA is doing enough. Why are criminal enterprises that contribute a significant amount to the piracy losses that the organization is so quick to cite allowed to run amok, while grandmothers and students who pirate music are targeted? Sure, those people shouldn't be pirating music either, but shouldn't the organization go after the kingpins instead of the low-hanging fruit? I certainly think so.

Intriguingly, the RIAA believes its policy of suing violators is working, but depending on the study you read, piracy has flattened out or grown at a relatively steady, albeit slower, pace when compared with its meteoric rise just after the turn of the millennium. According to BigChampagne, a company that specializes in tracking P2P and Torrent use, May 2006 saw 9 million individuals connected on peer sharing sites, compared with 9.35 million just one year later. Beyond that, NPD found that 15 million people downloaded songs from P2P networks in 2006 and an estimated 5 billion files were added to computers--a 47 percent increase over the prior year.

As if that wasn't enough, a more recent study from NPD claims only 50 percent of Mac users paid for their music in the third quarter of 2007, compared with 16 percent of PC users. If true, are lawsuits really working?

According to Duckworth, lawsuits have made "people more aware of what is legal and illegal when it comes to downloading music." But if you ask me, the RIAA's policy of utilizing lawsuits to make people "more aware" is creating a more hostile environment that only harms the organization's standing in the court of public opinion.

Of course, Duckworth disagrees. She contends that although some may dislike the RIAA, "amongst the general public, the favorability ratings of the record industry remain as positive as ever and surpass other forms of entertainment like movie or TV studios." Of course, the question is not necessarily whether the public likes Sony BMG or EMI, the real question is whether or not people like the RIAA itself. And so far, very few do.

In the end, Duckworth says that we should be skeptical when we hear news on the RIAA. According to her, she would rather "give [us] the facts and encourage [us] not to believe everything [we] read that aggressively villainies the organization."

Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. When an objective observer looks at some of the actions taken by the RIAA over the past few years, including hiding behind the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 2003 to force Verizon to hand over private customer information, asking the court to force a 10-year old girl into a deposition over a lawsuit with her mother, and a host of others where the organization chose to attack low-hanging fruit instead of finding and charging those enterprises that have allowed piracy to become so ubiquitous in the first place, it's no wonder people dislike this organization.

In an environment where technology is changing by the minute, there are still some organizations that flounder in the past. Is piracy wrong? Yes. Should people pirate? No. But what the RIAA doesn't understand is that its policy of lawsuits only enrages people and fails to bring about change.

That said, it seems like the writing is on the wall. The RIAA will continue to employ its bullying tactics in the hopes that piracy will stop, but the recording industry will refuse to realize that what we really want as consumers is the ability to take music and do what we want with it. Beyond that, the industry will never realize that although I can copy a track I purchased and send it along to a friend, sales will continue to rise because most people are honest and are willing (and ready) to do the right thing.

I commend the RIAA for standing up to the issues I raised and answering them as forthrightly as possible. And while we may not have received the answers we would have liked, we gleaned even more knowledge of this organization than previously known.

Intriguingly, ArsTechnica reported on Friday that the recording industry has some doubts about the viability of the RIAA and at least one of the major labels--EMI--is considering pulling all of its funding by March 31, if major changes in policy and structure are not made. Regardless, there is no indication that we can expect a major shift going forward. And I, for one, am extremely saddened to hear that.

advertisement
 
Discover unlimited music for the price of one CD a month
Recent posts from The Digital Home
What Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo don't get
Why Sega should release a new console
The Digital Home 15: The Violent Video Game Edition
2010 will be an important year for Microsoft
What does the file sharing strikeout mean to us?
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 72 comments (Page 1 of 5)
by PortVista January 14, 2008 7:33 AM PST
Wow that P2P Lawsuits webpage is INSANE! -- "Would you like to settle a case online?" And then it's like a typical check-out process, pay by credit card, and get your receipt. How does the RIAA get away with this?
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
by G Fitz January 14, 2008 8:21 AM PST
Nice article. I'm looking forward to reading the transcript tomorrow. I think one thing the RIAA still doesn't understand is that you cannot sue your customers and then keep them buying your media. College age students have got to be one of the biggest demographics in music sales. Since the invention of the cassette tape, music has been 'copy-able', yet the music industry has persisted and thrived. Admitedly, it is easier to download from a P2P site than copy a friends CD, but the majority of people like to own their 'stuff', and I think want to obtain their music legally.
Reply to this comment View all 3 replies
by rollspc January 14, 2008 8:48 AM PST
More lawyers producing media grabbing lawsuits enraging college students who will, in time, be the leaders making decisions that affect the RIAA. Meanwhile the record industry falls deeper into the hole where fewer and fewer consumers are buying anything from their industry. Everything affects the bottom line --actions by lawyers, producers, policy makers not just the consumer. Adding more lawyers with ever expanding lawsuits that have minimal effect only adds to the issues. EMI has the right idea -- it just needs to follow through to insure we try something different that doesn't include depositions that include 10 year olds.
Reply to this comment
by Charbax January 14, 2008 8:59 AM PST
RIAA does not represent the artists, they represent the music coorporations. Now answer these questions: - Are music coorporations always going to be needed now that artists can distribute their music directly to their fans? - How much money does the artists get per song sold on iTunes, some reports show artists only get 14% of iTunes sales, thus $0.14 for each $0.99 that consumers spend on buying so called legal music online. Are those reports correct, and in which case, why should consumers feel confortable spending $0.86 or more of every dollar spent on so called legal music for intermediaries such as Apple and the record labels? If songs were sold for $0.14 each and 100% went to the artists, then much more so called legal music would be purchased online and the artists would make much more money. And most consumers wouldn't go through the trouble of using p2p software to get the music. - I'm for the Global Licence law. Everyone should pay around $5 in average per month in taxes, give that money to artists directly, absolutely no intermediaries are needed. Artists know what to do with that money to produce more and better music. Give the power to the artists and not to the record labels.
Reply to this comment View all 3 replies
by gdmaclew January 14, 2008 11:39 AM PST
By the way...meteors don't rise - they fall.
Reply to this comment
by B_Charles January 14, 2008 11:55 AM PST
To be fair, artists should know that they don't make any money from selling albums. And unless they are actually writing the songs, producing the music, taking the pictures, etc., then they really shouldn't. There is so much money poured into the recording and marketing of an album that an artist is almost required to go platinum to be seen as a success. The album sales do, however, determine the billability of the artist such as how much budget they'll have for concerts and later albums, how much concert tickets will be (thus putting more money in their pockets), where they will perform, etc. So you're not neccessarily paying the artist by buying the album, you're setting the artist up to get paid elsewhere. Think of it more like a television show. By watching a show, you increase the amount of money advertisers will pay the network. So although you are not directly paying the actors, you are giving the show more opportunities to pay the actors more money and produce a better show. Bottom line is that if you want your favorite artists to continue putting out good albums (which is hard to do if you have no budget) and have longevity, buy the album. Big artists don't care that they make $1 per album sold. It's all about the number of albums sold so they can bring in money on the backend.
Reply to this comment
by Atagahi January 14, 2008 12:00 PM PST
It is amazing that the music corporations haven't connected falling music sales with the RIAA's lawsuits and egregious tactics. It is pretty clear that people are voting with their pocketbooks. I know the RIAA disgusts me and I quit buying music. I don't download it or pirate it either. I just no longer desire to fund the music industry and its arrogant enforcer. It is amazing how little one needs new music once you get away from radios and music venues. If you are going to use mafia tactics to punish your consumers, can you really complain when the consumers decide to forego your product? It is only a matter of time before the music corporations go out of business. Somehow I doubt society will collapse as the music corporations seem to think it will.
Reply to this comment
by shoffmueller January 14, 2008 12:04 PM PST
I do agree with her comment, "And their appreciation for intellectual property has not yet reached its full development." There truly is no evidence that the 18-22 year olds have any sense of intellectual property, and the right to vote and go to war hardly implies otherwise. The fact that kids download music free with no sense of wrongdoing is evidence of exactly what the RIAA spokesperson is saying. Older folks seem to buy music legally, hence likely have a more developed appreciation for intelectual property.
Reply to this comment View all 7 replies
by Nichol January 14, 2008 12:40 PM PST
Unfortunately, the corporate nature of the industry intends to maximize profits, and does not serve the best interests for the artists or the public. It is not really any different than the current US health care system. Controlled solely by corporate health insurance companies, and drug vendors. Now I don't think that a 'global license law' would solve the issue because this is not a medical system and not everyone needs to have access to all music. The industry should in theory set a salary for artists on their labels. No one, I repeat no one needs millions of dollars.. it's a gross corporate capitalistic condition to need more money than is sufficient. Pen them up with a cap at like $160,000 / year. There is no reason why professional sports, celebrities, and artists should make more money than our doctors. Left over revenue should be re invested, or put into the country. The idea could pan out, but due to the nature of the corporate world and the high chance that something like that will be smeared with communism or (socialism as the us government will call it). Look what happened when the Clinton's pushed universal health care. the only way these things will really get solved is if The People turn fear back on the government and corporations. It is they who should be afraid of the people not the other way around. That's how democracy works, that's what keeps a government in line with the peoples interest. Fight back, hoping is not going to work and it's not going to get better if you all just sit back and wait.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
by fokwp January 14, 2008 12:50 PM PST
There is a law that you can only copy music in accordance with a license agreement. There are two other laws: that you can only drive 55 on some roads, and that you can't walk your dog off-leash in national parks. The first law, it has apparently been decided, will be enforced by hurting people. The other two laws, it has been decided, will be worked out with the communities that are most affected by the laws. What priority, when, and how should speeding laws be enforced, and when not? Should any of the leash laws be enforced - is so, when and how? The communities that suffer (and benefit from) the effects of enforcement are included in the process - that is, their thoughts, wishes, intuitions are brought to bear on the problem. How about plain old shoplifting? What should the penalty be - what about a youth offender? what about someone who had no money and stole food - maybe we need to assure the availability of food for this person rather than prosecute? communities most affected by enforcement are involved in the process of enforcement (and law-making) from the get-go. We work these things out in the communities that are affected. Now look at digital rights management. The RIAA will sit alone and decide how to hurt who in the most effective way possible to suit only the requirements of its bosses. Lack of any commitment to the affected communities is why the RIAA is not a legitimate enforcement body, is hated, and will fail.
Reply to this comment View reply
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
  • About The Digital Home

  • Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has covered everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Besides his work with CNET, Don's work has been featured in a variety of other publications including PC World and a host of Ziff-Davis publications.

    Don writes product reviews for InformationWeek and is a regular contributor to Processor Magazine. You can visit his personal site at DonReisinger.com or if you would like to email Don with questions or comments, drop him a line at CNETDigitalHome@gmail.com. Disclosure.

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN

Subscribe to the Digital Home podcast

Have you ever wanted a no-nonsense discussion on what is really going with all the tech topics related to your Digital Home? If so, join Don Reisinger as he brings you the same biting commentary you've come to expect from his Digital Home blog in all its audio glory.


View all Digital Home podcast episode blog entries


Don on Twitter

Follow Don at Twitter

Don's del.icio.us bookmarks:

More...



advertisement
On TV.com: GREY'S ANATOMY season 4
Visit other CNET Networks sites: