Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media Businesses The Almighty Buck

RIAA Denies Hypocrisy in Royalties Dustup 85

Posted by Zonk
from the not-our-problem dept.
Hairless ape writes "The RIAA is reacting to a story pointing out the group's hypocrisy in its attempts to have songwriter royalties lowered. The issue stems from attempts to get webcasters to pay fixed royalty rates. 'In short, the contention was that the RIAA wanted to pay a percentage of its revenue to songwriters as its profits have fallen, but pushed for a fixed per-stream when it came to earning money from webcasters.' The RIAA says that's not so, and that SoundExchange offered a similar model to webcasters. Either way, the rates sought by the two groups would have bankrupted many webcasters. 'Now you know; it wasn't about hypocrisy, but one of the seven deadly sins may still have been involved.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Denies Hypocrisy in Royalties Dustup

Comments Filter:
  • Since when was hypocrisy one of the seven deadly sins?
  • by giafly (926567) on Wednesday March 12, 2008 @12:56PM (#22729556)

    Polluting of the environment, genetic modification, carrying out experiments on humans, causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy and taking drugs all constitute mortal sins, according to Girotti.
    Vatican dusts down deadly sin list [businessgreen.com]

    Actually at least six of these new seven deadly sins apply to the RIAA, starting with "polluting the environment".
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Spy der Mann (805235)
      Actually at least six of these new seven deadly sins apply to the RIAA, starting with "polluting the environment".

      A little off topic, but why am I suddenly reminded of all those AOL CD's? :P
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by davester666 (731373)
        Gah. It still is hypocrisy.

        From their argument, they are implying that consumers are only buying individual songs, but that they, the overly generous music labels are paying songwriters and musicians as if we bought the whole album.

        Revenue may be down, but payouts are down as well. The music industry hasn't been lowering the price of CD's OR lowing the price of individual songs on iTunes or Amazon. If anything, the majors 'profit margin' has increased, because they have significantly lower expenses AND g
    • Polluting of the environment

      Everyone's guilty of that, and I don't see why the RIAA is especially guilty.

      genetic modification

      Let me guess, the exception, right?

      carrying out experiments on humans

      Other than studies and surveys (which are experiments on human behaviour), what exactly have they done?

      causing social injustice

      I'll give you that. They were certainly instrumental in unbalancing copyright law.

      causing poverty

      I don't think they've done much of that. If you're going to cite the artists as an example, I'

  • This might be offtopic, but I'm willing to risk it. There are now fourteen deadly sins.

    Article here. [allheadlinenews.com]

    Mgr Girotti named the new mortal sins to be (1)genetic modification; (2) human experimentations, (3) polluting the environment; (4) social injustice; (5) causing poverty; (6) financial gluttony; and (7) taking drugs.

    So, let's see. The RIAA is certainly guilty of the new 4, 5, and 6. They're also guilty of 3 if you count noise pollution from crappy manufactured pop bands. And probably 7, I think that's pretty much a given too if you read any of their justifications on their behavior.

    So, all they have to do is clone Lance Bass and they'll have a hat trick on the new list.

    • So, all they have to do is clone Lance Bass and they'll have a hat trick on the new list.

      Okay, but what about human experimentation? *cringes*

    • In that case everyone's going to hell!

      Lets see ..

      (1)genetic modification - everyone from the biotech industry
      (2) human experimentations - sadists
      (3) polluting the environment - everyone who drives a car; nuclear power plant owners; electricity consumers
      (4) social injustice - anyone earning more than 100K p.a. and not making a tax deductible donation (St. Peter will have to check with the IRS)
      (5) causing poverty - some from the list above; politicians
      (6) financial gluttony - anybody who is the
      • by MightyYar (622222) on Wednesday March 12, 2008 @01:22PM (#22729880)

        In that case everyone's going to hell!
        Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? No one is without sin, so everyone must ask for God's forgiveness. Vendor lock-in.

        I wonder if the alcohol that Christ made out of water counts as drugs or not? If not, I'd like to hear why alcohol is not a drug.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by nedwidek (98930)
          Because it's legal and the government gets their cut?
        • According to everyone's friend, Wikipedia, a drug is defined as "any substance that alters normal bodily function".

          Using that definition, alcohols would be considered a drug. Of course, food, water, air, and every other foreign object introduced into a body could be classified as a drug. Your normal body function is to die. Taking drugs like food and water alter that and keep you alive. Air has that nasty habit also. I say let's ban drugs and see how long the human race lasts!

          • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

            by MightyYar (622222)

            Taking drugs like food and water alter that and keep you alive. Air has that nasty habit also.
            Not to take anything away from your comment, but wouldn't air, food, and water fall into the "normal bodily function" category? :)
            • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

              You could say the same thing if you constantly had a low level of, say... caffeine in your body. *Caffeine is very normal in my bodily functions.
        • I wonder if the alcohol that Christ made out of water counts as drugs or not? If not, I'd like to hear why alcohol is not a drug.

          Well, some religions (such as Southern Baptists) hold that alcohol is verboten. Others (such as Rastafarianism) have no problems with drugs. Most religions seem to uphold drinking as a celebratory or social act, and are silent on other drugs. So, I would say that religions tend to lump drugs and alcohol together, but the US is where they sent all the Christian groups that thou

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mjwx (966435)
          Ayn Rand was a hack and a plagiarist.
          The whole idea of atlas shrugged was taken from the idea of using guilt as leverage in religion. Here's an oft quoted part changed to fit a religious context:

          There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power the Church has is the power to punish sinners. When there aren't enough sinners, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a sin that it becomes impossible for men to live without sin.

          . The whole idea is to make people think they are doing bad things in

          • by MightyYar (622222)
            By what standard does the US government have a close association to "the church"? I don't even know what church that would be.
            • by mjwx (966435)
              Modus Operandi's are practically identical, by "the church" this applies to most theist churches. To be more accurate however how many US presidents have not been Christian? How many senators are not Religious? (willing to bet the vast majority (75%) are Christians in some flavour or another).

              Connection enough?

              At least the Australian government is honest about it, you have to be a member of the church of England to be a member of parliament.
              • by MightyYar (622222)
                So, what is the problem? The US government is carrying out the will of the people? Any democracy made up of 90% Christians is going to be represented by mostly Christians.

                At least the Australian government is honest about it, you have to be a member of the church of England to be a member of parliament.
                This is absurd unless your goal is to disenfranchise.
                • by mjwx (966435)

                  So, what is the problem? The US government is carrying out the will of the people? Any democracy made up of 90% Christians is going to be represented by mostly Christians.

                  So much for for the vaunted separation of church and state. Maybe not so bad for you but IMO, any theocratic state is bad.

                  At least the Australian government is honest about it, you have to be a member of the church of England to be a member of parliament.

                  This is absurd unless your goal is to disenfranchise.

                  Honesty not something you wa

                  • by MightyYar (622222)

                    So much for for the vaunted separation of church and state.

                    I don't know what you are getting at. What social code should the US follow that would make it more separated? About the only thing I can think of is getting "In God We Trust" off of the currency. There's no government-sponsored church of any kind, no church is taxed, and there is broad freedom of assembly. Hell, even whack-job Scientology is permitted.

                    Honesty not something you want from government?

                    Honesty is disclosure, not forcing your politicians to join some bullshit church. Some of our most prominent politicians are Jewish. Many of them are Catho

            • by mjwx (966435)
              I should have been more specific, by close association I mean more in terms of the way they operate, Modus Operandi.

              Hindsight is a wonderful thing, if life just had an edit button.
    • Hear me! Oh, Hear me! All pay heed! The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen (crash)...Oy! ten-- ten commandments, for all to obey!
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by fishbowl (7759)
      #1, genetic modification. We will jail all who grow roses and all who have fruit orchards?
      #2, human experimentation. What's wrong with medical research, psychological research, etc.?
      #3, #4, #5 need definition
      #6, punish success and all suffer
      #7, only the drugs you don't happen to like. Does everyone agree on which drugs are bad?
    • So, let's see. The RIAA is certainly guilty of the new 4, 5, and 6

      Nothing new here... just because these sins were just recently listed didn't mean that the riaa execs weren't going to hell anyway: They were accusing innocents of "stealing" their "property" (that's perjury), engaging in monopolistic practices and asking too much of punitive damages (which would go against "thou shalt not steal"), etc. They were evil, and they know it.
      • Actually more like "bearing false witness" than perjury, as in "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
    • by Gutboy (587531)
      (1) Would this cover gene therapy?
      (2) I guess we'll never have cures for any more diseases, or does drug trials not count as human experimentation?
      (3) CO2 emmissions? Everyone does it. Not even counting waste products (or trash).
      (4) The Catholic church wants to talk about social injustice? Maybe they should clean their own house first.
      (5) How much does the church pull in each year? it is important for all parishoners to understand that giving is not optional (it is actually one of the six precepts of th [memorare.com]
      • Oh yeah, I know it's all extra silly. But the blurb made me think of it, and my SlashKarma could stand taking a hit for the sake of posting something interesting.

        My list like yours would look like this:

        (1) Does this cover reproduction? You're mixing your genetic material with someone else.
        (2) Technically, human experimentation would apply to your tailor. He fits pants to you, then modifies them, then fits them again...it's experimentation with a human involved.
        (3) Polluting the environment is re

        • by andphi (899406)
          (3) Polluting the environment is recursive. Say a Hail Mary to be forgiven, exhale CO2, have to say another one...

          But, the O2 we convert to CO2 and then we exhale is the same CO2 other organisms convert to O2 and then exhale. Is that pollution or just the proper working of a closed system?
  • Payola? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Van Cutter Romney (973766) <sriram.venkatara ... m minus herbivor> on Wednesday March 12, 2008 @12:59PM (#22729584)
    Sounds like Payola all over. Maybe we'll get Eliot Spitzer to prosecute RIAA again ... Oh, wait!
  • Perhaps the new deadly sin of "excessive wealth" would cover this as well.
  • News? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gat0r30y (957941) on Wednesday March 12, 2008 @01:11PM (#22729726) Homepage Journal
    Unscrupulous organization denies blatant hypocrisy. Details at 11.
    • by Bryansix (761547)
      Oh, it's newsworthy. How else are people supposed to know that this unscrupulous organization exists and to steer clear of it if we don't hear about it every day?
  • by PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) on Wednesday March 12, 2008 @01:12PM (#22729742) Journal
    Even if it isn't fair - at least it is legal. The RIAA sometimes has problems with that, too.
  • Maybe now... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cjb658 (1235986)
    ...that everyone knows what we already know, people like my mother who think most artists make millions from CD sales will get the picture: the RIAA doesn't care about artists' profit- just its own.
  • by DarkSkiesAhead (562955) on Wednesday March 12, 2008 @01:42PM (#22730160)

    I came into this thread with 10 shiny new mod points hoping to find someone insightful, but found not a single comment in the entire thread worth promotion. What's happened to slashdot? A story on a hot subject, and I see nothing but off-topic trolls and insipid banter about deadly sins taken out of context from the description at the top of the page. Not a single comment on the actual article.

    Anyway, the RIAA's attempt to dodge the charge of hypocrisy is equally lame. First the new deal gives ridiculous profit to SoundExchange (30% of gross). And even though they do have a 'plan' to share with artists (an inequitable one, albeit), the lack of expediency is directly adding to the profit of the RIAA through this process. The artists are clearly an afterthought. The RIAA can't come close to hiding their real motivation: profit for its members at all costs, regardless of artists rights/needs.

    • If you outlaw copyrighted webcasting by making it cost prohibitive, only outlaws who don't care about cost prohibitive copyrighted webcasting will webcast.
    • by Foobar of Borg (690622) on Wednesday March 12, 2008 @01:55PM (#22730330)

      I see nothing but off-topic trolls and insipid banter about deadly sins taken out of context from the description at the top of the page. Not a single comment on the actual article.
      I hate to say this since you have a lower UID than I do but, You must be new here.
    • by trongey (21550)

      I came into this thread ... hoping to find someone insightful...
      You came into the discussion of a flamebait article hoping to find insightful comment?
      Did you forget you were on the internet?
    • by nickyj (142376)
      What else is new? RIAA wants to get rid of webcasters. First they failed at outlawing them. Now they want to tax them, where the RIAA sets the price and takes the money, so that webcasting doesn't become a good business model anymore. And let's not forget the screwing of the artists from this new found money.

      I seriously don't listen to any music that I don't have already. I only get music from friends and only if they highly recommend it, and I still don't listen to most of that. 90% of my music listening i
    • All the old guys just read... ow! it hurts to type.
    • First the new deal gives ridiculous profit to SoundExchange (30% of gross).

      Especially when satellite radio networks pay 7.5%. And no tenable reason given by SoundExchange as to why it should be different, especially as internet radio revenue tends to be much smaller than traditional commercial radio stations.

      the lack of expediency is directly adding to the profit of the RIAA through this process. The artists are clearly an afterthought. The RIAA can't come close to hiding their real motivation: profit for its members at all costs, regardless of artists rights/needs.

      What sucks even more is that you have to become a member of SoundExchange to claim the royalties, too. Otherwise, SoundExchange 'holds' them for you, regardless of whether your label is RIAA-affiliated. (How else can they pay for the cocaine to snort off hookers' backs?)

      E

  • Seven (Score:5, Funny)

    by esocid (946821) on Wednesday March 12, 2008 @01:47PM (#22730224) Journal
    1. Envy- of the artists and their fame.
    2. Greed- self explanatory.
    3. Gluttony- eating and boozing it up with all that cash from those royalties.
    4. Lust- for control and power over the music industry.
    5. Pride- in their "holier than thou" facade as guardians of truth and justice.
    6. Rage- hm, I guess that one is just reserved for everyone who hates the living hell out of the RIAA.
  • bullshit! Darn you to heck you RIAA fibbers!

Your program is sick! Shoot it and put it out of its memory.

Working...