Comparing the RIAA To "The Sopranos" 193
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "According to commentator Therese Polletti at Dow Jones MarketWatch, 'the RIAA's tactics are nearly as bad as the actions of mobsters, real or fictional. The analogy comes up easily and frequently in any discussion of the RIAA's maneuvers.' Among other things she cites the extortionate nature of their 'settlement negotiations' pointed out by Prof. Bob Talbot of the University of San Francisco School of Law IP Law Clinic. His student attorneys are helping private practitioners fight the RIAA, and the the illegality of the RIAA's use of unlicensed investigators. She goes on to cite the fact that the RIAA thinks nothing of jeopardizing a student's college education in order to make their point, as support for the MAFIAA/Mafia analogy."
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Any ordinary trust (Score:4, Informative)
No, they don't. RIAA is much less forgiving. Rather than shooting you in the back of the head for something you probably knew you had coming to you, they'd rather hit you with a life-destroying $222,000 settlement [wikipedia.org] for something you were capable of doing, and watch your life fall apart around you.
At least the classic mafia deserves respect.
Re:hmmm (Score:2, Informative)
The difference is that at some point these organizations came together and found that they got less flak if they didn't kill people and just took them to court and ruined their lives. It also turned out to be better for business.
Its just business, if it was less trouble for the Mafia to take people to court, they would. They (as an organization) don't like or want to kill. Dead people don't pay debts very well (see paragraph above).
So, in closing (and to be clear): The only reason the RIAA does not kill people is because it would not make them more money, not because it is morally wrong.
Re:MAFIAA Acronym (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can we at least hope... (Score:5, Informative)
I could listen to internet radio (well, that's now in debate, but I used to be able to) for weeks, for free, and not hear anything I would want to purchase. Likewise, I could download a few GBs of mp3 files, listen for a few weeks, and not hear anything I would want to purchase. In neither case has the artist "lost" a sale.
The whole "1 download = 1 lost sale" argument is very, very flawed in this sense. Yes, if I pulled 3 albums over bittorrent, I "could" pay for them. But if I "would" pay for them, I...well...would. A sale is only lost when I find and download something that I would ordinarily purchase, but decide that the internet price of "free" is more appealing.
I have downloaded a fair bit of music from the internet. Mostly pretty niche stuff, that not a lot of people are into. Not the stuff carried at my local music store, that's for sure. A lot of it I couldn't hear anywhere, yet WOULDN'T purchase without hearing. This was exploratory downloading. No sales were lost, as I wouldn't have purchased it. Yet I now own all 6-8 or so CDs of a particular band in that set, BECAUSE of that exposure. The rest of the bands? Don't listen to the mp3s, haven't bought any CDs. No sales lost due to that downloading, sales actually GAINED for one band because of it. Now I suppose you could tell me that it's somehow my duty to buy everything, THEN decide what I like, but I'm a weirdo who wants to spend my money only on things I want.
Back in the day, before I was completely wise to the amount of malware infused warez in the world, I downloaded some cracked commercial games and played them. Generally, they would hold my interest for a couple of weeks, and then get deleted to free up space. Once in awhile, I'd find a good one, and without fail I'd purchase it. Would I have purchased any of them without the opportunity to try them first? Probably not. Spending $40 on a game is hard to justify after getting burned a couple of times in a row on shitty games. Trying first allowed me to spend my money on what was worth it, supporting the people who's efforts I appreciated. Once again, rather than losing sales, the free downloads gained sales, and that money went to people who produced something I appreciated.
I've come to realize that companies being slimy is the reason I am this way. Companies who slipped me a turd covered with gold foil at the same price as a decent product are the reason I insist on trying first. Now I don't know if I'm somehow weird or unique in this regard, but giving me something to try for free is the best way to get money out of me. I'll pay for stuff that's worth it. But I don't trust companies to give me a product that's worth paying for 90% of the time.
Re:Can we at least hope... (Score:3, Informative)
So what? People don't exist to support business, people choose the businesses they wish to support on the basis of which ones provide what they want at a price they're willing to pay. Businesses that can't do that receive no support and, well, go out of business. After all, do you buy milk just to support the dairy industry? I doubt it. If bands still make music and people still have a means to access it then why should anybody care whether it's provided by a record company or by somebody else?
First off, the government cannot punish you for copyright infringement, it only greases the wheels for copyright holders to collect damages from infringers. That makes it unlawful, not illegal. It might seem like a quibble, but it's something that any business that bases its income on copyrighted material must be mindful of since it means the government won't foot the bill for pursuing infringers. It is a financial risk like any other. That doesn't excuse piracy, of course, but this has been a fact of life in the music business for literally hundreds of years. Thus far, the industry has always found ways to adapt to or account for changes in technology, and when it stops being able to do that it will die.
Second, it is not at all clear that this practice is hurting their business. Music sales are down, sure, and there are studies suggesting that piracy has played a role in that. However, there are also studies suggesting that piracy has not played a role in the decline, and there are a lot of other reasons that might explain it: the popularity of other activities like video gaming and the internet, lack of quality music, the poor economy, and the RIAA lawsuits, just to name a few. In addition, several record executives have worried publicly that the popularity of legal downloads is hurting their business, since a lot of people are now spending $0.99 to buy one track instead of $15 for the whole CD. Finally, there is also anecdotal evidence that piracy has actually increased sales, though I'm not aware of any published studies that make that claim.
In the end, it all comes back to offering people a product they want at a price they're willing to pay. Period. Internet downloads, legal or otherwise, and a growing number of established and unknown musicians have reduced the price people are willing to pay for recorded music. Why should that be my problem?
For the record, I've never knowingly downloaded music illegally, but thanks in large part to the RIAA's lawsuits and the prevalence of DRM I've pared my CD-buying habit down from about two per week to about 2 per year (new music has sucked in recent years, but there's a huge back catalog of stuff I want so that hasn't really been a factor). Now that legal, DRM-free downloads are becoming more widely available I might add a few singles to that total, but I alone have reduced the RIAA's sales by about 200 CDs per year without pirating a single thing. Data is not the plural of anecdote, I know, but still....