Some thoughts on the RIAA vs. The Public

[Adam D]

I'll move aside from the debate over whether it's valid to sue, or whether or not it should be illegal to download music. It's illegal, and let's leave that at such a prima facie position.

I have to credit Russ Martin on this one, but it is pretty wrong that the first case the RIAA goes after is a young, poor, black girl. Of all the people who have downloaded music, I'm pretty sure there is somebody who has downloaded more than this 12 year old girl has, I really don't believe they are working their way down the totem pole. I'm not saying anything as fact, maybe it's all coincidence. But considering the RIAA's longstanding attitude against the consumer, nothing would surprise me about their decisionmaking. In my opinion, it seems to me that they picked the most vulnerable candidate with a significant number of illegal downloads to persecute...I mean prosecute first. What better than a young girl, black, and poor who's parents likely cannot afford a competitive legal defense? I'm not justifying what she did, I'm merely pointing out that the RIAA has not exactly taken the high road here.

[JonSlice]

Not only are they not taking the high road by sueing a little defenseless girl but they aren't coming up with any new solutions to the problem beyond sue their customers. Sueing the people that purchase your products seems to be a pretty shitty way to keep said customers. It makes me want to go download the new justin timberlake album, burn it to a CD-r then take a big shit on it and mail it to the RIAA.

I think that if they were putting out a product that offered incentives to buy, (i.e. more in-depth album art, much lower prices, albums with more then 1 or 2 good tracks.) people would be more inclined to buy a CD instead of just downloading the songs they want. Another problem with purchasing CDs is once you buy it and open it, you are stuck with it. The RIAA needs to work with retailers to offer better return policy and more listen-before-you-buy type of opportunities to customers. Nothing is worse then being stuck with a CD that you paid 20 bucks for that turns out to be total crap.

[Leo]

I'm with Jon all the way there. 9 times out of 10 the average commercial CD has 2-3 good songs on it and the rest is crap filler music and/or skits and shit. The cost needs to come down and the quality needs to increase. I think the RIAA would do well to set up a paid downloading service. Say $.99 per song, but not in some bullshit proprietory (sp?) format or asinine licenses with expirations...one can save the song, burn the song to CD, whatever. People would have their choice of what they want to buy and not be stuck with bullshit.

[JonSlice]

Originally posted by WarLord
Funny you should mention that. It just so happens that the largest distributor of cd's to retailers announced that they would be dropping their suggested sell price to $11.99. This is to go into effect by mid-October.

So, they scare people off of the web and downloading, while almost simultaneously announcing a decrease of almost 30% in the retail price.

Curious how that all worked out so.............neatly.

If I remember correctly the 11.99 price was the wholesale price. Once distributers and retailers get their cut the consumer is still going to pay over 15 bucks for the CD.

But it is really interesting how it all works out so nicely.

[JonSlice]

Originally posted by Leo
I think the RIAA would do well to set up a paid downloading service. Say $.99 per song, but not in some bullshit proprietory (sp?) format or asinine licenses with expirations...one can save the song, burn the song to CD, whatever. People would have their choice of what they want to buy and not be stuck with bullshit.

With proprietary formats and expiring licenses they are stepping all over the fair use sections of copyright law. If a person pays for a piece of copyrighted material whether it be a book, cd, movie or whatever they have the right to personal use of that item as they see fit. If that means copying an mp3 to their portable player AND burning a copy to play in the car, the consumer has that right. Furthermore if a person buys a new computer or mp3 device they should have the right to keep the music they have paid for.

[Leo]

Originally posted by JonSlice
With proprietary formats and expiring licenses they are stepping all over the fair use sections of copyright law. If a person pays for a piece of copyrighted material whether it be a book, cd, movie or whatever they have the right to personal use of that item as they see fit. If that means copying an mp3 to their portable player AND burning a copy to play in the car, the consumer has that right. Furthermore if a person buys a new computer or mp3 device they should have the right to keep the music they have paid for.

I agree...but thus far that's the only thing they've come out with, which is bullshit.

[Leo]

Originally posted by WarLord
They have the right to copy for personal use, but they do not have the right to sell or distribute.

That's the problem...the current pay services all have expiring licenses and bs formats which don't allow even your personal use really. You can't burn them to CD, you can't dump them on an MP3 player...you can only listen on your computer with their player and it expires after a few days/weeks.

[JonSlice]

Originally posted by WarLord
No, from what I heard on NPR, the wholesale price is going to $8.99. So, the $11.99 gives the retailer his markup, which was about $3 a until before, while the distributors and the labels take the hit. But, they have to as cd sales have plummetted by 30% over the last 10 years.

You're probably right then. $ 11.99 for the consumer is a step in the right direction.