Comments on: The RIAA is not evil

By: ninja1000

ninja1000 — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 18:24:38 +0000

The RIAA is abusing the law clearly by their lawsuits. They have reached the limits of patience that the consumers can have. You are saying that they can not be expected to behave differently.I agree that this is the expected and usual behaviour of RIAA.But as you know in this world,every step taken has its consequences.RIAA is a group of Sellers ,”We ,the people” are consumers.
RIAA,(albeit legally by certein manipulations) has clearly mistreated us and abused our rights.Therefore We The People are taking a completely legal step of boycotting them.They took a wrong step deliberately for greed.Now they must bear the consequences. They can do nothing except advertisement, TeMpOrArY change of policy,and maybe a temporary change in the laws for about 10 years through corrupted govt lobbies that looks nice enough to fool someone.All these shall fail untill they make a law stating buying RIAA labels are mandatory.
Well, put in simpler words “you mistreat the buyer.Buyer dont want to buy from you.”
RIAA can whine and sob all they can that”Why are you boycotting us? We are not evil! We just mistreat you buyers and abuse you legally to make more money.”
RIAA must get their lesson that there is a limit to people’s tolerance.RIAA MUST GET THE MESSAGE THAT THIS SORT OF ABUSE SHALL NOT BE TOLERATED.Otherwise they will become more ferocious.Therefore the boycott must continue against RIAA and its members.Also should include MPAA, and Microsoft.

By: Cpt Nugget

Cpt Nugget — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:42:40 +0000

These are good points. des is right that corporate entities and their agents can’t be “expected” to follow any but their own self-interest, and that if their actions are unsavory, then the limits and rights involved in copyright law need changing.

I’d like to add a couple more points: some of the frustration with the RIAA and its corporate members are that their actions are clearly *not* in their best interest: “piracy” remains common, CD sales are down and customer goodwill is at an all-time low. It’s hard to swallow an argument that their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders requires them to sue their customers, when the long-term consequences of that are not clearly in their interests.

Another is that people often don’t understand the origin and purpose of copyright protections. Copyright protections are not intended to protect some vague moral “right” creators have over their works; they are a trade-off offered by the public: in return for copyright protections, the expectation is that that will encourage the creation of books, music and other protectable works.

In other words, copyright balances the detriment and benefit to the public only; it does not balance the “rights” of a creator with the “rights” of a consumer. If evidence shows that freely sharing music is something the public wants to be able to do, then it is incumbent to change the law, not the public.

By: Walter

Walter — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:30:15 +0000

In your response to “Myth: The RIAA uses illegal tactics” you link an article entitled: “Court: RIAA lawsuit strategy illegal”. It’s like you provided proof that your argument is wrong. You can say all their tactics are not illegal, but as you proved your self, it’s not a myth that they have used illegal tactics, the courts have stated so.

While it’s fairly obvious that “evil” is an emotional overstatement, a more accurate accusation would be to say they are amoral (like all monetary driven groups), unethical (arguable, but correct imo), and totally ruthless. But the simple fact of the matter being considered “evil” by the average citizen is the price for their actions (suing little old ladies, young children, and the descendants of dead people). They are choosing to take on the PR cost, trying to help them deflect the price for their actions, is not something people should do imo. But it is just my opinion.

By: Christopher Shyu

Christopher Shyu — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:27:15 +0000

When you buy a CD you’re supporting TERROR!

Fight Back! FILE SHARE!

Musicians barely see a fucking dime if someone buys their CD thanks to the retarded RIAA. The labels take all of it that’s why artists are dependant on concerts and the merchandising. Don’t buy fucking Albums. Don’t support these fat cunts, go to a concert or something.

And when you download music use an instant-crashable hard drive and a revolving IP so these cunts can never track you down and even if they do SUE THEIR RETARDED FUCKING ASSES FOR CAUSING MENTAL DISTRESS. Bring the predatorial bastards down.

By: des

des — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 21:12:23 +0000

JY: I think you’re right about that. But I also suspect that they wouldn’t have nearly the visibility that they do now. That doesn’t make their strategy correct, of course. It’s just one measure of success.

Casey: I agree, and I touched on it here: http://www.hometracked.com/2007/02/05/big-label-problems-opportunities-for-indie-artists/

I hope indie artists read the article above, and realize that the consumer backlash to the RIAA’s tactics present some amazing opportunities for us. We should be looking to capitalize on them (while keeping our disdain for the big labels in check.)

By: Casey Collier

Casey Collier — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 16:18:38 +0000

The labels and the RIAA attack the Internet,P2P networks, and most digital music because they are losing there grip on the market. Several artists have proven they no longer need a record label to be heard or to become popular. From most accounts piracy is not losing the labels as much as they claim…but the Internet, P2P Networks, and social networks are helping artists realize slowly that record labels are obsolete.

By: JY

JY — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:15:03 +0000

Perhaps “ruthless” would be a better term to use than “evil”? If the RIAA had been more careful, and only went after the clearly egregious infringers, they would have a better reputation.

By: thehipcola.com » Blog Archive » The RIAA is not evil

thehipcola.com » Blog Archive » The RIAA is not evil — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:59:33 +0000

[...] Is the RIAA evil? I thought so. However, this great article by Des, at Hometracked, just might have framed the piracy/downloading debate in a different light for me. Very interesting are the comments after the article….this issue is far from a simple, “artists are getting ripped off, consumers are being villainized” kind of thing. I really, really encourage you to visit Hometracked to read this, and draw your own conclusions. It’s a massive issue that is simply not going away anytime soon. [...]

By: des

des — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 01:38:30 +0000

>I think you and Brad hang out with a different crowd than I do
> and that you guys are reacting to the tone of that group.

Heh, Brad summed his feelings up more succinctly than any of us :)

But ya, I think your statement is right on the money. (Rob’s comment above speaks directly to that, actually: He’s one of the guys that hangs out in my crowd :_)

And thanks for the rest of your comment. You’ve got a unique perspective. “The fraudulent career-ending scam that is the major label deal” should be a book.

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:28:29 +0000

I just have an aversion to boogeyman scare-generalizing, which the anti-RIAA crowd is happy to engage in when it suits them but of course bitterly hates when the tables are turned. Fudging the facts just to get people riled up really, really bothers me.