RIAA Still Can't Understand That The Product Is More Important Than The Price

from the out-of-touch dept

Thu, Apr 12th 2007 12:53pm — Carlo Longino

Despite some universities refusing to act as the RIAA's henchmen in its campaign against their students, the group says the effort to bully students into paying "discounted settlements" is working to help stop file-sharing. Of course, it says that about everything it tries (even when it's not true), but you'd imagine if any of these attempts really were successful, it wouldn't need to keep coming up with new ones. Anyhow, just in case there was any doubt as to how out of touch the RIAA is with the market and its customers, its general counsel and EVP wonders why students would continue to download from file-sharing networks when they have access to discounted or free subscription services. Uh, maybe it's because students realize how lame those services are? When students choose to keep illegally downloading even though they have free legal alternatives available, it illustrates that this isn't just an issue of them wanting to not have to pay for music, as the RIAA would like you to believe. It's an issue of the RIAA and its member labels not being able to deliver an attractive product to consumers. But why bother to innovate and come up with something people would want to buy, when you can just sue all your customers instead?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

30 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ajax 4Hire, 12 Apr 2007 @ 1:01pm

Sue all your customers and soon
you will have no customers.

I don't sneak books out of the store under my coat because it is easier to buy them.

Bookstores don't sue me for browsing and even !gasp! reading some of the books in the store. They know that if the books are freely available for browsing that you are much more likely to buy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JS Beckerist, 12 Apr 2007 @ 1:48pm

...that's the point of napster 4 schools
Ajax: close, but no cigar. It doesn't exactly work like that, as a matter of fact that's exactly what Napster is trying to do! When I buy music, I want to own it. I don't want to be told when, where, what media, what software...etc...to use what I already bought. Granted, you can't just go to a Borders, pull a book off the shelf and photocopy it for free, but once you buy that book you can do (pretty much) WHATEVER you want to with it.
Ironically, I feel that if the RIAA STOPPED supporting restrictive DRM schemes, the interoperability of our appliances would increase (naturally), the music would never have to be replaced (as is needed when you lose a HD like I recently did), and the music can be enjoyed by you, your friend, your mother, your co-workers...as would be possible with any book.

I feel that, instead of providing us with GOOD music that we'd all want to buy (and support), they keep feeding us this crappy reprocessed junk and expect us to shell out cash because we're essentially forced to. This will not work, and they need to realize this before getting something that WILL work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Xenohacker@hotmail.com, 12 Apr 2007 @ 1:52pm

RIAA Is A Four Letter Word
I find it quite obvious why Universities do not want to act as RIAA henchmen. Universities receive absolutely nothing for their troubles. Universities have to deal with their students everyday not RIAA. A few reasons students would continue to download from file-sharing networks when they have access to discounted or free subscription services:

- #1 reason is teens that do not have credit cards or much money but have MP3 players and want to listen...
- 'Free' services offer very little for 'Free'
- You can't store their service in your iPOD
- Discounted services aren't cheap enough for how bad they suck...
- You might mention many people don't want to set up "subscriptions"
- Some people do not want to give their credit card information over the internet
- Some people do it as their way of screwing the system
- Some people are just cheap
- It is less hassle for many
- Don't forget the "Everyone Is Doing It" reason

Oh geez I bet I could go on and on... but that will have to wait until I finish downloading a couple of songs...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2007 @ 2:03pm

I think everyone should FedEx the RIAA their morning bowel movements tomorrow! The RIAA will be really excited, because they are FREE!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Garlo, 12 Apr 2007 @ 2:06pm

Reader Still Can't Understand Why Stories About the RIAA Still Get Posted On TechDirt...

Seriously, unless something different happens, can you guys just stop with this nonsense.

And while we're at it, the same goes for anything having to do with copyright law as well.
(Even if it means Mike will have nothing to pretend to be an expert on).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RandomThoughts, 12 Apr 2007 @ 2:11pm

"I don't sneak books out of the store under my coat because it is easier to buy them."

That's just perfect, although you would make a lousy bank robber. Don't worry about committing a crime, just your convenience. Can you give your book away after purchasing it? Of course you can, but then you won't have the book. Think there is a difference when you share your music files?

What is so difficult about downloading from iTunes?

The big test will be DRM free music through iTunes. If it is not successful, that will prove that its not convenience, but rather people who just don't want to pay anything for the music. If that is the case, you will expect to see more and more restrictions, not less.

You will get what you deserve.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2007 @ 2:13pm

dear RIAA,

i download your products illegally about 10 times as much as i did prior to your escapades.

why? because i hate you and i do it to spite you.

*sticks tongue out*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The infamous Joe, 12 Apr 2007 @ 2:24pm

Play it and they will come.
Music is not a product-- music is a commerical.

So called musicians should use their released music to draw in a larger fan base to their shows to let the make money on a $30 T-shirt that costs $3 to make.

I don't know about you, but if someone tried to make DRM laden commericals (so I couldn't show all my friends the commerical-- we wouldn't want that!) and charge viewers (and potential customers) $0.99 each, then said told me they'd remove the DRM and instead charge me $1.29-- I'd laugh at them and stop buying their product at all.

Eat up, baby birds. Eat up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2007 @ 2:28pm

Re: Garlo
Wah-wah-wah. Do you read every article in a newspaper? No? Then paper should only print articles about topics you're interested in, right? Of course not. That means you should start your own. A-ha...now there's an idea. Start your own tech blog and you can discuss whatever topics you want to. Personally, I'm entertained by hearing the latest zany schemes of the RIAA. But when techdirt runs an article on a topic I find boring, I skip it. You should feel free to read it though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Long, 12 Apr 2007 @ 2:31pm

Ajax sneaking books...
"I don't sneak books out of the store under my coat because it is easier to buy them."

Ajax, the reason most people don't sneak books out of the store under their coats is that if you're caught, you're pobably going to be arrested and go to jail. Or in other words, your actions could have immediate and severe consequences.

With downloading, howerver, the consequences are not immediate, and may never materialize at all. Hence there's little disincentive not to do it, and lots of immediate gratification involved when you do do it, e.g. free stuff.

So I'm not impressed when someone indicates that, while they'd download online, they'd never steal in the real world. They're simply playing the odds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2007 @ 2:42pm

Re: Ajax sneaking books...
"So I'm not impressed when someone indicates that, while they'd download online, they'd never steal in the real world. They're simply playing the odds."

Say it with me, "Downloading copyrighted material is not stealing". Let's chant that a few more times and see if we can't get it in your head somewhere.

Your comparing apples and orangutans. One is theft and the other is copyright infringement. In fact, it is still not really illegal to download songs for free... it is however a copyright violation to distribute music. Every time one of these RIAA articles get posted we seem to have someone start blabbering about stealing.

Please, READ the laws before you post. You may not agree with an action morally, but that does not make it illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter, 12 Apr 2007 @ 3:01pm

Re: Re: Ajax sneaking books...
Anonymous Coward - But copyright violation is illegal, so your just arguing semantics. The person who downloads isn't doing anything wrong, it's the person who provides the material who is? There may be a legal difference there, but the downloader still knows they are obtaining copyrighted materials without the holders' permission.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter, 12 Apr 2007 @ 3:04pm

Re:
Random Thoughts - "The big test will be DRM free music through iTunes. If it is not successful, that will prove that its not convenience, but rather people who just don't want to pay anything for the music."

Absolutely. When I said this to people some counter with, "well the iTunes stuff is crap so I won't pay for it anyway." Or "I will only pay for uncompressed music." If you are holding out for completely uncompressed DRM-free music, go buy a CD.

Let's take this one step at a time and first show the labels you really are willing to pay for DRM-free content more than just having it free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Garlo, 12 Apr 2007 @ 3:08pm

Re: Re: Garlo
The good thing about my newspaper is that they don't regurgitate the same story with the same underlying theme four times a day and pass it off as "news". (Unless we're talking here about Anna Nichole Smith, of course).

Without the RIAA and Copyright lawsuits, Techdirt would be lost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RandomThoughts, 12 Apr 2007 @ 3:51pm

If you vilate copyrigh LAWS via the Internet. you could face up to 3 years in jail.

Does that sound like something that is legal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2007 @ 3:51pm

Re: Peter
"Anonymous Coward - But copyright violation is illegal, so your just arguing semantics."

Let's say you committed theft, and were accused of murder instead - but theft is illegal, so you're just arguing semantics.

Uh......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 12 Apr 2007 @ 3:53pm

Re: Re: Re: Garlo
Dude, if you don't care for the article, THEN DON'T FUCKING READ IT YOU MORON!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
August West, 12 Apr 2007 @ 3:55pm

Purchased Music
I am actually purchasing my second album in about 3 or 4 years. I download, yes but it is always live recordings of my favorite bands (Grateful Dead, Widespread Panic, etc). The reason is not price as much as it is the garbage being released these days. I heard The Pipettes on Sirius yesteray and am getting that album in just a few minutes, when I leave the house. The point of it is, as long as the record companies keep putting out cookie cutter McMusic, sales will lag. Good music will equal good sales. And with Clear Channel taking over the airwaves like they are, all originality is gone from FM, where I used to be introduced to new music. These days its the download that introduces people to new music since there really is no originality on the radio in the souteast US.

I already own all the Bob Seger and Lynyrd Skynyrd I'm ever going to buy. So do ll of us old farts, but thats all thats played down here. That and shitty "sound alike" commercialized county American Idol crap. Duh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2007 @ 3:56pm

My Opinion...
I will pay for Non-DRM content for the moment, but only to try to show them that DRM doesn't work. I do not believe that selling something that can be copied infinitely at no cost to anyone involved is a valid way of making money. Do artists need to get paid? Yes. Am I saying nobody should be paid for intangible works? Absolutely NOT. However, I think the model of "sell constantly and restrict sharing" simply isn't valid at this point, and that they have missed their chance to harness the most unique power of computers - infinite, virtually free copying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Garlo, 12 Apr 2007 @ 3:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Garlo
But Mike, where else can I have the pleasure of conversing with such articulate and obviously intelligent folk as yourself if not here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dorpass, 12 Apr 2007 @ 4:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Garlo
The good thing about my newspaper is that they don't regurgitate the same story with the same underlying theme four times a day and pass it off as "news".

That's right! And TV News show new information every half hour. So do all news websites. They update all their stories to new ones just about every hour! Oh wait, I've drinking again, the news are still the same today as yesterday...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Imus, 12 Apr 2007 @ 5:25pm

RIAA is a bunch of Nappy Headed HOES!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kandy, 12 Apr 2007 @ 5:58pm

Still, doesn't it seem like a bad market when you get a better product when you steal than when you pay? You'd think the songs for sale would be the ones you could use in any device and such instead of ones that lock down your stuff.

And if you could steal a book by making an exact copy and leave the original one on the shelf for someone else to buy, did you really take anything away? Doesn't that mean books should be cheaper?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KBT, 12 Apr 2007 @ 6:10pm

"It's an issue of the RIAA and its member labels not being able to deliver an attractive product to consumers."

Maybe it's PARTLY that issue, but it's also party due to people who'd rather steal than pay. Get real.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KBT, 12 Apr 2007 @ 6:19pm

"Your comparing apples and orangutans. One is theft and the other is copyright infringement."

That's fine lawyer talk there. OK then, let's dispense with the word "stealing", moral or legal. When someone distributes music online without permission that's called copyright infrigement. When a person breaks into a home and takes property we'll just call that property infringement. They're both illegal for reasons obvious to everyone I've discuss the issue with. Some people actually think other peoples efforts are fair game. It's amazing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2007 @ 6:19pm

Y'know, while the RIAA are right in principle (in the "people are doing illegal things and they want them to stop" way), they go about it in a stupidly annoying way that is getting no one on their side.

Which just means that whenever they try to do something, people laugh at them.

Because they're cock wizards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KBT, 12 Apr 2007 @ 6:26pm

"RIAA they go about it in a stupidly annoying way that is getting no one on their side."

You could say that about the police too.

I'm not an infringer and I don't give a crap about the RIAA one way or another. But I can understand why infringers would. Seems like they're the only people who need to worry about the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The infamous Joe, 12 Apr 2007 @ 6:36pm

Re:
Until they come after you because someone hopped on your unsecured wireless, then when it becomes painfully obvious that the messed up, they try t back out leaving you holding the legal fees.

The RIAA is everyone's problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RandomThoughts, 12 Apr 2007 @ 7:01pm

Disinformation is no way to change things. It is against the law to download copyright songs without the owners permission. You could go to jail for doing so. To say that is is just immoral or you can only face a lawsuit is just wrong. It is against the law.

I am not advocating people be sent to jail, but at least you should know what the law actually is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wizard Prang, 13 Apr 2007 @ 6:35am

Hmmm...
...the music would never have to be replaced...

I suspect that this is what they are afraid of.
[ link to this | view in thread ]