AP Sues VeriSign For Copyright Infringement; Mostly Pointless

RIAA And The Definition Of Insanity... With Just A Hint Of Sanity From EMI

from the banging-your-head-on-the-wall dept

Wed, Oct 10th 2007 8:12am — Mike Masnick

Someone (the internet credits both Benjamin Franklin and Albert Einstein) once said that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again -- and expecting different results." At some point, can we simply declare the RIAA insane and be done with it? At the very least, they're causing me to bang my head against the wall. For years we've been pointing out business models involving free music that don't need require the RIAA to sue everyone. For years, we've been highlighting the very basic economics for why these business models will almost certainly take over the industry. And, now that we're starting to see some serious traction among bands adopting these models (without RIAA help), we've even explained why the RIAA should still have an important place within this model. Even when the RIAA scores a minor courtroom victory (after many, many losses), and the result is that more people are feeling sorry for the woman found guilty, due to the insanely high fees the court put on her. In other words, nearly everything the industry has done has backfired and made things worse. And how does the RIAA respond? By saying it needs to keep doing the same thing over and over again. The spokesman for the RIAA calls their activities "tough love" but hasn't anyone pointed out to them that what they're doing has not worked and has only made the situation worse? For all of their suing activities, more file sharing than ever is going on... and more and more musicians are opting out of the RIAA mill to craft much more consumer friendly business models. Yet, the RIAA insists that suing people, creating more sympathetic martyrs, and pissing off legitimate customers left and right is the strategy they need to take? It's insanity.

But... wait. Just as I was finishing this post, reader Eric Samson writes in to let us know that EMI's new bosses may finally be adding some sanity back to the process. EMI was bought out by a private equity firm recently, and the CEO of that firm apparently took the Radiohead story as a reason to email the folks at EMI and tell them to pay attention. Specifically, he said that it's "a wake-up call which we should all welcome and respond to with creativity and energy" and that the industry "has for too long been dependent on how many CDs can be sold" and finally, that the industry has screwed up: "rather than embracing digitalisation and the opportunities it brings for promotion of product and distribution through multiple channels, the industry has stuck its head in the sand." Amazing. It only took someone from totally outside the industry to buy one of the major labels and tell its executives the obvious for them to hear it. Now, let's see if EMI can convince the RIAA, who supposedly represents EMI (among many others) that perhaps suing everyone and fighting the inevitable tide isn't such a great idea.

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

Filed Under: business models, economics, music industry
Companies: riaa

27 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

had to be Einstein, 10 Oct 2007 @ 8:14am

cause' he was CRAZY
yeah, first!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techhairball.com, 10 Oct 2007 @ 8:37am

Very interesting
CRAZY is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danny, 10 Oct 2007 @ 9:15am

I doubt that...
As nice as it would be to see the RIAA eventually change its ways I just don't see it happening. How low have you fallen if you get to the point of intentionally going after people that you know can't fight back but will try to drop the case without paying any fees when it is a fight you cannot win?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Known Coward, 10 Oct 2007 @ 9:18am

RIAA Insanity
Fuck the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bryan, 10 Oct 2007 @ 9:51am

no this could be good.
If EMI can pull this off and make money...a lot of money. The world will change.

Bryan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2007 @ 11:11am
  
  Re: no this could be good.
  I second that.
  
  It looks like the only way they will change their course
  is to see someone else making a profit. They are much too
  risk-averse to make the first step themselves.
  
  I thought a computer company getting into the business
  of selling a portable music player and reselling digitized
  music would do it.
  
  Looks like they haven't gotten the message yet and that
  EMI is going to get volunteered to be the guinea pig.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enrico Suarve, 10 Oct 2007 @ 10:15am

back a winner
I'm off to buy shares in EMI

(admittedly with my savings I can probably only afford 3!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob Blatt, 10 Oct 2007 @ 10:19am

I think the only way that EMI could make a serious difference in this fight would be to pull out of the RIAA. EMI appears to be the one company of the four members of the RIAA that seems to be attempting to embrace technology to help distribute music rather than use technology to hinder distribution.

Unfortunately for the listeners, the groups that have recently "defected" could be considered fringe by the mainstream. Radiohead never really wanted to play by the rules and Trent Reznor was always doing his own thing. I applaud their attempts to get away from the old model, but we need many many more mainstream groups to follow suit in order to make a real impact.

It's bands and artists with a ravenous fanbase that can make these kinds of moves. Artists that need to advertise in order to get the message out that they have new music or a new tour coming around will almost always rely on their record label to do the heavy lifting for them because their fans need to be pushed, they don't feel a pull (to use a bad e-mail metaphor)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2007 @ 10:34am

RIAA still has deep pockets and thinks its above the law.

until one of those two things change it will keep acting like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 10 Oct 2007 @ 10:52am

Rigid Insane Aged Aristocrats?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike and RIAA, 10 Oct 2007 @ 10:54am

RIAA
Mike on RIAA....again...and again....and again....and again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Reed, 10 Oct 2007 @ 12:33pm
  
  Re: RIAA
  "Mike on RIAA....again...and again....and again....and again"
  
  The RIAA threatening to sue and actually suing again.. and again... and again... again
  
  If you don't like the news, there is a simple solution. Don't read it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Russ Stebbins, 10 Oct 2007 @ 11:00am

Losing it
Actually, of the thousands of letters and cases, the Thomas case is the first and only one to reach a verdict.

And one interesting thought I noticed in an article, the RIAA may not have much choice but to sue an 'infringer' because of their fiduciary responsibilities. Based on their current business plan, they have to 'protect' their clients interests by minimizing spoilage. It may not be working, but they don't have anything better. It is a matter of not doing something well as much as doing something, instead of nothing.

Now if you change the question, and come up with a different business plan that maximizes exposures, the need to sue your best customers goes away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 10 Oct 2007 @ 11:04am
  
  Re: Losing it
  Now if you change the question, and come up with a different business plan that maximizes exposures, the need to sue your best customers goes away.
  
  Yeah, we've only been pointing out those business models for about a decade. And for it, we just get attacked by the RIAA members for wanting stuff for "free." So, I'm sorry, but the idea that the RIAA still needs to do this until there's another business model out there is ridiculous. The business models are there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Russ Stebbins, 11 Oct 2007 @ 11:39am
    
    Re: Re: Losing it
    I should have said, adopt a new business model.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2007 @ 11:12am

The RIAA is like any other large corporation. They see the future, and know what will need to be done. However, they will continue down their current path until all blood has been squeezed from the stone. It's the same in the pertroleum, movie, auto, and even governments. They will only change as a last resort. Now, if Cd sales drop another 95% perhaps they will realize that change is needed. Until consumer pressure on these entities is massive there will be no change.

2 cents thrown into pot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ray Jay A., 10 Oct 2007 @ 12:11pm

About the RIAA..........
The entire recording industry has changed from the grooved record days and yet, the RIAA continues its self-denial, and self-destructive behavior. They're winning battles, but losing the war. Quite simply, the RIAA, as it currently exists, has outlived its purpose. They should take a que from what's become of the unions in the United States. Trying to stop personal recording and sharing songs is not going to stop, nor slow down. Perhaps the RIAA does realize this and is embracing the "old school ways" to sue in order to recoup financially what they refuse to do by embracing new technology. Since it's obvious that the RIAA does not appear to want to alter its stance, then the industry they represent should demand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2007 @ 12:43pm

I dont want to see the record labels and the RIAA adapt to a new business model. I would enjoy seeing them go down in flames.. not only do they deserve it for being scumbags, but inability to adapt to new business models shows their incompetence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tamara, 10 Oct 2007 @ 1:39pm

If companies sold DRM-free 320kps MP3s for a reasonable price very few people would download illegally. But the only way to download legally is DRM-protected lower quality music files, with only 1 company offering DRM-free lower quality files, but at a higher price.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen, 10 Oct 2007 @ 1:40pm

copyright is
Surely the whole idea of copyright is or was to stop one artist or writer claiming someone elses work as their own.
That is great and should continue I would also argue that is where it should stop if some person buys a recording they should be able to do with it what they wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
zergy, 10 Oct 2007 @ 5:08pm

Legit Fund site for Jammie?
Illegal or not, I want to support her by making a donation. does anyone know of a legit site where I can give. I'd ask you Mike but I'm thinking its not in your best interest, unless it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim Burrows, 10 Oct 2007 @ 7:46pm

RIAA
I have been thinking of creating an online pledge page that would basically allow consumers to to pledge to not buy any music from any source until RIAA and its minions stop these foolish attacks on people. I am fairly sure the number would impact the artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
maths, 10 Oct 2007 @ 9:32pm

Administration of Last Rites
Guy Hands of EMI said "Rather than embracing digitalization and the opportunities it brings for promotion of product and distribution through multiple channels, the industry has stuck its head in the sand." If these words were spoken in 2000 by a head of a major label, I would have applauded it, but 7-8 years after they crucified Napster, mp3.com and bludgeoned all manner of digital developments, it recalls regret and lost opportunities expressed by a terminally ill patient during an administration of last rites. This sentiment was further echoed by Ian Rogers, the new head of Yahoo Music who said, "How much opportunity have we lost in those 8 years?...If the licensing labels (who) offer their content to Yahoo put more barriers in front of the users, I'm not interested. Do what you feel you need to do for your business, I'll be polite, say thank you, and decline to sign. I won't let Yahoo invest any more money in consumer inconvenience"
One by one, everyone seems to be pulling the plug on the major labels, and at some point soon, a mercy killing of the majors might be in order to save the rest of the industry the pain wrought by these age old methods. More details at http://www.music2dot0.com/archives/58 in a piece entitled "Breaking Free From Major Label Excess & Ignorance"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reed is Gay, 11 Oct 2007 @ 5:44am

You're gay
Reed, I don't read anything posted about the RIAA from Mike. I simply find his articles about the RIAA and make note that that's all Mike knows how to write about. This surprisingly all can be done without reading them. PS. You're gay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bruce Williams, 13 Jan 2008 @ 11:48pm

RIAA
The RIAA still claims to control 95% of the music distribution in the US! Gimme a break. They havn't controlled the market since P2P came out.

The day of their monopoly is over, they just can't let it go and wishing for the good old days of predictably wallowng in the bucks won't bring them back.

They are joined by a few mega-wealthy rock stars, who want us to forget the vast majority of musicians barely got by even in the "good old days".

Instead of 70,000 fans in a stadium for four guys, I see people in clubs everywhere spending their money giving the average musician a living.

Not a bad change, if you ask me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rogue Gallart, 30 Mar 2008 @ 5:26pm

RIAA And The Definition Of Insanity
In the conversation of fees... let's look back at the days when Compact Discs where 20- 24 dollars. We look now at the downloading aspect and it has changed but less quality of music. We can also look at theft with companies such as Tower Records that charged these insane prices and people paid for it. Hence why Tower records no longer exists. In the end what we pay is for the value of music. These days it is normally 3 songs at best on a CD that are good. I do see that artists want to put out a quality product. So in response to the RIAA and its definition of sanity... well, lets worry about quality and not quantity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Williets, 16 May 2008 @ 7:58am
  
  Re: RIAA And The Definition Of Insanity
  Finally someone just said it!!! Nice Rogue!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]