After Accusing Them Of Being Criminals For Years, Record Labels Want Kids To Shill For Them On MySpace

from the somehow,-I-think-not dept

Do the record labels really not realize how much they've pissed off their best customers for the last decade? It would appear so, because they're now hoping that the kids they've alienated for all these years will become shills for them on MySpace and other social networks, pushing all their friends to buy music as well. That might have worked years ago, but these days it seems like plenty of kids have been so turned off by buying music from record labels that treat them like criminals first, that it seems like an uphill road to convince them to not just start buying music, but shilling for the record labels as well. Especially as reports are coming out that legal purchases have stagnated as unauthorized downloads have continued to grow -- it's hard to believe that the record labels are suddenly going to get everyone over to their side this easily.

Filed Under: music, recording industry, social networks
Companies: myspace, riaa, snocap

RIAA Backs Down Slightly After Being Countersued For Trying To Shame Man Into Settling

from the yet-again dept

If you hadn't noticed by now, the RIAA will go to great lengths to get people they accuse of file sharing to "settle" a case before it ever goes to court -- especially when the evidence they have is especially flimsy. However, with the threat of much bigger fines as a possibility, many people feel compelled to simply pay up and move on. Luckily, some people fight back -- and the RIAA almost always ends up backing down when the facts are presented. The latest such case takes place in Tennessee, as pointed out by Ray Beckerman. A soldier was accused of unauthorized file sharing for six songs, but in the evidence filed with the court, the RIAA lawyers included screenshots showing 4,600 files from the guy's computer including pornographic content. The guy claims that this clearly has nothing to do with the case, but is a situation where the RIAA is abusing a copyright infringement claim to try to shame the guy into settling. He still insists he's innocent and that lots of other people had access to his computer at the time the charges refer to. After countersuing over this issue, the RIAA has now backed down from listing the 4,600 files and is now only showing 367 sound recordings that it believes are infringing. Rather than admitting that it was abusing the lawsuit to pressure the guy into settling (and this change is due to the countersuit), the RIAA's lawyers claim they've made this change as a "professional courtesy." How nice of them.

Filed Under: abuse, copyright, lawsuit, riaa
Companies: riaa

Why Does The RIAA Hate Webcasters? Webcasters Don't Play Very Much RIAA Music

from the nothing-like-a-little-competitive-pressure,-huh? dept

Back in March, when the word came out that the new royalty rates for webcasting were much higher than in the past, we were confused. After all, webcasting helps promote music -- so why would the RIAA (and its SoundExchange spinoff) want to set rates so high that it would kill off this promotional channel? The answer isn't that hard to figure out. Traditional radio, of course, is dominated by a few similarly formated stations that all play RIAA-backed music. 87% of the music you hear on the radio is from an RIAA-member record label. However, when it comes to music on webcasts, the story is quite different. Jon Healy, at the LA Times, points out that only 44% of music on webcasts are from RIAA labels. This, at least, based on the findings of Live365, one of the larger webcasting services out there. So, with more than half the songs coming from non-RIAA labels, no wonder they're less interested in keeping webcasts alive. And, of course, the situation really is a win-win for the RIAA (in the short-term). It either kills off those webcasters who don't contribute to the homogenization of music, or it forces them to pay large sums even if they only play non-RIAA music. Of course, this is a strategy guaranteed to backfire in the long run, as it simply pisses off even more music fans who will simply look elsewhere for music.

Filed Under: music, radio, riaa, webcasting
Companies: riaa

Allofmp3.com Owners Could Face Jailtime For Demonstrating Better Business Model To RIAA

from the how-dare-they! dept

The saga of Allofmp3 is quite well known at this point. The company that was apparently following the laws of Russia for licensing music made a name for itself selling DRM-free music at very reasonable points. Rather than recognizing that this was proof of a very viable business model for the recording industry, the recording industry turned to US gov't officials to pressure Russia into shutting down the site by threatening to block Russia's entrance into the WTO. Eventually, Russia caved. And, while the site was eventually shut down, an almost identical site quickly popped up in its place. That, of course, can't be good for Russian politicians looking to get into the WTO, so now they're threatening jailtime for Allofmp3's owner. If you step back and look at the big picture, a struggling U.S. industry has had its gov't pressure a foreign gov't to throw a foreign entrepreneur in jail for demonstrating a better business model to them. This is the world we live in.

Filed Under: copyright, russia
Companies: allofmp3, riaa

Law Would Tell Universities To Do The RIAA's Bidding, Or Lose Funding

from the not-your-place dept

The RIAA has consistently complained that there should be laws forcing colleges and universities to stop students sharing unauthorized music on their computer networks, and its extensive lobbying efforts have seen legislators in the past to "drop the hammer" on schools that don't comply to the RIAA's wishes. That hammer came a step closer to being dropped, as reader Blake writes in to let us know: an amendment to the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, which funds colleges and universities and the students who attend them, was introduced this week, and it would cut funding from schools that didn't install technology to try and block P2P file-sharing on their networks. It looks like the amendment got yanked following university complaints, but its introduction highlights the ridiculous amount of clout the RIAA carries in Washington (an amount it seeks to further increase). The RIAA's attempts to abuse the legal system roll on, and now it's attempting to pervert the legislative process and American higher education as well. It isn't the job of colleges and universities to do the RIAA's dirty work, and the government shouldn't be forcing them to do it, either.

Filed Under: congress, p2p, piracy, politics
Companies: riaa

Is Radio Bad For Music? Not Really, But The RIAA Will Say So

from the misunderstanding-markets dept

Remember a few months back when the RIAA started asking the government to get radio stations to pay up for promoting their music? This seemed pretty ludicrous (especially when you add in the fact that record labels for years have paid radio stations via payola to get them to play their music in the first place). Well, the group organized by the RIAA to push this plan has found a professor to publish a study saying that radio actually makes people buy less music. This way, they can claim that radio actually is not a promotional medium for music. Of course, there are a ton of questions about the methodology of this. First of all, if this were actually true, why has the entire history of music radio included the recording industry payola to get songs played? If radio really wasn't promoting sales of records, then why would they keep doing it, even after getting fined over and over and over again. Clearly, the record labels know that there's a benefit in being on the radio. However, even if it is true that radio decreases the demand for albums, nowhere is it explained why this is a problem that the government should solve. Whether or not radio promotes album sales, it clearly promotes music and that opens up all kinds of opportunities for the musicians to make money. The fact that the record labels are unable to capitalize on that is a marketing problem -- which doesn't need a government-backed tax on radio stations to fix. Update: And W. B. McNamara shows up with an excellent explanation that could explain the numbers in the report that suggest it's not "radio" that decreased buying interest -- it's crappy radio, driven by radio consolidation and homogenization.

Filed Under: copyright, music, radio, riaa
Companies: riaa

A Detailed Look At How Prince Embraces New Music Distribution Strategies

from the keep-it-up dept

Last month, we wrote about how the musician Prince had been pissing off a bunch of music retailers in the UK by having a newspaper give away a free copy of his latest album with every issue. The New York Times has a great article looking at this, and giving a more detailed explanation of Prince's strategy for music distribution that supports a lot of what we talk about here. Basically, Prince produces a ton of new music and is constantly in the studio coming up with more music, but he then uses that music in a variety of ways to generate revenue from all different areas -- often recognizing that the music helps make a ton of other aspects of his business more valuable. He also seems to realize a key point in understanding the difference between music that hasn't yet been created (which is scarce) and music that has been created (which is abundant). As such, he has done a number of deals that getting someone to pay him upfront to create music (you can get people to pay for something that's scarce) but then giving that content away for free. In the latest case, the newspaper is paying for the album, because it's going to help get them a lot more attention for their newspaper. This is the same thing that's actually happening in China as well, where piracy is rampant, but there's plenty of new music -- because sponsors are willing to pay to have it created. Either way, Prince continues to provide evidence that nearly everything the recording industry insists must be true isn't actually true -- and he's doing quite well from the sound of things. The continued publicity is helping him sell out a ton of really expensive concert venues according to the article.

Filed Under: copyright, music, prince
Companies: riaa

RIAA Says It Shouldn't Have To Pay Legal Fees Because Woman Didn't Settle; Judge Says Think Again

from the a-new-low dept

Despite the RIAA's astounding legal gymnastics and its questionable -- if not illegal -- investigative techniques, it typically finds a way to wiggle out of paying the legal bills of anybody it has sued in its misguided legal campaign against record labels' customers. Though there's been a few exceptions, the group's strategy of dropping cases when people notice their flimsy evidence seems to generally shield them from having to pay costs. That's a real problem, since it makes it very easy, and relatively cheap, for the RIAA to abuse the legal system by filing thousands of suits, then suffer no repercussions when it drops them after they're exposed as bogus. Hopefully, though, that's starting to change, as more judges become aware of the RIAA's tactics, or at least pay attention to the facts of its cases. A judge in Oklahoma has now ordered the RIAA to pay $70,000 in legal fees to an Oklahoma woman, after tossing out the group's suit against her earlier this year. In this case, the RIAA didn't make a very good impression on the judge by claiming that they shouldn't have to pay the defendant's legal bills because she could have avoided being sued, had she "appropriately assisted their copyright infringement investigation and litigation" -- which means had she given in to their bullying and accepting one of their generous settlement offers. That's absolutely ridiculous, as the judge noted, since it steamrolls a defendant's right to defend themselves against bogus suits. It's up there with the RIAA's promise in another case not to incorrectly sue a woman a second time, as long as they didn't have to pay her legal bills for the first time they wrongly sued her. The RIAA has gotten away for far too long with bending the legal system to fit its desires; hopefully those days are coming to an end.

Filed Under: entertainment, lawsuits, music
Companies: riaa

Court Denies Stay Of Webcast Royalty Hike

from the how-much-does-silence-cost? dept

An appeals court in Washington has denied the appeal of a group of webcasters, and the new, drastically increased rates will take effect on July 15. The head of SoundExchange, which could stand to rake in billions in "administrative fees", says the decision is "a major victory for recording artists and record labels". It's hard to see how that's the case, since should the new rates stand, the overwhelming effect will be a decrease in the amount of exposure artists get, and the number of times their music is heard -- not the dramatic increase in revenues he seems to be hinting at. Should these rates stand, and the RIAA succeeds in hitting broadcast radio stations with royalties (which we presume the SoundExchange boss would call another "major victory"), major-label music could suffer from a huge loss of exposure, which would translate into a huge drop in sales that would surely outweigh any revenue gains from the new royalties. Sounds like yet another way the record labels have figured out to destroy themselves. Update: As noted in the comments, SoundExchange says it won't enforce the new royalties yet, and will continue to negotiate them with webcasters.

Filed Under: royalties, webcast
Companies: riaa