RIAA: Going Too Far

[Editor's note: Floor9.com is open to new contributors. If you have something to say and can write intelligently, email dave@floor-9.com for details.]

As an avid music fan and member of the digital music revolution (both as an iTunes user & owner of internet base radio station), I firmly believe that the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA) has the right to protect its member’s material. They have been, at times, a bit extreme. Suing end-users of services such as Napster & Kazaa is just a ridiculous waste of time and the money they’re trying to protect. Now, though, they’ve gone too far and have crossed the line into greed.

XM Radio, ready to roll out a new line of “Tivo-like” receivers, is under fire from the RIAA who is threatening a huge lawsuit and plenty of fines to go along with it. Guess who will end up paying for these fines?? You got it, XM subscribers. I would like to point out that XM is already paying royalties to the RIAA, ASCAP, SESAC & BMI for the music they play. As a matter of fact, XM pays more royalties to these organizations than any other entity in the world (according to their website). Terrestrial stations (AM/FM) pay nothing.

Back to the point: RIAA = Greedy. XM’s new receivers would allow listeners to record up to an hour of programming to play back later. Much like your TIVO. The RIAA argues that this is copyright infringement because people can record from their XM receiver to a CD or MP3, thus allowing the user an escape from purchasing music via a “legal” avenue. The RIAA seems to be forgetting that people have been recording music off of their radios for years. Why didn’t they have a problem with this? I could just as easily hook my AM/FM tuner up to my computer and dub right to disc or mp3. Why don’t the MPAA or major television networks have a problem with the TIVO or DVR technology available? Because, it’s a waste of time and money to care. Instead of focusing on the positive impact XM (and Sirius) have the music industry (promoting new artists & songs encourage the purchase of digital downloads and/or CDS), they continue to dwell on fighting wars they will never win.

I have a suggestion: RIAA, find new ways to make getting music easy and affordable. If you didn’t spend so much cash on suing 5 year olds and royalty paying organizations that promote your members, maybe you’d realize the potential profits that you’ve experienced in the past.

Please take a moment visit XM’s website and help fight the RIAA greed!

The big record companies are pressuring Congress to pass legislation that would prevent XM listeners from having access to more music choices and new technologies. To learn more about how you can help stop this legislation, follow the link above.

Click on this URL to take action now
http://capwiz.com/xmradio/utr/2/?a=8852001&i=80540974&c=

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati

2 Comment(s)

  1. The RIAA, FTC, etc., are EVIL! They have taken their “fight against piracy” to an all new extreme, one that I am very afraid will lead us to even darker places (can it get any worse than suing 12 year olds, though?!?). Piracy is wrong, sure, but so is overcharging people! Seeing a record label “only” make 10 billion dollars vs. 15 billion because of piracy does not break my heart in the least…

    Sadly, business still has not learned the simple lesson that if you make things AFFORDABLE and regulate it properly, the black market quickly shrivels up.

    IMO the RIAA is just another big brother entity that is trying to regulate our lives, all in the name of what is “right”. Welcome to 1984…

    Dave | Jun 21, 2006 | Reply

  2. The RIAA is really just doing its job, which is to protect artists at all costs. However, there’s something wrong with the whole sales process when artists get more money from a CD sale than from online downloads. Regardless of the interim processes, the end results are bad; CDs cost $3 - $6 more than a full album download on iTunes, but also incur manufacturing, distribution, and collateral costs. A download, on the other hand, is pretty much entirely profit. The distribution facility (such as iTunes, or Napster, or Rhapsody) picks up the tab for bandwidth and storage, so the bulk of the sale should be going directly to the artist.

    In other words, bad. I sent my letters Monday. Anyone else?

    floor9 | Jun 24, 2006 | Reply

Post a Comment

Bad Behavior has blocked 7220 access attempts in the last 7 days.