RIAA Ends Harassment of Grieving Family

denebian devil writes "According to Cory Doctorow at Boingboing, the RIAA has dropped its case against the family of a dead man. 'Today, an RIAA spokesperson, Jonathan Lamy, contacted me today with this statement: Our hearts go out to the Scantleberry family for their loss. We had decided to temporarily suspend the productive settlement discussions we were having with the family. Mr. Scantleberry had admitted that the infringer was his stepson, and we were in the process settling with him shortly before his passing. Out of an abundance of sensitivity, we have elected to drop this particular case.'"

Just a question, and some thoughts

[daveschroeder]

Forget for a moment the RIAA, US copyright law, corporate media owners, and the like:

In any circumstance or scenario, is it ever acceptable for an owner of a work, or their duly specified agent, to protect that ownership, even when the work may be freely copied in an unlimited fashion, and to use the legal frameworks provided by the society in which it exists, to enforce or demand recompense for such ownership?

I suspect some people would honestly answer "No" to the above question. Fine; that represents a fundamentally different philosophical outlook on reward for one's work, if desired, and so on. I trust, therefore, that your disdain for such a system also means you're not a part of activity that would leave you on the receiving end of a legal suit from the RIAA.

As for this particular case: so the RIAA has long-established themselves as a bunch of shameless pricks. So what? Just because someone dies doesn't automatically invalidate a potentially valid legal claim. Sure tugs at the heartstrings, though, doesn't it?

Further, to those who would argue that all of the RIAA, industry, and/or legal activity on this front represent nothing more than a "failed business model", might I suggest something? If this has so utterly failed, why not develop the new model that replaces it? Hint: this won't be with the same commercial artists, so stop downloading and/or "sharing" their music instead of buying it. Don't consume that product, at all. Be a part of the solution to create and encourage the new artists, the new distribution channels, the new promotional channels, and the new studios and "labels" (yes, anything that gets sufficiently large and successful will have multiple layers of hierarchy, organization, and even bureaucracy), all of which will be required to support this new model to varying degrees.

But if you so heartily disagree with the current model, don't steal[1] (or otherwise consume) their goods, or enable others to do so.

Simple, isn't it?

[1] Oops, I meant "infringe on the copyright of". Still, the point stands. Isn't it fairly straightforward? Either legitimately buy it, or don't, and be ready for the consequences[2]. If you disagree with the "business model" or the legal issues surrounding it, don't be a part of it. And that includes not obtaining the content in question. Then all of a sudden, magically, the legal issues and artificial (or self-inflicted) fears of injury from a draconian legal system go away. Funny how that works!

[2] No one's arguing that the RIAA's model of figuring losses is valid, but it's equally (and massively) disingenuous, not to mention utterly ridiculous, to claim that nothing has been lost at all.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Tweekster]

Everytime their sales go down because of people saying "FUCK THE RIAA, I dont want any part of them" they claim it is piracy and get more laws in their favor.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Bryansix]

The lawsuit was frivolous. The person who died was not even the offender. It was the stepson but the RIAA did not spend the time to figure that out. Instead they just filed suit and held out an outstretched arm asking for money. This is extortion and a misuse of our already packed courts. Your entire argument is a straw man because it assumes that the person on trial is guilty. Even the RIAA admits that this person was not in fact guilty and did not in fact "steal" anything.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[sm62704]

is it ever acceptable for an owner of a work, or their duly specified agent, to protect that ownership

Yes, but only if someone is profiting commercially from it. Nor is it necessary; this isn't trademark, you don't lose copyright like that.

If they're using your work for monetary gain, then I'd say it was moral. But if they're downloading it they like it and are going to buy it. If they have no plan to buy it, you're not losing anything anyway.

Nor do you own the work. You own the copyright. "Intellectual property" doesn't exist in the US Constitutional framework. You own the COPYRIGHT, which is a "limited time" monopoly on the work's sale. You don't own the work. Disney doesn't OWN "Steamboat Willy", they own copyright to it.

Although I've often thought about going after plagairists who have taken stuff I've posted freely on the internet and re-posted on ad-laden sites (making cash off of my work). You think I should? Could I get $6k per violation like the RIAA is? My Quake II cheats page (now on archive.org with my permission, since I let the site die) is possibly the most plagairized thing on the internet. A lot of stuff I posted at K5 is likewise plagairized.

Thoughts, anyone?

I trust, therefore, that your disdain for such a system also means you're not a part of activity that would leave you on the receiving end of a legal suit from the RIAA.

I'm against commercial gain for others' work. And no, the RIAA won't be going after me unless I download some of their crap by accident when looking for indie music. I'm always looking for new artists to support, so long as they're not part of the cartel.

Just because someone dies doesn't automatically invalidate a potentially valid legal claim.

Tell that to Ken Lay's lawyers.

If this has so utterly failed, why not develop the new model that replaces it?

It's already there. Downloads and posted MP3s are being used as advertising to get people to buy CDs and see live performances.

But if you so heartily disagree with the current model, don't steal[1] (or otherwise consume) their goods, or enable others to do so.

I don't. If I wanted a major-label tune (and I can think of only one 21st century band I'd want to, that's Buck Cherry) I'd pick up a used copy. Or are you telling me not to listen to the radio either?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[RsG]

I think his point was that telling people to boycott them doesn't work if they in turn shift any blame for loss of sales to piracy. How do you send them a message that the crap they're pulling won't be tolerated by consumers when they in turn are going to spin that message as justification for the very behaviour you boycotted them for?

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[kosh55]

If you want to send the RIAA a message then don't buy the music. Stealing it accomplishes nothing.
Besides, I don't buy the whole "we're doing it to send a message" bullsh*t anyway. You don't want to pay for
the music and this is an easy excuse.

You know, if everybody was truly as intent at getting a point accross as downloaders say they are then there would be a higher turnout for more important issues such as who is running the country.

Misleading title

[Anonymous Coward]

The key word in the statement: "temporarily".

Read: They're still going to bully the family into paying grossly in excess of any true damages caused, they're just going to wait until they don't get any bad publicity for doing so.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Thangodin]

Unreasonably high prices and artificial scarcities create black markets. Draconian measures to thwart those black markets create criminal organizations who profit on those markets, by a process of natural selection which eliminates all but the most ruthless. International criminal organizations haven't found the business model to turn all this to their advantage yet, but give them time--they're working on it. When they figure it out, the RIAA won't be facing a bereaved family, but a wily group of thugs who do this professionally, with plenty of cash on hand for their own lawyers--if the RIAA can get to them at all. This, of course, assumes that the artists don't find an alternative first and cut the RIAA and the people they represent out of the loop. It's a race between the artists and the gangsters, but either way the RIAA will lose.

I would like to offer an alternative of what they should be doing--put the following notice in each of their CD's and DVD's:

This disk has no copy protection whatsoever. You can transfer, copy, rip, and burn it to your heart's content. You can even hand out these copies to other people, with one proviso: insist that if they like it, they should go out and buy their own copy.

Every dollar you spend is a vote. Paying for this is a way of telling the artists you like it and want more. If you like this music, paying for it means that you will get more; more from this artist, and more from similar artists--and maybe even music from artists you will want to hear who are quite different, but otherwise wouldn't have enough support to get started. You may think that recording artists make a lot of money and don't need your support. In fact, there are a lot of expenses that they incur just to make and promote this album, and it takes a lot of sales just to break even. And hey, if they do get filthy rich, it may take a lot of money to persuade them to get back into the studio. Either way, you get more of what you want.

If you don't pay for this, and a lot of people who like it copy it for free, the artists will have to get a day job. They will stop making albums, and probably won't play anywhere more than a day's journey from home. Sucks to be you. The music that you like won't be made anymore. And every time you turn on the radio, you will hear music made by people whose fans are just too damned stupid to know how to copy it.

So, do what you want. But if everything on the radio and at the music store is infantile crap, don't blame us. We warned you.

That's what they should be doing. Of course, they're not. Wall Street has a saying: "A bear can make money, a bull can make money. A pig always gets slaughtered." The RIAA is a pig. They're going to get slaughtered.

this reminds me of

[56ker]

A while ago my mum got a speeding ticket/fine through the post as her car had been photographed speeding. It wasn't her that actually did the speeding (it was my brother) but she was the one who was assumed to do it because she was the owner of the car. She told them who it was who was speeding and no action was taken against her.

Now, in the RIAA case against this person if they were acting sanely, rationally and not just trying to extort money from people or launch frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to deter people from infringing copyright they would've dropped it long before the person had died.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[daveschroeder]

So what? Well, it inclines me to disrespect their outlandish claims to certain intellectual/cultural "properties", for starters. And note that this malice against the RIAA is quite likely felt by a majority of the demographic concerned, not just a fringe few. Because they are indeed shameless pricks, as you said.

Just because someone is a prick doesn't make them incorrect.

I'll agree that it's not the best way to Win Friends and Influence People, however.

So I'm guessing you agree with those illegal wiretaps and so on. After all, if you aren't doing anything illegal, the "draconian" system (getting more draconian as time goes on, it seems) will just "go away" and never effect you! And I guess you believe DRM will never come and bite the legit consumer in the ass, right?

This is actually a very interesting argument.

However, I'm not making the "if you haven't done anything illegal, then you have nothing to fear" argument. Rather, I'm saying "if you run afoul of the law, don't be surprised if that comes back to bite you".

I'm sure we can both agree that there should be some level of laws and order in a civilized society. This isn't about Big Brother, fascism, or a totalitarian regime. It's about content owners of property that is intangible in a certain sense being able to ensure that it's paid for. I'm not making any value judgments on how much money should be involved, and so on. The problem is that members of a society based marginally on rule of law and on the intrinsic value of the work and property of others making their own decisions about what they will and won't pay for, and deciding to take what they don't feel is worth the price, and this on what are essentially luxury items at that (no, I don't believe commercial music and movies are a necessity to human survival, and I realize all of the artistic and cultural arguments that may be intertwined there).

To say that I'm making an "if you're not doing anything illegal..." argument unfairly distills this argument down to a situation where we should apparently have no laws. I can understand thinking a "law" is unfair, and I can even understand people who think (erroneously, in my opinion) that taking copyrighting materials without paying for them is an act of civil disobedience. What I don't understand is why people feel they have this sense of entitlement to copyrighted commercial content, just because it can be easily copied. Like it or not, there is a LOT of money that goes into making a lot of this content. And if it's crap (like Britney Spears or the next worthless "blockbuster"), then don't be a part of it. My only point is how often people seem to talk out of both sides of their mouth, decrying the latest pop princess while simultaneously downloading (and not buying) some other artist on a subsidiary of that same label. If you don't support that business model, or think it's "dying", I simply can't understand why people would want to consume its content. Even if they like the content, why don't they come to the realization that it was that very system that produced the content they enjoy, and they'd better work to improve themselves in whatever stage of life they're at so they can afford to purchase and support the nice things they want.

As to DRM, I think it's in some forms a necessary evil. I DO NOT like DRM. It is a tool for control, and too often, some want to use it to roll back consumer rights that have been long since won (such as the Broadcast Flag, in the context of time shifting television). As long as it is unobtrusive as physically possible and doesn't roll back rights that we already have, I don't think it's a problem, because it does prevent casual, en masse, copyright infringement. Yes, yes, anyone and their brother can download any number of programs that strip all sorts of DRM, but the simple truth is that this escapes the capabilities of most people, and such tools will ALWAYS be relegated to the fringe because their use will be illegal in some jurisdictions. That pr

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[sm62704]

There's a band my daughter used to listen to called "Playground Heroes". Their CDs said "please be kind, burn a copy for a friend."

It's good business. If I get a burned copy of your first CD and like it, I'm very, very likely to buy a copy of your second album.

If I never hear it at all there's no way in hell I'll be buying it.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[geekoid]

"1) The price of music does in no way give you a right or justification to pirate it."

Yes, in fact it does give me justification.
What it doen't give me is an excuse from being prosecuted in a court of law.
Just like any form of civil disobediance. Like not getting up from a bus seat even though the law says you should*.

My point was, the industry would have less pirates if they priced at the market demand point, and that the market is changing.

"2) A "sane copyright law" is subjective, and is currently not "actual copyright law". It doesn't matter."

I was just wondering how much of the reported 'pirated' is older then a certian period.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the amounts by release date of the products.

None of this matters, because the market force regarding copyright is building. People in grade school today will expect music to be distributed digitally and cheaply.
The music corporation is nothing more then a middleman who isn't needed anymore.

*I am only using it to illestrate the point, I am not putting them on the same pedistal.

Re:If this is an abundance of sensitivity...

[kfg]

I imagine a lack of sensitivity from the RIAA resembling a prison in Uzbekistan.

I see you're a "glass half full" sort of guy.

I'm afraid you'll never truely understand the depths to which a "Hey, who drank my damned water" guy will descend.

KFG

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Null Nihils]

However, I'm not making the "if you haven't done anything illegal, then you have nothing to fear" argument. Rather, I'm saying "if you run afoul of the law, don't be surprised if that comes back to bite you".

I wouldn't be surprised per se, if a frivolous lawsuit ended up on my doorstep. I don't think anyone with a healthy amount of cynicism would be. You would go, "gee, the decision to download that music / buy those Cuban cigars* / go 20km over the speed limit on that seemingly deserted road, has had some disproportionately unpleasant but not entirely unexpected consequences!"

Likewise, the RIAA cannot do what they do and expect everyone to keep playing by the rules. They should not be surprised either! (But they sure sound surprised. And a little confused...)

Anyhow, I admire the non-participatory response (in fact, I myself don't recall downloading any RIAA music in a good many years, although if I really liked some of their shit I might not hesitate to "steal" it) but I think the desire to disobey is, in this case, an understandable human response, and possibly even an honorable one -- it's certainly more honorable than giving the RIAA more money.

To demand that people refrain from enjoying the music that the RIAA lords over seems a little unreasonable. It reminds me of an example [onegoodmove.org]: In the video, an atheist mentions to a Christian that he does not appreciate "In God We Trust" being written on the currency. The Christian's response is (to paraphrase): "If it bother's you, don't live in the USA".

In other words, disobedience is a legitimate form of protest (and please note that I believe violence is not.)

* Actually, I don't think Cubans are illegal in my country, but its just an example and I don't smoke anyways.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[soft_guy]

As a society, do we really want to pass a bunch of unenforceable laws?

Do we really want to cripple the consumer electronics industry that is huge and employs lots of people to specifically benefit the entertainment industry that is tiny and employs only a very small number of people at (mostly) very low wage jobs?

The entertainment industry is telling us that we have to choose between the two. If this is really true, I would choose to protect fair use rights and the consumer electronics/computer/software industries. If no more hollywood movies or bubblegum rock records get made, then I guess that really isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. The sun will rise whether we're being force fed hollywood crap or not.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you send them a message that the crap they're pulling won't be tolerated by consumers

angry mob accosting them on the way to work and in front of their offices would be a good start.

Unfortunately the american public does not have the balls to do it. Americans are such PUSSIES, makes the french look downright brave.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Qzukk]

it still shouldn't be a problem, then, right?

Wow, it's the "if you have nothing to hide" argument all over again!

I can think of several ways it can become a problem, starting with RIAA whining (read: paying for congresscritters' re-election) to Congress.

Then, Congress can pass laws requiring applications to not play back files that lack DRM at all. But that won't be a problem, right? You didn't really need those God Ate my Homework or Minibosses mp3s you downloaded from their websites, or the Creedence Clearwater Revival mp3 collection you bought legally from emusic.com, or the Jim's Big Ego music you bought from slabster.

Or maybe, Congress can pass a law requiring that all audio files capable of transmission over the internet require that they be cleared and signed by an appropriate institution in order to prove that they aren't actually recordings of the Beatles or Metallica. Of course, someone will have to be in charge of this, and naturally the RIAA already has plenty of experience in handling money for artists, their Soundexchange company is perfect for the job. About $5 per minute for a lackey to listen to your podcast to make sure you aren't infringing any copyrights sound about right?

Should I keep going? Or is it clear now that if the RIAA runs to Congress (or hell, runs for Congress, after all, Sonny Bono did a good enough job) that even if you're not warezing or buying RIAA products, it can be a problem.

Gentlemen, start your copiers...

[Just Some Guy]

I no longer believe that the RIAA and its constituent scum have any standing for consideration of rights. None. Zero. Want to download a song? Go for it. Upload an album? No sweat. Steal a shipment of CDs and sell them on eBay? Knock yourself out.

These subhuman filth have no right to own anything, least of all a fictitious monopoly on a set of manufactured waveforms. Since they're willing to destroy lives to protect their greed, I think they forfeit the moral expectation to profit from their wares.

Seriously, enough is enough. An "abundance of sensitivity"? Bah! That one sentence lost me forever. I mean this truly: I will never again buy anything when I think that a member of the RIAA may benefit in any way. Screw you guys, I'm going home.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

What is preventing the majority from acting?

Probably the same Christian moralistic "shame" that keeps our country from saving its women from a horribly painful death from cervical cancer, because HPV vaccines might cause sex.

Until the majority quits being afraid of what the guy with a funny hat thinks of them, they cannot act.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[LordLucless]

It is called social disabdience.

No it's not. It's not even called civil disobedience. An example of civil disobedience would be setting up a CD-burning booth outside the RIAA corporate offices. The whole point of civil disobedience is to get yourself persecuted for disobeying a law you consider unjust. If a lot of other people consider that law unjust, and the authorities are seen to be being heavy-handed, then you'll probably get a whole lot of support, and build up public resentment against the law in question.

Sitting at home downloading MP3s from your home computer doesn't cut it though; that's an act purely in your own personal interest, not a noble political statement.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[TheMeuge]

Something tells me that what you're suggesting is the quickest way to get sued.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[Anonymous Coward]

"In any circumstance or scenario, is it ever acceptable for an owner of a work,"

That's as far as I got. I assume the rest of your comment hinges on the same supposition.

Allow me to provide an alternative viewpoint. Work is something you DO not something that can be owned.
Once you have performed work you have transformed the universe in some way. If that work is entirely intangible
you now have a choice. Either choose to share that work freely with the world or shut up. It's that simple.

Sharing the work is the act of living. If you hide your creation you are not participating in reality.
People who cling to the antiquated 20th century notion of "intellectual property" are fearful, they fear death,
they fear obscurity, they are afraid deep down that they are stupid and will never have another good idea
in their lives. A confident creator shares without a second thought because he knows these things.

1) His creations are not truly his own.
2) Life is short and the opportunity to give is a fleeting gift.
3) With some luck he will always be growing wiser and able to acheive better things tomorrow than today.
4) Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
5) That to work on something for the love of it is the greatest life a person can aspire to live.
6) The supposition that all work must be "paid" for is false.

People who believe in and advocate intellectual property are not creators. Anybody who is truly creative and original understands
exactly what I am saying.

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[cpt kangarooski]

I'm not saying my life wouldn't be enriched by it ... Someone's decision to make their music only available to those who are willing to pay for it doesn't hurt me in the slightest.

These statements don't really jibe.

I think that we can all agree that our lives would be greatly enriched if all creative works were in the public domain: those works would be available for us to simply use and enjoy as they are; for us to make and distribute copies of; to publicly perform or display, and; to serve as the bases for derivative works. Without that being the case, we are harmed. The only way that that harm can be tolerable is if it is incurred in the service of a benefit even greater to ourselves than we'd have otherwise. And that's the point of copyright: by accepting a limited, temporary harm now (i.e. copyright), we can encourage the creation of more original works, and then drop those original works into the public domain rapidly, maximizing our net benefit. Grant too much copyright, and we don't maximize our net benefit. Grant more than that and we're worse off with copyright than we were without. It's a lot like other government-granted monopolies, e.g. on utilities such as electricity, water, or cable tv.

The thing is, benefits to the recipients of the monopolies, for their own sake, are wholly inappropriate. No one says that Comcast ought to have a monopoly on cable tv in a town because they're really nice people. No, the reason is that if they are allowed to charge rates higher than where the market would have them, they'll be willing to accept the burden of upkeep and improvements on the local cable tv infrastructure. Copyright is quite similar. Authors don't deserve copyright. They get copyright essentially in order to bribe them to create works which we will then place into the public domain. And we must limit copyright sharply so that we wring the most works out of the authors at the least cost to ourselves.

To decide to take advantage of someone else's work without paying on their terms strikes me as very unfair, especially if there's nothing they've done that makes me need that work.

And I disagree. First, it's the fruit of their labors that is at issue. No one is proposing that authors be forced to labor at creative pursuits. Authors will always have the choice of whether or not to create, based upon whether they feel that it's in their own interest to do so, where the factors they consider are money, the love of art, reputation, etc. Copyright is a way to add more potential money, and thus encourage artists further.

But secondly, and more importantly, whether authors should have rights to control what other people can do with creative works is a choice left to the other people who will bear the brunt of that choice; not to the author, who will nearly always seek more control over others.

Plus, it's perfectly ordinary to take advantage of what other people do without paying them on their own terms. Plenty of authors with public domain works would love for you to pay them. But you don't have to. If your neighbor renovates their house, and plants a beautiful garden, and gives a big cash gift to the neighborhood school for improvements, that'll all raise the value of your house tremendously. And you needn't pay them a penny for it. And it's fair.

The RIAA's problem

[Simonetta]

The RIAA's problem is that they really think that they own the world's culture.
    If you put a recording into the public sphere, play it millions of times for hundreds of millions of people and do that for years, then the recording becomes a public domain part of culture simply by the process of being absorbed by the public.
    The recording did not magically appear. It came from musicians who studied the recordings of other musicians, who played the works of the musicians before them, back into time. This is public culture: you can't claim to own public culture. It doesn't matter what laws you bribe the politicians to pass.

    The RIAA is like some guy who thinks he owns the ocean just because he makes surfboards.

The RIAA.

[Runefox]

The RIAA are the only people I know of in the entire world who are legally entitled to slander and sue you for not doing business with them. Imagine if you will, the RIAA taken to another market.

The WWAA (Wood Workers Association of America) has recently monitored your activities in creating a shelf that is exactly the same as the shelf a friend of yours has purchased. The WMAA has deemed it necessary to take legal action because the shelf you made was an exact reproduction of the shelf your friend bought, and because you didn't buy it, but rather built it yourself, you're stealing from them. You've duplicated their work using your own time and effort, and because of it, you're liable to pay them many times what the shelf retails for.

Different world? Yes. Parallels? All there. Could it happen? Unless the RIAA is knocked onto its ass and exposed for the loudmouthed monopoly it is, then I say yes. Yes it could.

Civil Disobedience is a Symptom of the Cause

[Zancarius]

I commend you for your attempt to uphold a decent debate in the realm of Slashdot, wherein trolls and other bottom-feeders seek refuge. I also think you're partially correctly, though I believe you have overlooked a significant contributing factor to the cause (both in regards to the public view of the RIAA and why the average Slashdotter upholds copyright infrigement as insignificant).

The problem, as with most, can be boiled down to a matter of economics. Most of those who commit such infrigement, such as teenagers, likely cannot afford to buy every album they might listen to--and often don't. Sometimes acts of disregard for the law are considered harmless by teenagers; it's unfortunate, but it's the truth. Think about the bratty kid next door who fitfully tromps on your wife's rosebed, has a hearty laugh at her dismay, and continued about his business on his way to school. He certainly broke the law, did he not? By damaging property that was not his own, he has demonstrated his capacity as a criminal. But, for the sake of argument, which is the more appropriate means of punishment: a $50,000 fine (which will punish his parents, not him) or a Good 'Ol Talkin' to? Okay, so the latter might not work in this day and age (child protective services doesn't seem too fond of Daddy pulling out his leather belt and giving the child a good lick or two), but I think it demonstrates rather well the direction we've taken from sensible laws to the absurd. I never thought I'd see the day when punishment dealt to violent criminals seems pale in comparison to that given to those who might otherwise obey the law (and only possibly break laws that put no one in immediate danger). Alas, I digress.

The last time I went to the local record store, I noticed much to my dismay that the popular music albums--presumbaly that which is marketed by our loving, caring, sympathetic friends affectionately known as the RIAA--was about $18. For most releases, that's almost $1.50 a track, USD. I would also imagine that threshold is outside of most teens' budget range, particularly when taking into consideration other forms of media in which they participate, be it after-school activities, movies, video games, or the like (whatever happened to curling up with a good book?). Therein lies the problem: economics. The affordability of the media has drastically gone out of sight for most young people and those who might be too poor to afford it. I never did like mainstream music, thankfully, and I purchase all of my music through Amazon for a meager $10-14 USD for quality music. It's great for imported CDs, too.

I think selling music via digital formats is a great idea, but I also think that the RIAA caught on to the notion a bit too late. More importantly, they're still raising a fuss about it being too cheap! I would wager that, by decreasing the cost of a work to something within a much more sane cost bracket, they would notice an increase in sales. It appears to me that several industries caught on to this idea a long time ago; perhaps some executives need to revisit their old economics courses?

On the other hand, perhaps this is another symptom of the cause. The massive beast that has become the Recording Industry must be fed, and it must be fed in massive quantities. They certainly have an immense marketing engine behind them capable of churning out those who become teenage icons--no matter how poorly we might view them--virtually day after day. But it has become a problem of sustainability; in order to afford finding the "next Britney Spears," they must spend money on their marketing machine. By spending money on their marketing machine, they must continually increase the price at which they sell their albums. By increasing the price of the album, they are effectively dismissing their largest consumer: The parents of the teenagers who want to consume the music. This is where illegal downloads comes in: before it became taboo, it seemed to be a legitimate way to obtain music for those yo

Re:Just a question, and some thoughts

[OldManAndTheC++]

Actually it's probably better to e-mail one of the RIAA member companies [riaa.com]. The RIAA itself is likely to just toss out your e-mail, while a company that makes its money from selling music, as opposed to filing lawsuits, might actually read it.