RIAA Continues Distributing Dud CDs to Satisfy Settlement 399
cosyne writes "Part of the music industry's recent price fixing settlement involves giving free CDs to public libraries. Although they are technically complying with the the letter of the law, they're abusing the spirit by giving the libraries large piles of crud. According to the Stevens Point Journal, '[the] Milwaukee Public Library received 1,235 copies of Whitney Houston's 1991 recording of "The Star-Spangled Banner," 188 copies of Michael Bolton's "Timeless," 375 of "Entertainment Weekly: The Greatest Hits 1971," and 104 copies of Will Smith's "Willennium."' The recording industry obviously wouldn't want to have libraries loaning out music that people might otherwise buy." See also a related story about shipments to another state.
Artists (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason I'm asking is that the record industry usually charges everything that it can back to the artists: production costs, advertising costs, warehousing costs, everything. Any incoming funds are applied against the record company bottom line first, and the remainder goes against the "debt" accrued by the artist.
So, are the artists getting any money from the disbursement of their product?
BlackListing? (Score:2, Interesting)
Want to go to McDonalds and have a big mac? Sorry, we won't serve you because you're an asshole.
Do it to them everywhere everytime until the change their ways.
It's nice to dream once in awhile..
Libraries selling CD's (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's the best idea and it only took 15 seconds (Score:3, Interesting)
Every time an album hits #1, the industry must give out 10,000 copies. When they've given out their quota this practice stops.
How hard was that?
Safeguards against dumping ignored? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ode to Filesharing (Score:2, Interesting)
They say: Make it legal files, all you smart and shifty peeps
for an RIAA lawsuit will leave you on the streets.
Sure they're suing young and old people for sharing the tunes
but they're alienating their market - the stupid buffoons
Tomorrow are you sure you would buy from them?
The pricks just scored ten grand from mom of ten!
In the 90's when CD price-fixing was raging full on
I paid over $30 per disc, RIAA you stupid greedy moron
And now that I have the simple, easy, anonymous way to score
free music from you - go blow me, you selfish whore
Music industry, I find your ethics a royal joke
You'd rather pay millions to a pop singer stoned on coke
Keep going down the evil road you travel
I enjoy watching your business model unravel
Your death grip of online tune sources will get weak
Then iTunes, Napster, and the bands will then speak
They'll market directly to the fans that gladly pay
while keeping your greedy lawyers at bay
you'll see, mark my words I am here to say,
I will enjoy that one, beautiful, precious day
OJ didn't do it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You voted for the RIAA (Score:1, Interesting)
Some bands under RIAA labels are still decent musicians, capable of decent and creative music. I wish there was a decent way to support them, and not their corporate overlords. I'm not going to boycott good music just because the RIAA sucks, this is shooting off my nose to spite my face.
Also most indie bands suck. I know this is a sin to say in some circles, where obscurity equals good. The sad fact is that most obscure bands suck. My local scene is choked with bad punk bands (whos only talent is producing mildly amusing covers, too bad that isn't my thing), amatuer death metal, and the garage band ressurection. Nothing I really want to hear. Though there are a couple small-venue bands that I have purchased CDs from, but most of those CDs are of poor quality.
I was thinking that if I stopped supporting RIAA attatched bands that I respect, that they might get a clue, and start some independant release scheme, but them realized that that is dumb. The majority of people will continue buying from RIAA folk, because that is what is available, and being with a big company affords visibility. Fleh.
Re:Idiots (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:On the Road to Utopia (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Another Day... (Score:1, Interesting)
They realise two things:
a)their target demographic (children aged 11-21) are either not going to hear about it, or not care, or can be easily fooled into supporting "alternative" artists (courtney love, limp bizkit) who talk shit about the RIAA, but still whore out for them
b)their target audience reallly has no where else to turn to (very few people have the stomach to listen to third-rate techno, folk, punk or metal. And they're certainly not going to pay for it).
In short, the RIAA KNOWS it has nothing to worry about.
Is anyone really surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
Makes you wonder if they're the exception or us.
Re:1,235 Copies (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:On the Road to Utopia (Score:3, Interesting)
I would have liked them to be forced only things that have gone gold.
Or books on CD.
Did anyone get their $13.86? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Did anyone get their $13.86? (Score:1, Interesting)
If you were not careful you might have tossed it out with junk mail.
*vouchers* (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Sorry. I hate the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
For the record, I haven't downloaded music in over a year now. I subscribed to a music service called Rhapsody, and haven't looked back in P2P's direction.
I still have some bitterness here because I was called a thief by the *AA before I downloaded music simply because I had a CD burner. I was called a thief AFTER I did download music even though the main use of it was to find new CDs I wanted. (in my 56k days, downloading albums was damn near impossible.) Despite this, I went ahead and subscribed to the music service. I'm 100% legit now. I did NOT want any of my money going to the RIAA.
Here's the problem, though: There will always be music trading of some sort going on. There is no practical way I can stop other people. The best I've got is to let them see what I'm doing for music these days. There are always going to be people using MP3s legitimately, though the RIAA doesn't see MP3 players as being anything but tools for stolen property. Basically, I am of the belief that no matter how many people stop, the people that don't stop will keep the RIAA in its crummy position.
It's not that I'm trying to shoot your point down, it's just that I don't see it as being all that practical. The music services these days are suitable enough for me that I don't care if P2P music trading lives or dies. However, the RIAA needs a stronger message. It really shocks me that the brilliant success of iTunes hasn't changed the RIAA's tune at all. (Err, that I've found.) That kind of shoots down my idea of spending $100 there. *Sigh*
I think you're right, but I don't think it can happen on a big enough scale. I'm aching for something that sends a bigger message.
RIAA vs Public libraries? Only a matter of time.. (Score:4, Interesting)
This situation seems just guaranteed to make the RIAA foam at the mouth. And these are the guys that wanted Congress to put DRM in every $1.50 Digital-to-Analog convertor chip, so you know their enthusiasm is not tempered by logic.
So an attempt by the RIAA to force the public libraries to remove all the CDs and DVDs from their shelves seems inevitable. They probably think that they can file one brief with one judge someplace and the next day all the CDs and DVDs would be removed from the all of the stacks. They probably think that putting pressure on the libraries is going to be even easier than setting 100 Harvard Law Graduates on a high school girl downloading Britany outtakes. They probably think that they're going to wake up the day after filing their little brief and find hundreds of millions of dollars in checks piled up at their doorstep sent to them from librarians in unpaid royalities from all the people who checked out CDs, took them home and listened to them,... Without Paying the RIAA anything!
Personally, myself, I wouldn't mess with the librarians. They handled many yahoos before. Bozos like the RIAA are nothing new to them.
Every generation, someone NEW to the publishing industry makes the observation that people who read books from the library aren't actually buying the books that they read... and this ain't right. The other publishers point out that they might sell 500 copies of some fool's first novel if he stands on his head long enough on TV, but the public libraries buy 50,000 copies on the basis of a thumb's up review in NY Review of Books, at full list price.
The RIAA isn't all that bright, so, maybe, messing with the Public Library institutions of America may be the force that knocks them back to their caves.
Re:They had an opportunity to look good (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't this a bit close to the alimony giver controlling how much the victim gets?
the remedy is simple... (Score:5, Interesting)
Fact is, the RIAA is arguably the most consumer-hostile trade group today. This cynical move on their part cetainly proves it beyond all doubt.
So how to fix them?
The court should re-value the RIAA's "donation" at fair market value. Now here's the beauty: in this case, these CD titles are scrap, so they have negative value. They cost more to dispose of than they're worth.
So the RIAA owes libraries for tossing their (RIAA's) trash. I say fine RIAA that amount, and little extra to punish them for being asshats.
Now since RIAA cannot be trusted to secure and distribute titles of value for the libraries, simply take that job away from them. Impose a cash settlement from RIAA and let the libraries use those funds to acquire the titles themselves, from whomever they choose (including non-RIAA artists, out-of-prints, and so forth.)
I doubt the RIAA will learn any lesson given their track record of dogged hostility, but at least they could be forced in actually bringing about improvements in library media stocks.
Re:They had an opportunity to look good (Score:4, Interesting)
LINKCat, the library catalog system that SCLS uses, keeps track of all those dusty titles virtually for free, and gets them in the hands of the public with a minimum of effort on the part of all involved. Notwithstanding this technology, the library employees I have dealt with at member libraries have been helpful, courteous, and efficient. I have requested titles held in the basement archives a mere 10 minutes before library closing. About 8 minutes later someone returned from the basement with my book, apologizing for her tardiness, explaining that the lights had been turned off already, and she had to hunt through the stacks with a flashlight to get me what I wanted.
Though this level of service seems not to be universally available, public libraries certainly *can* maintain large inventories and be an incredible community resource without exceeding budgetary constraints - I've seen it happen.
I have the same problem (Score:3, Interesting)
I use my middle name to distinguish myself from that OTHER Michael Crawford. I shouldn't have to - he changed his name for the stage.
Re:They had an opportunity to look good (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering that the said value also presumably includes a portion for RIAA dues paid by the publisher is also a consideration.
How would the court view a lawyer normally charging 150$/hour, value his hours at 300$ and "give" them in place of alimony(say giving them for charity). Such payment in kind would not be accepted, why do they allow the RIAA to do so? The idea here is not that the RIAA can choose which form of payment it wants to use, but that the RIAA also influences the value of the good, before it makes the gift...