The RIAA and the Art of Not Getting It (Geeky Baldisms)

In 2007, The Consumerist held a poll and determined that the RIAA was the single most hated company in America.

Gee, sue a few grandmothers and grade-school-age kids, and all of a sudden the world gets all testy about you.

The RIAA survives today largely through litigation. Many musical artists have expressed their disdain of the recording industry in general, and of the RIAA in particular.

The basis for most of the legal shenanigans perpetrated by the massive corporate entitiy which makes lots of money from the talents of others is this: Anything we produce is copyrighted. Any usage of anything we produce which is not expressly approved by us is illegal, and will be prosecuted.

Let's back up a minute. A musician, as well as a company which owns the rights to a musician's work, all make money through sales.

What is a large factor that drives sales? Buzz.

Where does buzz come from? Word of mouth.

What drives word of mouth? People getting their hands on stuff.

However, as far as the RIAA is concerned, any of their products that people have gotten their hands on had better by golly be bought and paid for, or else there will be litigation to answer to.

BAD business.

It cuts down on the buzz. It makes people hate you. It makes some people mad enough to stop giving you money.

I haven't bought a new CD in about five years.

I have bought used CD's, and have also purchased music from sources that provide the RIAA with zero dollars.

And I'm not the only one.

Let's look at another way to view the whole "It's mine, and you can't have it!" philosophy of the RIAA.

Take a look at this site.

They are displaying an article, word-for-word, from my I Remember JFK website.

Is it a copyright violation? Yep. Am I going to do anything about it?

Yes. I'm going to enjoy the benefits of its being there.

Notice the graphics in the article are friendly invitations to visit my site. That's thanks to my .htaccess trick documented here. If you have the Alexa browser plugin, you might also notice that the site has a very nice ranking of just over 4,000.

That means that the article in question has a very good chance of being read by the masses, who, if they enjoy the article here, will likely accept the invitation offered by the graphics to visit my site and read more nostalgic ramblings.

My content is technically getting ripped off, but I'm smart enough to see that in this case, the benefits vastly outweigh the minor violation of my rights.

I wonder if the music industry would be in such bad shape if the sharing of copyrighted material was ignored, or possibly even encouraged?

Instead of paying lawyers millions and millions to sue people, how about setting up a site where you could make a contribution to an artist? I have no desire to purchase a CD, and a buck a tune is too much to pay. However, I would happily send an occasional five bucks to an artist whose work I particularly enjoy, even knowing that the RIAA is taking their own cut.

Let's see, subtract the bad press, the lawyer's fees, and the ill effects of acting like slimy corporate weasels, and hey! Maybe the music industry isn't in such trouble after all!

Just a thought.