Geeky Baldisms

Someone, somewhere, needs to set up some sort of non-profit site (I mean free of charge to all customers, advertising on the site should be allowed to defray costs) that allows me to send Neil Young ten bucks for his music that I've enjoyed over the years which I've theoretically obtained while bypassing his record label.

The artists should certainly receive a cut from the music that they have created. That's only right. To take their music without compensating them financially is simply wrong.

However, that simple truth gets complicated.

What about the record company? Should they get shafted completely by, say, torrent downloaders?

Many believe so. But not me. The record companies have made an investment here, they are entitled to a reasonable return on their money.

However, there is a third entity here that is involved: the RIAA.

Do THEY deserve a cut of potential funds to be donated by fans? No. They have done absolutely nothing to contribute to the fan's enjoyment. Instead, they have invested untold millions of dollars of income received from record companies and, indirectly, artists, for the sole purpose of threatening alleged illegal downloaders with huge fines, unless they accept a plea bargain from this corporation which is decidedly NOT a member of the courts.

The RIAA, if ever useful, is less than useless now. Its executives and lawyers should be held accountable for the misery that they have caused members of the general public who have dared to question their business model. Their lobbyists have managed to buy support from Democrats and Republicans alike, quite a bipartisan accomplishment. That doesn't make what they do right.

Record companies who would like to get on board with any future outside-the-box arrangements for receiving funds from happy music fans should make it very, very clear that any ties with the despicable RIAA have been permanently cut.

They'll still sell CD's. Hopefully, with any RIAA overhead gone, the price can drop to a
reasonable one in view of dropping technological costs and the simple fact that unemployment is at a painfully high level. I would happily buy a new-release CD for five bucks, and a standard-release for, say, three bucks. And I would be willing to go as high as twenty cents per song to download high-quality mp3's. There's room there for the artist and the record company to make money at that price.

Oh, darn, no money left for the RIAA, though.

And should fans obtain music from sources which bypass the record companies, an easy way to toss a few bucks their way would provide money which they are not now seeing anyway. And artists would likely see a bump in income as fans determine what their enjoyment is worth to them.

And fans would be let known that, unless they are profiting from what they download outside the official channels, they will not be pursued. If they ARE profiting, then they will be expected to provide reasonable returns to the RIAA-less record companies and the artists in question.

Maybe, fans like me would feel inclined to send something their way each time their music works its magic. I've listened to Springsteen's Tunnel of Love at least a thousand times, the ten bucks I paid for the CD at a used record store (probably illegally, according to the RIAA) back in 1989 just ain't enough. The point is, it's all voluntary, it would probably ride the general economic wave nicely with its ups and downs, and artists and record companies would benefit. And lawsuits against grandmothers and kids would cease.

The internet has changed a lot of business models. What say we change this one?

Let's put it this way: Either change your business model to a less draconian one, record companies, or face an eventual death. And RIAA? Just die, already.