RIAA Has A Blog? And They Use It To Read My Mind!

from the fascinating! dept

Well, well, well. Just a few months ago we noted that EMI had just created what was being called the first major record label blog, which seemed a bit late to the game. However, someone just informed me that the RIAA actually has its own "Music Notes" blog, which I hadn't known existed before. But in checking it out, I discovered that it had an entire post claiming to read my mind. Wow! I'm honored, guys, really. But, like your business strategy, your mind reader is a bit off.

First off, they call me a "reliable RIAA critic," which is not really accurate at all. I only criticize dumb strategies, such as the ones that have driven your most faithful customers to talk of boycotts and swear never to buy products you're associated with. That's not criticism of the organization. That's trying to help you stop screwing up so badly. I'm criticizing consistently bad decision making, not the organization itself, which was, at one time, well poised to embrace a wonderful opportunity online, but screwed it all up in the most spectacular fashion imaginable.

But, from there they get deep into my mind, and claim that I "like to throw in "RIAA" or "Recording Industry" in headlines to generate clicks." Don't flatter yourself, folks. It's got nothing to do with clicks. If I wanted clicks, I'd write about the latest iPhone or celebrities. Stuff about you guys doesn't generate nearly as many clicks as you might think. Most people wrote off the RIAA long ago. Besides, our business model has nothing to do with "clicks." But, I guess, considering your inability to figure out your own business model problems, it's no surprise that you wouldn't understand our business model. But, for your information, I write about the RIAA because I find it fascinating that one organization could make so many ridiculously bad mistakes over and over again, taking itself from a massive position of opportunity, to one where it's become hated by nearly everyone from artists to customers alike. It's a stunning real-time case study in destroying your own industry.

I also write so much about the industry because what's happening in the recording industry is what's about to happen in a bunch of other industries -- from newspapers to healthcare to energy to financial services to consumer packaged goods. And I'm hoping that with enough evidence we can warn off organizations in those industries from making the same mistakes you've made and continue to make. You're a warning sign and a live case study that hopefully others will see in time.

Oh, as for the specific charges in the blog post? Amusingly, they pin language that's not mine on me -- my post was talking about Jesse Walker's Reason article and quoted extensively from that -- and then don't actually respond to it. Instead they respond to totally different charges with selective "cherry-picking" of facts and a nice out of context quote (exactly what they accuse me of doing). Even better, they argue against a total strawman, claiming that the reason I'm against the Performance Rights Act is because I think the money will just go to the labels rather than artists. That's not the case (even if a significant portion does go to the labels no matter what). My complaint is that they're double and triple charging via a tax on those who promote their music, rather than having to actually do any work to give anyone a reason to buy. Update: Even better, as was pointed out in the comments, one of the "poster boys" used by the RIAA in that blog post about someone who "didn't get paid" from his music being on radio is Jack Ely from the Kingsmen, who wrote the song "Louie Louie." Only problem? Jack Ely has said that music should be given away for free and money should be made on performing live. Ooooooops.

So, I'm honored -- really -- that the RIAA thinks I'm a critic and worthy of a personal attack on its blog. But rather than assuming I'm here to attack you, maybe (just maybe) stop and look at what I've actually said. I suggested suing Napster was dumb and shutting it down would be a massive mistake leading to widespread file sharing programs that were harder to stop and track. Check. I've suggested that suing file sharers wouldn't slow down the pace of file sharing and would create massive backlash against the RIAA. Check. I've suggested that smart artists can embrace file sharing and new technologies to their own advantage to make more money. Check. Perhaps you should have turned your mind reading powers to that part of my brain. Or, you know, you could have just given us a call. I would have been more than happy to stop by and explain this all to you in 1998. Could have saved you a lot of trouble, heartache and lawyer fees.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 9:49am

    "Or, you know, you could have just given us a call. I would have been more than happy to stop by and explain this all to you in 1998. Could have saved you a lot of trouble, heartache and lawyer fees."

    ...and today they would all be flipping burgers at MickeyDs. A sound strategy!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 9:51am

    I only came here because I saw iPhone Celebrity in the RSS feed. Now I'm disappointed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    C.T., Jun 24th, 2009 @ 9:56am

    "But, from there they get deep into my mind, and claim that I "like to throw in "RIAA" or "Recording Industry" in headlines to generate clicks." Don't flatter yourself, folks. It's got nothing to do with clicks."

    You have been known to lash out at the RIAA despite the fact that they have nothing to do with the content of the story. See, for example, http://techdirt.com/articles/20090527/0253005023.shtml

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Doug B (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 9:56am

    The same Jack Ely?

    Interesting that the blog's poster boy Jack Ely is also responsible for this post - http://www.counterpunch.org/ely12102008.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    R. Miles (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 10:04am

    Interesting.

    I feel honored as well, given I'm the only commenter here who expressly picks out Britney Spears in my "anti" slogan, and to see the blog highlight her name makes me tingly inside.

    So, RIAA, now that you do read the comments, when the hell are you going to stop doing stupid things?

    Here's a start: Tell Thomas-Rassett the judgment is waved, and that you are sorry for putting her through so much. While you're at it, give her a couple of dollars and a catalog of songs so she won't have to download anymore.

    After all, I helped pay for them YEARS ago with the over-inflated costs of CDs I was forced to buy for ONE damn song.

    Seriously, take a look at the web and how your image is now portrayed. NEITHER music fans nor ARTISTS like you very much.

    Take the hint, idiots.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Another AC, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 10:12am

    from the business model as a "right" department...

    Once again, out comes the stupid argument that since they (radio) make money they should give us (music people) some even though they are doing us a favor by promoting our music. as quoted:

    "We don’t discount the promotional value of radio. But can we reasonably conclude that the precise value of radio airplay is exactly equal to the $16 billion in advertising that radio stations earned from playing music last year? That makes no sense. All we are asking for is a basic right, a right that exists in virtually every industrialized country in the world and a right the music community has sought for some 80-plus years.

    Jonathan Lamy"

    Oh and gratz on making their blog Mike, pretty cool!

    Oh and the radio stations can take a flying leap too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 10:21am

    RIAA sucks. How come you can't comment on your stupid blog? You afraid your going to be spending lots of time deleting comments?

    The Music industry has spent YEARS ripping me off. I dont feel sorry for the industry at all. I will be at the funeral though. I will play Music that I havent licensed while we all dance around in enjoyment!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    C.T., Jun 24th, 2009 @ 10:22am

    Re: from the business model as a "right" department...

    "Once again, out comes the stupid argument that since they (radio) make money they should give us (music people) some even though they are doing us a favor by promoting our music."

    Frankly, I am torn on the PRA. I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides of the debate. With that said, I don't think your portrayal of the RIAA's argument is fair, nor is your criticism of it entirely sound. For starters, songwriters are also "benefited" insofar as the radio promotes the sales of music which they collect a royalty on. As such, the logical consequence of your argument is that there should be no public performance right for either performers or authors of music. There are some who advocate for the abolition, entirely, of the public performance right...but it becomes a much more contentious argument than simply saying that performers shouldn't get a cut of the public performance fee because they are already compensated by the promotion of their back-end sales.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    WarOtter (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 10:28am

    Well...

    They couldn't have saved on lawyer fees... since they're all lawyers, who get to charge for their own time.

    In the Zombie Apocalypse, the lawyers will be the first to die.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 10:30am

    Re: Re: from the business model as a "right" department...

    Radio payment is an important part of the process - radio and the music makers (artist, labels, management, etc) are partners in a process. Radio benefits greatly from the music that people want to hear, and the music side of the deal profits from the promotion and sales. But without payment to use the music, it isn't a complete deal.

    Let's say HBO wants to play a movie. They don't get it for free, they pay for the right to use it - because it is the raw material by which they make money. Radio stations are in the same boat - music is their raw material, it is what they make money from. Without the music, they don't have an audience and therefore no income. It's a pretty simple thing to see.

    Mike is a reliable critic alright. That much I agree with them on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 10:36am

    A couple of questions/thoughts:

    "I discovered that it had an entire post claiming to read my mind."

    Outstanding! How much did they happen to pay you for what is clearly the very definition of intellectual property?

    "But, from there they get deep into my mind, and claim that I "like to throw in "RIAA" or "Recording Industry" in headlines to generate clicks.""

    This would have actually been humorous is they had backed it up with some of their brand-name falsified data built on mis-assumptions and incorrect extrapolation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    stat_insig (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 10:37am

    Mindblogging!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Osno (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 10:39am

    1. The RIAA doesn't have a blog. Blogs have comments. The RIAA's is a news site.
    2. Echoing what another comment said about the "if they make money I deserve some" logic.
    3. They say about not charging radio stations: "If this is the price of gaining a minimum level of protection for the future, we are willing to pay it…". So what was that? Buying some time to come back every few years? The RIAA has been accused of that (trying the same tactics over and over and over and over again). I think they're simply confirming by not showing any shame on saying "I'm willing to give up this if you give me that" and then a few years later saying "I want this too!! I deserve it".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 10:41am

    I skip the RIAA blog posts when I can because it always reads the same. I only clicked on this one because I thought there was something new like an RIAA mind reading device.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    jsl4980 (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 10:45am

    Rather see a debate

    You normally take the high road, but this doesn't seem to be the high road. It would be great to see posts trying to engage the RIAA instead of responding with criticisms that they'll ignore. I'm sure you make efforts to contact and engage them, but I'd rather see posts calling on them to have a conversation or debate or Q&A instead of ones like this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anotehr AC, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 10:46am

    Re: Re: from the business model as a "right" department...

    My point is that everyone involved in the music industry should feel lucky that their product gets the free advertising from the radio especially the artists.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    R. Miles (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 10:49am

    Re: Re: from the business model as a "right" department...

    For starters, songwriters are also "benefited" insofar as the radio promotes the sales of music which they collect a royalty on.
    Note the bold, which is the problem with this industry.

    I write code for a living, but yet, I receive no royalties for the "playing" of my application. Imagine, for just a second, what would happen to the world's economy if all jobs were based on a royalty system.

    These royalties, along with licenses, is why the RIAA is so upset at "piracy", as they can no longer retain the massive profits generated on "behalf" the artists. Since they're required to pay royalties, their profit margin dwindles.

    I feel no pity for an industry which reaped massive amounts of revenue from consumers while doing nothing to change the industry.

    Remember, it's RIAA who demanded the price tier from iTunes, increasing the fees for all involved while notably refusing to give any offerings of $0.69 songs. It's now cheaper to buy the $11 CD from Walmart and rip the songs yourself.

    And you're having a problem with the PRA? I'm stunned.

    To think, ever, RIAA has artists' interest in mind is laughable, and for that, one does have my pity if they believe this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Jason, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 10:49am

    Re: The same Jack Ely?

    Thanks! Excellent link.

    Hey Lamy, you listening?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 10:55am

    Re: Re: Re: from the business model as a "right" department...

    Wait until someone puts together the following

    1)RIAA incuded Artist/Song List
    2)Not-RIAA/Independant Artist/Song List

    It will probably start small ....
    -high school radio station
    -college radio station
    -small town radio station
    -Mid West medium market

    Oh no!!!! What do you mean they arent playing Britney on the radio any more? what are we going to do? ....

    .... Wait .... I know Celebrate!!!! Hooah!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Jason, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 11:07am

    Re: Interesting.

    "I'm the only commenter here who expressly picks out Britney Spears"

    Dude, no you are not! Get of my IP!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Designerfx (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 11:14am

    Re: Interesting.

    I know a guy way high up working for the music industry, went to Israel with him about a year and a half ago. He isn't too happy working for them when he found out what the results were, so let me assure you the cognitive dissonance is on the inside just as much as out.

    Meanwhile, their RIAA blog is comment disabled - I guess they realized that they would be trolled and likewise can't handle the truth.

    (hint: if the music industry started supporting new ideas instead of crying about album sales and gave up on copyright maybe less people wouldn't be wishing for violent unfortunate outcomes to be brought upon the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 11:14am

    The RIAA loves to use artist's names in their press releases and news items that don't want to be associated with them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Fred, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 11:15am

    Well said Mike.

    Sounds like another GMausorus!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Phillip, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 11:24am

    Re: Re: Re: from the business model as a "right" department...

    That is nowhere near the same.

    HBO plays the whole movie and that is the end of it.

    Radio stations play maybe 1 or 2 songs off the radio, if the rest of your album isn't worth buying you don't deserve to sell anything. Bands also tour and sell other merchandise.

    For the band to get anyone to come to their shows they have to be known, and how do you get known you get your music played on the radio. It's just like movies PAY to put their commercials on TV. TV stations don't pay movies to advertise that people should go see and buy the movie, they get paid.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Joe Schmoe, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 11:26am

    "Wait until someone puts together the following..."

    http://www.riaaradar.com/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Yakko Warner, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 11:26am

    Re: from the business model as a "right" department...

    So, all that advertising money they earned was a direct result of the music? Why do I get the feeling that number might be just a wee bit inflated, not taking into account other content (radio deejay shows, talk shows, news & weather)?

    By the sound of their argument ("value of radio airplay is exactly equal to the $16 billion"), it sounds like they expect all that money to go straight to the RIAA. No money for the deejays and employees, for the power & infrastructure to even run the station, let alone money the station pays to advertise itself?

    I guess they expect the radio stations to sell T-shirts or something...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    KellerMaverick (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 11:40am

    So Mike, what I think you're trying to say is....

    they are treating you the same way they treat the music-consuming public. The RIAA knows exactly what you think, feel, expect, and desire.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    William, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 11:44am

    so I see they don't let people comment

    for the fear that the community is going to tear their blog apart from all those incorrect, misleading fact?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    Tom Landry (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 11:45am

    I get the feeling Mike lived for this day.....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    antimatter3009 (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 12:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: from the business model as a "right" department...

    Just to add to this, movies and music are not at all the same. Generally, once you see a movie you're done with it, at least for awhile. On the other hand, music is listened to over and over again. In other words, while HBO showing a movie actually might dissuade people from buying it elsewhere (since they've already seen it), hearing a song on the radio is much more likely to encourage a purchase since it can be listened to repeatedly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    lavi d (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 12:04pm

    Tour de

    Or, you know, you could have just given us a call. I would have been more than happy to stop by and explain this all to you in 1998. Could have saved you a lot of trouble, heartache and lawyer fees.

    Awesome.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    minijedimaster (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 12:14pm

    Re: Rather see a debate

    whats the point of a debate? NO one would listen/believe a word the RIAA says anyway

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Hayden Frost, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 12:15pm

    http://tapthehive.com

    The biggest argument against the PRA is payola. The reason payola developed is because the labels need radio more than radio needs the labels. The undeniable fact is that if an artist doesn't get radio play, the label doesn't make money off of the artist. Payola was made "illegal" but it still goes on in other forms because the market dynamic still has radio overpowering the labels. The PRA is merely an attempt to legislate this market dynamic the other direction.

    On the legislative side, the PRA will never pass. It was easy to beat up on silicon valley and satellite radio with the DPRA in 1995. But the PRA is different because it's the RIAA vs NAB (National Association of Broadcasters). The RIAA only seats constituents in NY and CA, while the NAB has multiple members in virtually every single district of every single Congressman.

    As for the RIAA's blog, it's a shame they don't enable comments. A simple bayesian filter would block most "RIAA sucks" trolls.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    RD, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 12:23pm

    Well...yes

    "By the sound of their argument ("value of radio airplay is exactly equal to the $16 billion"), it sounds like they expect all that money to go straight to the RIAA. No money for the deejays and employees, for the power & infrastructure to even run the station, let alone money the station pays to advertise itself?"

    Well...DUH! OF COURSE thats what they think. These criminally fraudulent radio stations are, after all, trying to PROFIT from the RIAA's music! Why, they are no better than common pirate scum who are fans of music and download it to enjoy it! If music is played, downloaded, hell even LISTENED to, then ALL the money should go to the RIAA...."for the artists," 'natch.

    And these dumbshits wonder why everyone is turning on them...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    jjmsan (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 12:24pm

    Re: Re: from the business model as a "right" department...

    Actually, to look at it correctly communication is their raw material. Talk and news radio sell advertising and are much cheaper. Further if music radio has no value why was it necessary to have laws to stop the music producers from bribing the stations to play their songs?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Another AC, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 12:24pm

    Re: http://tapthehive.com

    I would have more respect for the radio stations and broadcasters if they would have been criticizing the actions of RIAA and the labels from the begining. Maybe they do in other places but not around here. If they took a stand against them long ago, this would not even be going on. if they would have used their far reaching power starting a decade ago they really could have made a difference. Now they come along and bitch because it directly affects them, too little too late. I think the best thing that could happen is companies like clearchannel collapse and the airwaves are purchased by others that just tell the labels to go screw.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    elvispt (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 12:24pm

    money, money, money, no work.

    Quote: From the RIAA blog.
    Or performers like Jack Ely, 65, who’s never seen a dime from radio stations airing his “Louie Louie” for more than 40 years.
    *****

    This sentence practically says everything. They want someone who made a song 40 years ago to keep getting money today. So make a big hit, and don't work anymore for the rest of your life. Didn't Jack Ely get proper compensation for his work back then? Why should he get more?

    Seems though, they shot themselves on the foot again. Using an example that goes what they are saying. Another dumb mistake. How many times can they screw up?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Osno (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 12:39pm

    They can screw up over and over again... but they must be paid for each one for 70 years after they're dead.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    imfaral (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 12:44pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: from the business model as a "right" department...

    I watch movies multiple times. Also, if I see a good movie I am going to go and buy it once it comes out on DVD. The only movies I have watched only once are ones that were bad enough to only watch once.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    TW Burger (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 12:47pm

    RIAA is Irrelevant

    The RIAA is irrelevant to the music industry. Once all artists understand they do not need to "sign a record deal" to sell music (and make money) the record companies will disappear. There needs to be a ban on the "getting a record contract" movies like La Bamba and American Hot Wax. I can almost see the RIAA financing any screenplay that uses "sign a record deal" as a central idea in an attempt to perpetuate the myth that the only way to success is a recording contract. It could be a bonanza for second rate screenplay writers.

    The fact that the RIAA blog can not accept commentary from the public is of no surprise. The RIAA does not want to hear anyone's opinion, it's not its function.

    As for radio's influence on the music business model, I only listen to talk radio - Did you know that aliens have a galactic trade space platform in Earth orbit? I wonder when the RIAA will sue the aliens for downloading music?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Killer_Tofu (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 12:48pm

    Re:

    Haha. Main reason I cliked through is I felt the need to post that "hey look, you can't even comment on their blog".
    I see you beat me to the punch.

    Doesn't that sort of remove one of the largest points of having a blog? Oh well. Another poster also mentioned something along these lines. Removing the blog factor.
    It is just another example of how they only care about themselves and nobody else.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    zcat (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 1:04pm

    Re: from the business model as a "right" department...

    The other way of looking at this; normal advertisers pay for airtime. The RIAA gets twice as much airtime (which they KNOW is advertising because it sells more CDs, hence 'payola' etc) and yet they get the radio stations to pay them for it.

    I think the RIAA underestimate the value that radio stations add themselves. I've got Jango set up here so the family can listen to nonstop music that's very precisely tuned to our preferences. (It's legal too, apparently!) But they'd still rather listen to the radio every morning because there's entertaining DJ chatter, news, weather, stuff that's on locally.

    But what would I know, I'm just a consumer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Eric, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 1:16pm

    Say no to radio?

    If i'm getting 'screwed' by someone I would take my business away from them..i.e if I'm giving my art work to someone and feel I'm not being compensated in a correct manner, I would tell them not to use it...so if the recording industry feels they are not being compensated correctly from the radio industry, can't they just say 'you aren't allowed to play this music' then their problem is solved right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    SRS2000, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 1:41pm

    I would sue the RIAA.
    Doesn't matter if the claims are genuine or not... Sue them for slander and a bunch of other crap. Sue for 80k each comment.
    It's what they love to do..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    RD, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 2:05pm

    Already done that

    "so if the recording industry feels they are not being compensated correctly from the radio industry, can't they just say 'you aren't allowed to play this music' then their problem is solved right?"

    This was already tried. Hear about the Universal/Warner/Youtube indicent? They tried to say that the music played on YouTube was worth more than ALL OF YOUTUBE'S REVENUE COMBINED and demanded they pay up. So, youtube gave them the finger and removed ALL Universal/Warner music. U/W turned around and SCREAMED BLOODY MURDER that now their music wasnt being heard.

    This industry SERIOUSLY needs an enema....and a good brain transplant. They just DO NOT get it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 2:39pm

    What kind of "BLOG" it is if you can't comment on it?

    FAIL.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Dave, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 2:40pm

    keep going!

    Keep right on going brother! You're a voice of reason in the music industry darkness. And I say that as a musician and songwriter.

    When all they can do is make up stuff to desperately try to impeach the source, you know they've got nothing. Like any highly entrenched bureacracy, they are immune to sensible thoughts from outside, preferring the comparative safety of their own comfy echo chamber, which keeps getting smaller and smaller. Classic groupthink.

    The only trump card they have is that some government officials are as addled as they are, and actually support them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 2:56pm

    Re: keep going!

    "The only trump card they have is that some government officials are as addled as they are, and actually support them."

    And by addled, you mean paid, I hope.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Big Al, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 3:51pm

    Re: Re: Re: from the business model as a "right" department...

    Conversely, how many of the other advertisers on the site get all their promotion for free, unlike the artists and labels being promoted by the radio stations in the music being played?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Just Askin, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 5:43pm

    Re:

    How much do you make per post ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Might Work, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 5:47pm

    Maybe all the radio stations should stop playing any music for a while ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 6:29pm

    Notice how the RIAA's blog doesn't allow people to comment, are they afraid of criticism? On the other hand your blog is not afraid of criticism so people are free to comment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Krusty, Jun 24th, 2009 @ 6:56pm

    RIAA blog?

    That's not a blog it's a stinking propaganda page.

    The only way that this evil demon will be slain is by boycott.

    Come on people only buy used music WITH the jewel cases so you know it's not stolen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Jesse (profile), Jun 24th, 2009 @ 10:32pm

    The RIAA Blows . . .

    Amen Brother Mike!!

    It's too bad that the RIAA blog leaves no place for comments from users. Seems par for the course for them though. I mean, they don't listen to us fans anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Azrael (profile), Jun 25th, 2009 @ 1:12am

    Re:

    So why are you still here ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Almost An Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2009 @ 5:33am

    Re: Re: Re: from the business model as a "right" department...

    Mr. Miles,
    "I write code for a living, but yet, I receive no royalties for the "playing" of my application."
    Did you ever wonder WHY you don't receive royalties for it? Is it because it isn't original? Is it because you signed an employment agreement that says you won't? Is it because you are an independent contractor and your clients own the software that you write for? Think about which catagory you fall under and then you will know why you don't receive royalties. Because if none of the above is true, you just might be entitled to receive royalties. Oh, but that would mean you actually own something you created and can charge for it. OH NO, Mr. Bill don't do that, it might cost someone money! OOOOH NOOOOOO.....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2009 @ 5:39pm

    Re:

    ...and today they would all be flipping burgers at MickeyDs. A sound strategy!

    Theeey're heeeere!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2009 @ 5:42pm

    Re: Re: Interesting.

    I know a guy way high up working for the music industry...

    I've heard a lot of them work that way (high), maybe that's why they make such poor decisions.

    Oh, and don't confuse the "record" industry with the "music" industry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2009 @ 5:45pm

    Re: Re: Re: from the business model as a "right" department...

    Let's say HBO wants to play a movie. They don't get it for free...

    Maybe they should.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 25th, 2009 @ 5:54pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: from the business model as a "right" department...

    Did you ever wonder WHY you don't receive royalties for it? Is it because it isn't original? Is it because you signed an employment agreement that says you won't? Is it because you are an independent contractor and your clients own the software that you write for? Think about which catagory you fall under and then you will know why you don't receive royalties.

    Did you ever consider "none of the above"?

    Because if none of the above is true...

    Good, I'm glad to see you did.

    ...you just might be entitled to receive royalties.

    Oh, goody! Now would you be so kind as to point out the law that says so? Oh wait, you said "might". Well, I guess anything "might" happen. If "might" is good enough for a software writer, why isn't it good enough for a so-called "artiste"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Richard, Jun 28th, 2009 @ 2:14pm

    Re: The same Jack Ely?

    Strange - that's actually the same link as in the main post - suggest you read it properly

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This