Do you share files online?

Total Responses: 1,080 Yes   69.1%  (746) No   30.9%  (334)

Have the RIAA sue 'em all lawsuits persuaded you to stop sharing?

Total Responses: 1,077 Yes   5.9%  (64) No   94.1%  (1,013)

How do you rate your chances of you becoming an RIAA victim?

Total Responses: 1,078 Guaranteed, if I keep on sharing   1.9%  (20) High   2.5%  (27) Medium   10.5%  (113) Low   50.4%  (543) Zero, even if I keep on sharing   34.8%  (375)

It's been said the likelihood of any on person becoming an RIAA victim is like becoming a Lotto millionaire, or being struck by lightning.

Total Responses: 1,081 Agree   69.3%  (749) Disagree   30.7%  (332)

The RIAA claims file sharing is "devastating" the music industry.

Total Responses: 1,081 Agree   9.3%  (100) Disagree   90.7%  (981)

The RIAA claims file sharing is causing tremendous hardship to music industry workers, and huge losses to contracted artists.

Total Responses: 1,082 Agree   7.4%  (80) Disagree   92.6%  (1,002)

Does your school give you instruction on IP (Intellectual Property) law?

Total Responses: 1,036 Yes   18.2%  (189) No   81.8%  (847)

If it doesn't, do you think it should?

Total Responses: 1,016 Yes   39.7%  (403) No   60.3%  (613)

Do you know anyone who's received an RIAA subpoena?

Total Responses: 1,078 Yes   8.3%  (90) No   91.7%  (988)

Says the RIAA: Though it would appear that record companies are still making their money and that artists are still getting rich, these impressions are mere fallacies.

Total Responses: 1,076 True   11.4%  (123) False   88.6%  (953)

If you've answered False to the question above, how do you see things?

Total Responses: 817 1. smaller artists may not make it rich, but the labels peddling them will 2. BS 3. While the rest of the industries have commensurately reduced costs when their resources and materials have dropped costs, MPAA and RIAA affiliated companies are still out there raping the public trust and manipulating the numbers and judiciary to match their Orwellian version of what happens when Johnny doesn't buy an Nsync cd. Listen, maybe the reason why we don't give a crap about the loss of sales, is that all too often, we know how the recorded artists were screwed over by manipulative and power-hungry recording Companies. I have friends in bands. I have had friends in bands. I buy their cd's when they make them. I recommend them to friends. The days of doing that are becoming slimmer. The new venue is and should be, live performance. I will pay 5x more for talent and showmanship.. and be glad I did. 4. I don't see how private jets, excessive bling, and Ferraris are fallacious (note: MTV Cribs). But more importantly, artists cannot be rich because that is a violation aesthetic principles. 5. There is still a shit-ton of money being spent on CDs. If artists aren't getting rich, it's because their labels are ripping them off. 6. Very few artists made, or make, money due to very one-sided contracts. COmpanies used to make lots of money but are now suffering due a changing market. 7. the labels still overcharge for goods and take way too higher cut from sales, the artists earn the money on tour and with merchandise 8. Its bullshit because the RIAA has been raping artists since the beginning. No shit artists arent getting rich off their albums. They get rich off merch and touring because the RIAA has their hands down deep in the artists pockets. WTF does it cost to produce a cd? Maybe 75 cents? At a time I purchased 2-3 cds, albums, cassettes a week. At $18+ for a cd they are out of their minds. Why is it after 20 years of the compact disc prices are going up and not down? 9. big 4 doing less well (i.e., profitable, just less than they want); artists doing fine -- smart ones doing better 10. If I like the music I download, I'll buy the CD. If they would put out better music, I might buy more CD's.... so once they stop putting out utter shit, I'll fork over some cash. 11. Two words... MTV. Cribs. 12. Most artists don't seem to be making a whole lot of money from their records. The music industry can afford to put Tommy Lee and Co. on TV to find a lead singer for a band of has beens, but still claim the sky is falling. Bunk. 13. Bands make the most of their money from concerts, tv performances and the like. They are still getting rich regardless of music sales. 14. The Record Company is Obsolete, the internet is the new distributor, and if artists were distributing on the internet they would receive 100% of the profit from the music they sell. at this rate, an artist could have 9 pirated albums for every legitimate one, and still make more money than they do now. 15. False 16. Sales have declined for CDs while digital sales have skyrocketed. The change is a natural state of the technological progression towards a digital medium. Further, the "Napster Age" showed the highest music sales the RIAA has ever seen, before Napster and also after their destruction. 17. The record industry is making money. I always see articles reporting "record profits". What they want is a "pay-per-listen" business model and that is being soundly rejected by their customers. While they aspire to absolute control, their actions are just causing customers to look for alternatives (both legal, ie Indy music or"illegal", ie file sharing. 18. The record companies are making more than the amount of money they deserve. Frankly at this point they deserve to be bankrupt and dumped in a sewer being raped by cockroaches. 19. The Record companies are continuing to steal from the artistis, forcing them to give away rights to their original works for next to nothing. Now they have turned this same abusive attitude on their own customers. They deserve to be put out of bussiness. 20. They don't pay their artists anything and rip them off. They have been ripping off artists and consumers for years and are still doing very well. 21. The artists aren't being hurt. I's just the record companies whining about their lost profits. 22. The industry puts out shit and its artists get rich , the smaller labels with bands with an ounce of integrity get poor but because of financial muscle from the likes of emi - it isnt lost on people that many of these companies can be tracked back to other bastardopolist industries. 23. P2P does not make a large enough dent in the industry. Besides, I like to "preview" an album before I purchase it. 24. That music shared over the internet is just serving as a means to further popularize an artist and that people will still shell out cash for an album if they really like the artist 25. They system is biased to the record companies, not the artists. The new system could benefit the artists more, and ideally, could reduce or eliminate the need for the big record companies. 26. Recording companies seem to scam artists for the majority of the profit. Apparently most artists only make minimum wage. 27. The RIAA and member corporations are making strong profits at the expense of their customers and the artists that provide the content. 28. They're still making millions are they not? If they weren't they wouldn't be able to afford all the luxuries us normal people can't afford. All they're trying to do is get more and more while the rest of us have less and less. 29. Downloading a digital copy of anything in itself causes no financial hardship to the recording industry. It duplication and transmission of digital content by file sharers costs the recording industry nothing. The only loss you might be able to attribute to file sharing is the loss of potential sales, which is minimal. Personally (and I know I'm among the majority here) my music collection wouldn't be so much as a tenth of the size it currently is if it weren't for file sharing; I wouldn't have purchased the vast majority of the music I have regardless of whether I file shared; I simply don't have the money. Therefore, the industry has not lost any potential sales, and is no worse off than if I, and most others, didn't file share. 30. If all the money the RIAA has spent trying to terrorize had gone into the creation of a progressive, modern digital music store, I wonder where they would be now... 31. I think the RIAA is missing the plot. They have an opportunity to embrace but instead have their head in the sand. Just look at what's happening to net radio - I have bought so many CDs from listening to pandora and now that is being killed. Oh the stupidity... 32. Recording artists and record companies are still some of the richest people out there. 33. Adapt or die, if your financial model isn't working, change it.- 34. The RIAA is into Rackateering and should be shutdown by the government... Also there should be a campaign on the WEB to get the word out to everyone to stop purchasing all of Sony's products not just there BMG stuff... And all the other companies involved with the RIAA If everyone stopped purchasing all sony products for 1 week that would send a huge message to them.... If they do not stop the RIAA BS then people should stop for 1 month and so on.... I gaurantee Sony would stop the RIAA BS then... So lets do it 35. Truth: The record companies are still making tons of money. They just fire people to insure their profit margins. When the company is too small to 'cut', they sell to a larger record company that merges the 'value' into their model, and dumps the 'spare parts'. Then they do the same thing. On and on, until the industry dies. ARTISTS BE DAMBED. 36. Partly true in that plenty of money is still being made however there is less revenue now and probably the weaker artists are the ones who will be affected the most. 37. The record companies are still getting ridiculous amounts of money, and they artists are getting enough millions to comfortably support themselves for life. If these millions aren't enough for them, then they clearly are more obsessed with money than making music, and i don't want to buy anything from them. 38. Executives may be seeing a hit, but artists have never been paid what their handlers are. To say that the artists in the industry are suffering is ludicrous. The concept of ownership of music by a company is anew concept, developed in the 20s with the advent of recorded music. Prior to that no company owned the artist. I believe we are just naturally returning to that golden, and better age. 39. I think that they make enough money. 40. Music artists make next to no money from album distributions anyway, if anyone is losing money, it's simply the people who've been cheating the artists all along, and the people who should - and will - be phased out. Online distribution is a godsend to independent artists. 41. Quality music earns money. If they want to earn more money, they need to stop the blame game and make a quality product. 42. they still make money 43. The artists make money by playing live shows. 44. The RIAA is merely trying to control a major technological shift in the market. Their traditional revenue-generating activitiesare becoming outdated, and rather than embrace a new model, they are applying protectionist tactics to preserve the old one. 45. I think that although there has been a decline in recording industry profits, much of that is due to the industries refusal to take make digital media freely available at reasonable price and quality. 46. Fuck the RIAA 47. I still think the record companies are bloody rich and the artists are hardly struggling given the lives they lead 48. Record sales are at all time highs... Artists are still getting paid for their work. File sharing has increased popularity of the product. 49. RIAA made DRM! I can't even put the music I bought on my Zune or Cell phone! I have to buy it 2 more times. That makes no sense... I'd rather just download it.. so now I do. 50. The money stays in the Recoding Industry and is not transferred to artists like it should. 51. The record companies have been charging consumers high prices and cheating the artists for a long time now. Even artists have spoke out and agreed with this. 52. Whether artist are getting rich or not has nothing to do with file sharing, the recording companies take all the money from them. They are greedy corps thats what they do. 53. Record companies are still turning a profit. People are sick of paying for a CD that's contains a single "good" track and a bunch of filler tracks. And popular music really hasn't done anything new or interesting in 15 years. 54. It's not the artists who are getting rich, rather the companies themselves . 55. RIAA is killing music and themselves..won't be long now...has more to do with their consumer-hostile business model rather than file sharing (symptom) 56. plenty of people are making money off their top 40 songs but the real artists are touring. 57. The record company is filled with suits who don't do anything. They rape the artists and attempt to keep everything for themselves and cut out the musician as much as possible. I'm blown away that artists even sign with major record labels, but than again we definitely have a society that's domininated by morons. 58. The RIAA has failed to adapt and instead has tried to rot the justice system from the inside by making threats of legal action. The RIAA has less chance of surviving as Jack Thompson has of making any sense. 59. The record companies are making money, if its not as much as they want perhaps they should have embraced technology in the Napster days instead of trying to sue it into oblivion. The music artists are also getting screwed but not by the "downloader" but instead by the RIAA who shares $0 from the lawsuits they are persuing. FUCK THE RIAA! I would rather mail the artist a check since it would actually go to them. 60. are musicians making music to get rich? or to get fans? 61. Record companies make too much money, artists make more than they should for the amount of work they put into it but at least they are working compared to the RIAA leeches. 62. People are being exposed to the mass amounts of music out there and developing massively eclectic tastes which only fuels the music industry. Personally, in the last three years or so I've opened my music taste to a broad array of different genres. Before I was into mostly mid 80's to mid 90's west coast rap, now I'm more into punk, reggae and hardcore. You don't hear those genres on the radio and you don't just buy random CD's but with file sharing you can download everything and listen to everything. If you don't like it, you're not out anything and you just delete it, most people who sample music and enjoy it will probably go out and buy the CD. Bands are gaining fans because of file sharing, pure and simple. 63. Seems they are all still bling, blingin'. They have plenty of money for lawsuits. If the record companies wouldn't put out so much crap they wouldn't have to cover the costs of all the crap they are producing. 64. - If these "artists" can't make any money, even though the music industry is billions, then perhaps there's a problem with all the middle-men. Besides, I don't believe it. Struggling musicians are nothing new. Ones that make it big get big money. Nothing there is different now then it ever was. 65. If sales are falling, maybe it's because they produce crappy music. 66. The royalties paid to artists themselves are abysmal; most of the money from incredibly over-priced garbage discs sold these days go to the media conglomerates that publish them. 67. theys makin ass loads of moola 68. These guys know that they cannot uphold an antiquated system of property rights if the people have the technology to subvert their extortion. But they're either unsure of what to do, or they are squeezing the last minutes out of their old ways. 69. I mean, BLOODY HELL i dont see Eminem or Linkin Park complaining about living in poverty 70. RIAA is in it for their cut. They are pushing a failed business model and instead of shifting, have decided to build a moat and etrench. 71. RIAA is the one taking money away from the artists. The big companies have to pay RIAA so that is money out of the artists pockets. 72. Record companies need a new distribution model: downloads like iTunes 73. Most artists are starving, because they're not famous. Those same artists are also the ones that wouldn't mind being shared just to gain the exposure they need to be famous. The big artists are the ones that people share, and they are filthy rich. The day I see artists like Britney Spears and Metallica driving around in beat up old vans, and eating top ramen is the day that I will stop sharing music. The record executives are still making huge salaries, and I haven't heard anything about Sony BMG , or any of the other major labels, filing for bankruptcy. 74. If they are getting rich the why are their houses on TV and why do they keep making music? because they love it? no because they get rich 75. The record companies are still making their money, the artists are getting screwed. 76. the artists make more money with concerts and merchindise 77. Everyone is getting richer!!! Artists and Companies. 78. Music is something very worthful. Perhaps the way of earning money with it is not the way the RIAA tries it with. 79. there are many other ways artists make their money, merchandise and concerts for example 80. A few of the top artists are making it rich .. the others are not; thats the recording industries issue and has nothing to do with Music Sharing. 81. that they get paid wayyyy too much 82. If record companies were in fact being "devastated", as they claim, then perhaps their business model might have changed in response to it. 83. Question is too complicated for me to answer I don't know what you mean. 84. Record companies are having no problem paying rent and raping artists. File sharing has done nothing to discourage the rich big wigs in charge of Columbia and Virgin. 85. total fabrication record companies are still getting rich, the artists are just getting ripped off 86. lying so they can get their way 87. If it was $8 a cd, and not $18, maybe I would think about buying few. If it was $15 a video game instead of $60 a video game maybe I would think about buying a few. 88. I see the record companies still pulling huge profits. 89. RIAA = Whores 90. The RIAA is lying 91. lies 92. The artists get little to no money from album sales anyway. The RIAA is the only group losing money at this juncture. 93. If they weren't making money the suits would be gone and the Big 4 after them. 94. Failed model that is a monoply 95. I believe the artists who are making the songs are still getting paid fine. the middlemen may be receiving a little less. but a loss of business revenue should not be blamed solely on illegal mp3 downloading. Look at the market conditions, look at the quality and restrictions on what is available. 96. The musicians are still becoming millionaires on an almost daily basis. I think the RIAA is using this as platform to line it's own pockets with money. What is the salary of the president of the RIAA? 97. artists live on a shoe-string, and the sound engineers, band managers and label workers life filthy rich. 98. The record companies are still making money -- it's just that they cling to supporting a business model that is increasingly obsolete, thus wasting much of that revenue. As for the artists: yes, some are still getting rich... but the REAL money lies in going on tour, NOT in album sales -- and that's the way it has ALWAYS been, for the entire history of recorded music. 99. I see that the artists still aren't getting money; the RIAA and the labels are taking 98% of profits. 100. Ugh how? Are you fucking serious? 101. It's the RIAA ASSHOLES who are ripping EVERYONE including consumers, record companies, and artists. FUCK THE RIAA!!!! DIE MOTHERFUCKERS!!! 102. The record companies may be losing some money, but it isn't due to file sharing, and the artists are still getting rich and pampered. 103. They are still making a lot. For labels, I'd say a lot more than they deserve. Labels don't contribute any value on the internet and they want to keep outdated system where they do in place using lawyers. 104. Record companies are making their money, and the artists and the RIAA are still getting rich. 105. I do not believe that their current financial situation would be any different if all music sharing were suddenly ended. Possibly it would become worse since they have seriously alienated their potential customers. 106. Just as they've always been, and many of these artists are filthy rich anyway. 107. The RIAA was ripping them off to begin with, and they've never gotten what they deserve, now they just get a tad less 108. Their earnings may be marginally less, but the industry profits are bloated to begin with. 109. I know numerous people who work in both the film and music industry on different levels. Talking to all of them, they say that there is very minimal change in their industries. Instead, the change really happens with people trying to break into the industry. Labels are taking less risk in signing bands, so the only one who is really hurt are those that are not signed, and since they were not making money before, there is no damage done. 110. The recording industry is all about packaging and marketing, not about true talent. Sharing files is actually in the interest of artists, since it gives them exposure. Artists make their living by performing (a product they can control), not recording (a product that greedy businessmen control). 111. They still make money off of advertising endorsements, t-shirts and other products, concert ticket sales, etc. 112. The "middle men" are losing money because they are no longer necessary. Bands can promote themselves online and no longer need the infrastructure of the major labels to suceed. 113. We all know that recording artists still only make cents on the dollar for every CD sold. Where does the rest of the money go? Right into the record companies' pockets--where it's always gone. 114. well you watch vh1 all you see is all this artist with big house big jewlery big cars I dont see them starving just alot of greed 115. They are dinosaurs rampaging on an old business model which assumes lower consumption, harder information movement and an ability to prosecute against the exceptions. In stead, they obvliviously exist in a high consumption (desire), easy information movement environment and are only creating enemies in their failure to adapt. They could be providing mechanisms to improve music, its publication, its exposure and findability. Instead, its SPAPP suits. Old companies, old men, old minds, old ways. Dying dinosaurs. 116. They're still raking it in - just smaller margins than they were used to. 117. Dude, if Brittney Spears can afford a 30k rehab, the record industry is doing just fine. 118. Executives and artists both are making insane amounts of money. It's been known for years that the companies were involved in price fixing on CD's and were never brought to justice because of it. 119. They are still making money by altering the law to enforce a flawed business model as well as taking advantage of the new business models. 120. artists and record co.'s have made there money off alot of older songs long ago and should sell catalouge music for reasonable prices like allofmp3 does. as for new music when you download there is no transportation costs or retailors taking there cut so record co.'s should be able to sell music at reasonable prices like allofmp3. if prices are reasonable people will purchase more music.and everyone is happy! 121. most the money goes to the excutives 122. They are the real bastards doing the robbing. There was a nice article written by Courtney Love on this subject. 123. They make way too much money to start. 124. If I were to download music, that does not mean I would buy less music. I buy the same as I always have- very little. I find prices of music from big labels in shops extortionate. I tend to stick to buying from small indie labels now. No thank you BPI and RIAA! You aren't getting my business with the way you treat consumers. 125. RIAA lying as usual. 126. They're still rich, getting richer, selling overpriced products, and sueing harmless file sharers. 127. There have been countless studies that found that file sharing's effect is statistically close to zero. Record companies and artists are still getting their money with or without "piracy" in similar quantities. Which, by the way, I don't care how many people you sue, there will always be some piracy going on because of new technology. Plus, this isn't capitalism! Capitalism is competing with other businesses to get the most profit and ending up with the best deal possible for BOTH the consumer and business through creating quality and ingenuity from competition pressure. NOT FROM SUING THE ASS OFF OF ANYONE YOU DISAGREE WITH. 128. they get money just for shitting in a certain toilet. 129. The Record companies are making too much of the money and screwing the talent over! 130. Artists get rich off of concerts. That will always remain. Money is still being made and I think that the industry needs to adapt to the changing market. 131. They are still making enough money. 132. The market is flooded with music. There are so many more independent labels than there ever was...and these indie labels are making bigger and bigger waves every year. The wealth is being distributed more, and the RIAA doesn't like that. Basically, they're still making their money and still screwing the artists. It's just now they have someone to blame and excuse their poor business practices. 133. That the people are getting rich. But there is nothing wrong with getting rich, I don't see why they have to claim that they don't get rich if that is indeed what they are claming. 134. The music industry as a whole is in pure denial that the internet has change the world. They want to exempt themselves from the inevitable fact that the internet has altered the economics behind every industry on the planet. Do you think stockbrokers ever thought they would see $5-$10 trades? Or that insurance companies on the east coast ever thought they would have to compete with companies on the west coast? There's a lot of fat that can be trimmed from the music industry. They have too many hands in the pot to be able to embrace the efficiencies of the internet. Once that fat is trimmed the industry will embrace the internet as it is inevitable. 135. The recording industry is still making huge profits. 136. lies propogated by the RIAA to allow them to make more money via an easy avenue. Afterall, artists receive very little money from the sale of cd's which are so heavily over-priced. If they offered high quality (lossloess) drm-free downloads, I would stop file sharing, and buy the downloads - but not while the quality is so poor and I am unable to use the downloads as i wish. 137. Though artists are still making money they are making less. Also many people other than the top stars (struggling early musicians, sound engineers, etc) will disproportionately suffer from the loss or revenues caused by online music theft. 138. The RIAA, which adds no value to the actual process of delivering art to the masses, is continuing to profit by guarding its outdated business model. 139. Record companies are still making money. Always will... 140. money grubbing bastards 141. It's a bit hard to tell from the way you have worded the question if you are asking if it is true that RIAA is saying this or if I agree with the statement. Assuming you are asking do I agree with the statement I do not. I think that artists get lots of publicity from more sources than ever and more of the lesser know artists are getting this publicity also. And the result of the publicity is profit to the artists as well as all of the middlemen. 142. They are overpaid. 143. I'm pretty sure if the artists were living in 2 bedroom apartments in the middle of St. Paul Minnesota, we'd all know about it. They are constantly on television, with million dollar jewelry, five thousand dollar dresses, and the RIAA is trying to tell me that a record and a movie take the same amount of effort to produce via the similar pricing. 144. How can they 'appear to make money' and simultaneously not make money? What were they smoking when they said that? 145. the labels arent making thier money, aka the executives, otherwise the sound recording guys, the guys in the booth are still getting paid, the artist still gets paid, still makes most of his money from touring. and instead of making an "estimated" 100 billion they only make about 80 billion and are forced to cut juniors allowance by 20 grand. 146. They are still very rich... 147. RIAA is taking most of the money for their own greedy selves and only giving the artists a mere fraction of each dollar. 148. They are still earning money, why would they otherwise fight so hard... or have the funds to do so! 149. Electronic distribution is the future, and the slump of sales from the record labels is from falling behind the new technology. 150. I don't think the artists were ever getting rich in the first place. All the RIAA and the record industry care about is putting money into their own pockets -- not the artists. 151. the RIAA need to stop sanctioning the ripping off of the music buying public. More people would buy music if the cost was more reasonable...All of MP3 is testament to this theory... they have a duty of care to the music buying public just as much as the artists and industry workers. 152. They must be cooking books if that is true, which is HIGHLY illegal... music piracy, serious business. 153. the RIAA is going after people like the mafia.. and the RICO and HOBS acts both clearly outline repeated attacks on people as violations of those laws and yet the courts want to side with the RIAA.. Lawyers better understand black letter law and follow it to the letter, as corperations do and so does the RIAA, which means lawyers that are defending people better understand black letter law not case law. 154. I only see few starving artists out there. If they have talent, they are found and properly sponsered. Besides the fact, most artists out there I personally listen to are in it for sharing their music, not making a bunch of money. It all comes down to what's more important. 155. Few artists are actually getting rich. Many don't make it, and this probably has always been so. The record companies, however, still make lots of money - maybe slightly less than they used to, that's why they complain. The artists, though, see only a tiny fraction of what the record companies make from their music. 156. they need to change their business model -no up front advances eg robbie williams $80 million -i dont think so, try for a percentage of sales robbie 157. Artists should be getting a bigger cut of their work 158. The record companies AREN'T still making their money. Revenue and profits are falling. Artists signed to major labels ARE making less money because of piracy. Quite simply, people steal music...meaning the people who make music make less money. It IS that simple, and it is true. 159. the music companies are making too much margin, are not prepared to adapt their business practices, and are trying to legislate to maintain the status quo. 160. First, there's no shortage of obscenely wealthy music artists and music company execs - second, web distribution at cost or free DOES NOT HARM BUSINESS IT HELPS IT. See publishing business for examples. 161. Music should be free, they earn enough on Radio broadcasts / concerts. 162. p2p file sharing doesn't hurt artists, if you really like a band you downloaded, you would go and buy their album to support them. p2p makes it easier to find new music and helps you preview an album, because if you buy it at the store you dont know if its good, and returning it is kind of hard once you open it, so downloading it is easier. 163. Money just doesn't go through the RIAA/MPAA anymore... 164. Fat cats still getting fatter, unlike independants, which is why I buy from emusic. And I'd like to pay alofmp3 a bit more, but I'll never buy from I-tunes etc.l 165. sharing benefits the artist driving more traffic to their web page and concerts. 166. Everyone, even downloaders, still buy music. Therefore, the artists are still becoming wealthy. 167. The contracted artists and record companies are still getting rich. It may not seem that way to them because their idea of "getting rich" is so absurdly skewed and out of touch with the incomes of other musicians and with the incomes of most Americans. I believe that there is room for everyone in the music industry, and I think it is fantastic that the money to be made is no longer going to be made a few privilaged sell-outs and their pimps. 168. Record companies make a mint (as always) and artists don't fair too badly either - a LOT of music is still bought and downloaded and a few sharers will not cripple the industry. 169. EVen though CD sales are down, plenty of money still flows into the music industry not just from music sales, but associated revenues. Were the RIAA to cease and decist throwing away money for frivolous law suits, this would surely leave more money for artists. The actions of the RIAA do nothing to suggest that they are in any way fighting for the cause of artists, but more that they are pursuing their own hidden agenda. 170. It's a control issue. 171. Record companies are still making money. Only the biggest, most successful artists have ever really become rich, everyone else just lives in debt to the label. 172. They're still making money. Sure they may have lower sales than a decade ago. But they've got an outdated business model and poor logistics. Customers that used to buy music CDs, now rather spend their money on movie DVDs for more entertainment value for their money. 173. I see both record companies and the artists as being too rich for their own good. And how can you say those impressions are "fallacies" when the artist(s) sing about all their Rolls-Royce's, Bentley's, Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, and so on, and so forth? 174. The companies still make rip-offf money through the CD's they do sell. 175. i am gong to answer anyway, sharing a file one has bought is totally different than hacking into an online music store and taking it, once you buy the product, cd, song, it's yours and you can share it however you want No one is stealing, No one is saying that they made the music, put it together, sung it, etc.. Everyone is just making a copy and giving it to others, however I would Agree that in the end if someone DID steal the CD from the record shop or hacked into an online store, sure I agree they should be arrested, for more questions out of me, email palmonezire31fanatic@yahoo.com. 176. As long as artists want millions of dollars for only a few albums and record companies are able and willing to pay, things can't be so bad as the RIAA claims. Give me some value for my money (not just a cd in a cheap case without anything else) or give me legally downloadable music without that DRM-crap at a reasonable price. 2$ per song is ridiculous. 177. The are a bunch of liars 178. They have plenty to buy cocaine 179. They make huge amounts of money from things other than direct sales. 180. I would say certainb artists are getting rich at the expense of other (perhaps) more talented artists 181. The music industry is still making it's money. It could be doing better by investing in true artists rather than the diva of the week. 182. music industry is changing, the consumer is now in power 183. The publishing company gets most of the money anyway. It is the publishing company that is losing % of their money. Sure if band X would normally see $100 but because of file sharing only sees $70. thats a 30% loss But if the publishing company would normally see $1,000,000 but because of file sharing they lose that same 30% but for the publisher, that 30% is a loss of $300,000 The publishers would hurt WAY more than artists. 184. File sharing is having a mixed effect - reducing CD sales, but also increasing awareness of unusual music, and RIAA has failed to implement business model to take advantage of technology without garbage DRM. 185. The RIAA needs to embrace the changes the digital music and sharing and purchase of it on the internet. Stop crying and get with the program. If they don't they could see the end of their industry as the artists that have the ability to do so start producing and distributing their music themselves, which would probably be better for fans of music. The public knows that the music industry has been ripping off both it's customers and it's clients, the artists, for much too long. 186. the rich like getting richer 187. I don't really care if they are making money or not. I don't want to be treated as a criminal if I take music I purchased and choose how I want to play it or share it. 188. There is a huge disparity between rich successful artists and struggling talented musicians. The music industry needs to examine itself before blaming others for its own failings. 189. The large record companies are still making their obscene profits and the musicians are still receiving their small payments. 190. Record companies and artists ARE STILL getting rich. Sales have come down because everyday because artists and music in general is sucking badly. 191. I buy music that's worth paying for all the time. Most of the shit released today isn't worthy of Muzak in an elevator. 192. if the labels would release good WHOLE cd's at a fair price as well as pay the artist a decent royalty rate? then maybe i'd consider purchasing a cd. Otherwise? i support artists that make good music through concert tickets and concert merchandise (my understanding is the bands make more profit through that method than they do from cd royalties 193. File sharing would affect mainly the hugely popular artists which I do not believe are being hurt financially. Further, the record industry would be better served by recognizing and adapting to changing culture than promoting fear mongering and maintaining ridiculous marketing and pricing structures. 194. They are richer than ever 195. i buy more cds and dvds as a result of downloading. if i could only listen to things i had bought i wouldnt know about lots of new acts and films. 196. The minority of big selling artists are still making lots of money and the rest are still struggling. Hard to see what has changed. 197. Artists and music industries still make more money than the average man. 198. The corporate people are still making their millions no matter what! Do you really think the artist 199. Record companies still want to get rich by vastly overpricing products. They refuse to listen to customers, treat artists poorly and keep bringing out reissues at high prices. 200. Copy righting a sound is absolutely useless. I understand if you want to make it that you can't copy a sound though- I mean, fine, you want money- BUT AT LEAST ALLOW US TO UPLOAD OUR CD'S TO OUR COMPUTERS OR IPODS. GET RID OF STUPID DRM. IT MAKES MUSIC USELESS! Artists are making heaps of money and they would make more if people had access to a wider range of music. No evidence supports that file sharing is hurting them. You, the RIAA, do nothing, absolutely nothing to deter file sharing, so even if it became legal there would be very little extra file sharing thats going on anyway. Through it you learn about new artists and then you SUPPORT them, not just through music but through other means. Artists aren't being hurt by it and the RIAA is only making people (like myself) angry at the music industry as a whole and I am starting to turn my back on it and I'm just stopping listening to music anymore. I'm very bitter that I can't upload my favourite CD to my ipod legally. That sucks. YOU CAN'T EVEN FIND THE CD ON THE INTERNET AND BUY IT OFF ITUNES OR SOMETHING LEGALLY FOR PETES SAKE. 201. Industry and artists still profitable - just less so than before. Also music industry has lacked innovation and has taken head in sand attitude. It fails to deliver what consumers want. 202. Thousands of talented artists always struggled to make a living waiting for their "break" which would never come. Music industry was not interested in them. Their business model is creating a few hundred "idols" and milk them for money. Liberalization of music would level the playing field and give every artist a chance to make a decent living. 203. The music industry is still producing as much music as ever; more so even. 204. these impressions are not fallacies 205. They're all rich. 206. Artists are still making millions. Oh, so they are not making tens of millions...their still raking in the f*cking cash where they don't have to work for the rest of their lives. Besides I don't see how anyone can spend over 4 million on themselves, I know it has happened, but seriously how shit do you need. 207. No, they totally are still getting rich. And maybe it would be better for artists *not* to be so rich- people shouldn't make music for the money, they should make it because they want to and they *love* doing it. They music industry would probably produce much better music overall if artists had more average salaries. 208. I fail to see how these claims can be true, I don't see massive redundancies occuring due to piracy, and it's very rare that an artist speaks out against piracy damaging their income, if they did so in all likely hood they'd be labelled a hypocrite. I mean come on Mariah Carey say complaining that due to piracy she can't buy a new xxxx million dollar mansion, give me a break. 209. For the past 50 years artists and record companies have been getting rich off of mediocre product. They package their one or two decent songs with rather mediocre to poor songs. I have wasted a lot of money on mostly crappy albums just for one or two songs. Let the music industry reap what they have sown. We have found a way around the crap, and artists will have to step up their game, or wither and die. 210. The record companies are losing money, not artists as they get their money well in advance.. and who needs the big labels anyway.. more and more artists are doing download-only affordable services off their own backs and making MORE than what the record companies provide with contracts. 211. Riaa Lies 212. RIAA are a bunch of cunts! 213. "Though it would appear.....but they're not" Theres an ill formed argument if there ever was one. 214. Tons of people are still buying music...wtf is wrong with you people 215. Fuck the RIAA 216. they make money from the free promotion. it increases concert and merch sales. artists make VERY little money from an album. 217. trying to make more money 218. They have their goals backwards -- copyright does not exist to make record companies or authors get rich. It exists to promote arts, which are doing just fine (especially up here in Canada where there's no DMCA). The record companies are still making money, but even if they weren't, there are tons of great independent acts out there. 219. The artists make money by signing contracts with the record companies and giving concerts. Music piracy is in a way marketting the artists. The RIAA just appeared because technology is making record companies obsolete. They are unneeded nonsense, and for an artist, it just means easy, quick money, by the means of contracts. We have a lot of examples of successful bands that use the internet (MySpace for example) to show their works, and work hard to earn their money (giving concerts). 220. OMG some rockstar can't afford a private jet this year! Oh, I feel so sorry for him. Please pass on my sympathy to his family 221. Getting more music stimulates more interest in music. Buying more CDs is one thing, another thing is going to more concerts, buying more books and other related stuff. But more fundamentally, if there are cheaper an better ways to distribute music, why should I care about a stone age music industry that wants to maintain its slow and costly way of promoting its own selection of artists and songs? I do care about artists making money. 222. Even despite the fact that record companies still take huge ammounts (up to 80%) of the profit from each record/mp3 sale, many artists are still reaching huge commercial success. 223. The vast majority of the record companies' revenues is going to people who have no hand in the artistic process, and very little to do with any success a record has. Mostly, this includes executives and multiply-redundant ad agencies. 224. The truth is nowhere near as simple as that. The times they are a changing. 225. They are simply trying to keep and even extend their shares on artist's pieces and on the other side they simply refuse to offer products that the public demands: DRM-free digital music. 226. If people make music to earn money, then people shouldn't buy their records at all. We still show up at their concerts, and I buy most, if not all of my albums myself. 227. I think the only difference is that now people are able to experience more types of music from more bands. People downloading music online are more likely to buy music because they have more access to new music. 228. The law in the 70's said I could make a copy of IP material(namely music) for my personal use. They are controlling what I can do with what I buy. Sounds like "Big Brother" to me. How about the company 321 Studios? They shut down dvd x copy somebody lost a job!! 229. Artists get their money from touring, merch sales and cd sales in cash at concerts. The label gets most of the money from retail cd sales. 230. Record profits year after year, and CD prices keep going up. 231. I buy it if I like it 232. Touring is making the money 233. I see artists that wouldn't be represented by the record companies being able to sell their music through sites like All of MP3 as well as gain "share" of the market through file-sharing. 234. CD sales are up 8% this year 235. ...although this wouldn't be the case and the record companies were to embrace the new technology in a way that works with the way the public want their music, rather than by bullying them 236. labels are losing revenue from music sales but artists never got anything from them anyway. music sales make up only a small proportion of overall label income and they are increasing profits in other areas. 237. While I am sure that there are lost profits, artists are certainly still getting rich 238. There are still a few superstar artist who are making good money and keeping the labels afloat, but there are many mid level bands that suffer because of file sharing 239. The artists have always been screwed by the major labels, and P2P isn't going to change this except possibly help artists. 240. Record Companies are Sharks! Hope music could be soon distributed without them, the sooner the better for both fans and artists...not the lawyers running the current show! 241. RIAA companies are spending too much on advertising, production, etc. Consumers would be happier buying slightly lower-quality, less-advertised music if they felt the profits were going to the artists rather than people in advertising or the labels. 242. The record companies and their artists are still making enormous profits and are as wealthy as ever. 243. MTV Cribs. Bling bling 244. Profit-driven record companies will do anything and say anything to keep their profits high. This includes concentrating on established acts rather than fostering new talent, ripping off artists, spending huge sums on marketing bland crap to the masses and spreading outright lies. 245. file sharing applications are just a way for people to preview music. If they really like the album, they will buy it. This forces the song writers and labels to produce higher quality music. 246. companies are, artists not so much 247. I see artists flaunting money, wearing tons of jewelery, spending ridiculous amounts of money on clothing, getting in trouble with the law because money has corrupted them, driving very expensive cars, and owning enough houses for an entire community to live in. 248. The record companies are still making their money, far too much, and the artists are still not getting paid. 249. I think that the RIAA by not adapting to the latest distribution outlets are engaged in a cutting off their nose to spite their face manuever that will plunge their companies into the sink. 250. Those slow to embrace new delivery models for intellectual property will continue to earn less. 251. They make record profits again and again. Maybe they should stop filling their pockets and put some fo that money back into music. 252. I started buying a LP's, had to buy the same CDs for full price as I cannot copy it fastand legal. Now I have to pay the third time to buy the same music in VMA format. You get three time the money you deserve! 253. the record companies are robbing the artists blind. the artists are suffering, an it is not the file shareing doing it, it is the companys they signed up to be serf's for. 254. music has been selling for years - why are they trying to control things now? 255. The end of the music biz is nigh. Good. 256. file sharing helps get the word out. out of all the people i know that share files, they download songs or cds to determine whether or not they like the music. if they likie the music, they legally purchase them, either electronicly, or in a physical form. 257. The record companies are still making money but they are greedy and want to 'maximise' their profits. File sharing allows artists to be heard and not many people could afford to buy the amount of music they listen too. Remember taping? i am saying this as a proffesional musician. Digital music has allowed smaller music companies too succeed and smaller groups to gain popularity. 258. if artists and record company execs lived "standard" upper-middle-class lifestyles, i might be tempted to believe this rhetoric, but the fact remains that they live opulent lifestyles. this is nothing short of "do as i say, not as i do" 259. RIAA has their head in the sand! It's a new age for music and the consumer is sick of being ripped off for one hit over hyped bands. Cost to sell on-line should give the customers lower prices and no DRM tricks. 260. Most Peopel I know that downlaod Music Go Out and Buy teh CD i fthe Like it so that they can get a Higher Quality of Audio. 261. Most Artists never made much money due to unfair conditions in record contracts. The Record Companies make most of the money. The Record Companies are still making money today. The sales of music online is even more profitable for the Record Companies than selling CD's. 262. Major labels are doing worse, but independent artists and labels are growing in success. Artists who have decided to go that route, are having much less overhead, and they don't owe their labels exhorbitant amounts, but they're still finding success. 263. RIAA should allow the on line sale of non DRM songs, at a fair price. That's all. I buy from regular juke box and after I make a CD, since I want to hear what I bought on any reader, and I own two ipods. If I buy something it's mine, not allowed to use until the pc crash and I must be free to give it away for free or to sell. The price of some old records is to high on line. Open the doors and the market will open! 264. good people pay for music 265. Like any industry over time, the music industry is changing. They make more money than ever via touring. People are still willing to spend their money on the musicians. Instead of buying 10,000,000 copies from one artist there is now the opportunity to be exposed to hundreds more artists, purchase their paraphenalia, and watch them tour. The money simply goes to a wider base of musicians (not all on major labels) and success is now based on the music more than the marketing. 266. I never got the impression that the companies involved in the RIAA gave 'their' artists much of a cut to start with, so perhaps certain artists are losing their money, but as far as I can see the record companies are still filthy rich. 267. They are still making plenty money, but it's their duty to maximise revenue and that's what this is all about. 268. Being an artist is not about getting rich but getting their art known, and being able to live thanks to our art too, and the first one leads to the second. As for the record companies, they should be there to help artists, not to get richer than them. Finally, it's anyway the most popular, most of the time most "manufactured", hence those "artists" concidering their art as mere products, that are complaining the most about 'file sharing'. 269. The RIAA hogs all the money for themselves, giving little back to the artists. 270. They work a few weeks a year and are millionnaires, only getting richer. I work darn hard for my money and I deserve every penny. 271. Just don't believe it. Record companies are "COMPANIES". No profit, no company. 272. Record companies have a proven record of not paying royalties and dreaming up ever increaseing ways to increase the lengh of ip laws to help them selves to more money. IP was formed for the person who made the item not for corporations to exploit years after that persons death. 273. The RIAA exists and has the resources to sue people. If it was hurting them, they'd be complaining from paper bags, not cushy offices. 274. They're making boatloads of money. 275. The RIAA member companies are still making obscene amounts of money, piracy or no, and the artists are making next to nothing in comparison. 276. When I stop seeing rappers I've never heard of on MTV Cribs with 18 cars and houses with rooms they don't even remember what is in, then I will feel sorry for them. As long as untalented horrible artists are still coating everything they own in chrome and 24karat gold, I'll keep sharing. Besides, the record execs get too much of the money. It's not fair to the artists that some rich clown in an ivory tower gets 1/4 or more of the money they make. 277. The labels are taking all the money,NOT the artists. 278. The labels represented by the RIAA are misguided and blind to the changes in the market place. They haven't figured out how to capitalize on p2p so they think they have to crush it. King Midas comes to mind, how much is enough? 279. Music companies making millions, artists making small percentage!!! 280. everyone is still getting rich. 281. The RIAA is clinging to an old system that cannot survive and they know it. Eventually the old system will become something new, but the more kicking and screaming there is from the RIAA, the worse of a transition it will be, and the lesser role the RIAA will play in the future. They are causing their own downfall in their arrogance. 282. Nobody is suffering. 283. I don't know about record companies, but I can see it for the artists...they have to make their money from tours and merchandising. 284. I think some artists are hurt; some aren't or aren't hurt much and some might actually benefit. I don't see solid evidence that the fall in music sales is due to illegal file sharing. What about competition with other media, such as DVD, video games, web surfing, youtube, etc.? 285. Check out their bottom line profit figures and you'll still see the large money they make. If the modernise and lower prices they'd make more. 286. They are just crying "poor" 287. Why is it that most of the record companies still make lots of money, still take most of the artists hard earned money.. and so on.. I buy merchandise straight from the artists and go to their concerts. I support the artist (if we talk dollars and cents) much more than people who buy the cd and essentially give the record company a 90+% cut. The RIAA's big four already make enough money as it is. 288. A bunch of fat cat salespersons out to rip off everyone they can, including their artists and employees. Their track record of corruption is legendary. Now the've bought politicians. 289. Record compamies make their money of record sales, artists make their money off of tours 290. The artists make a ton of money, the record companies just want more so they can widen the gap between the upper and lower classes. 291. too many parasites 292. The record companies are still making good profits, just a lot less profit than before. Also, from what I can see, artists are still quite well off. Especially the more popular ones. 293. Record companies just want more money and the artists have been getting screwed out of money for so long. P2P cuts out the middle man (record companies) and gives the artist more control. 294. RIAA sucks and as an artist we need to get with the digtal world. I might not make as much selling my to expensive cd but I can see good sells from itunes, allof mp3 etc 295. CDs are much too expensive. It's theft. 296. the riaa is nothing more than a lobbying group for corporate greed, the artists are making no more or less than they were before file sharing. 297. The Album is no longer the primary format and the record companies have squandered the goodwill of the public by trying to force a price point for digital music that many no longer accept. Sharing is return does benefit artists as it allows people to have access to and experience music they otherwise would never here (primarily due to the monopolization of media outlets by a few corporations). 298. They could all stay alive and be big in bussiness 299. nobody know how much exactly is bein lost on file shading and how many people downloading these filles will ever buy the record in case it will not be possible to download it. its all only a theory on how to present "their truth" (of the record companies, artist, organisations "protecting" artist's rights etc...) 300. People are still buying CDs, and piratism doesn't make them more poor. 301. i think music sharing via internet allows groups a venue to gain exposure and be discovered. 302. The companies and the artists still make money. The only reason that artists might make less money, is because any lost revenue is taken from the artist rather than the company. The RIAA and several of the companies it represents, has been sued, and lost for price fixing on CDs. The companies the RIAA represents has been sued for payola and lost. Perhaps loss in revenue may also be due to the amount the companies pay the lawyers. But either way, any "loss" is exaggerated and probably a lie. 303. The RIAA and record labels are just greedy and they want to have control over what you listen to. Money breeds greed. 304. none of the top CEOs in this industry have taken a pay cut. 305. I think these artists are more then well enough for themselves. The average income is something like $40,000 a year and I know most of them are getting more than that. If they aren't, take it up with the producers and everyone else that gets the money. Think about it, if a cd costs roughly $15 and they sell even 100,000 cds, that's 1.5 million dollars that is being made by someone. I could do a lot with 1.5 million... 306. It is not a matter of how I personally see the RIAA's business, but rather that the numbers indicate that they are doing fine, despite (or perhaps because of) being an illegal ogopily. 307. The RIAA cannot accept that the public are starting to realise the real value of music and are wanting to pay the fair price for unrestricted music - especially in this digital age where overheads are a fraction of providing hard-copies of music. The RIAA could be cashing in on this digital age if they catered for the audience, but instead they have left the audience to cater for themselves. 308. The economy is changing, and the RIAA is trying to hold onto an outdated and bloated business model. 309. They seem to be bursting with profit 310. too many no talents make way too much money for the tripe they purvey. 311. The music industry spend huge amounts of money in marketing etc, they are by no means poor! If they can pay Robbie Williams £80m ........ 312. if you download a song and like it. it encourages you to buy the CD 313. The live industry is booming, the majors are still spending colossal amounts trying to market average acts and bands that have avoided the major route (e.g. Enter Shikari) are selling CDs and tickets without them. 314. Complete Bullshit. If they weren't getting rich, where did they get the money to go after everyone & run all this propaganda bullshit. 315. Record companies make money by selling music (records, Cds, tapes, ect.). Artists made their money by touring. 316. Spin 317. In my opinion, the RIAA is greatly exaggerating the effect of filesharing on artists. 318. RIAA is extorting money from both customers and artists for their own profit. 319. $$$$ 320. This claim makes me laugh. I think record companies are still making their money, but they're scared to death because their stellar income is decreasing. Instead of following the market, they want to maintain us in ignorance simply because doing so they can continue to lazily amass money. Artists may be in real danger, but not because of us: it's because of the greedy nature of their own recording companies. 321. Using a pre-internet business model which cannot work. 322. RIAA is making the money not the artist. RIAA should fold up and get with technolgy 323. These companies are fat and lazy and unwilling to move forward with the rest of the World into the online age. If they sell a CD, even an online version, it's 1 box or download they can notch up on a spreadsheet, 10 bucks in the bank to show the shareholders. Anything that requires an ounce of thought beyond that is equally beyond *them*. Grass roots free dispersal of new acts on Web 2.0 systems? 'Piracy'. Sharing a beloved track/album with close friends to spread the word about the band you love? 'Piracy'. Downloading a copy of a new album from a bit torrent site, listen to it and think it's Great and go out and buy it? 'Piracy'. It makes you sick it really does. 324. Anything the RIAA says is BS 325. My main problem with the whole situation is not the fact of intellectual property theft, which I feel is heinous. But, the stubbornness of the RIAA to adapt to the changing times. Virtual media should be embraced. The record company has never allowed the artist to make the deserved money for their intellectual property. 7-10 percent is abhorrent. 326. I know many people who still buy albums because they like having the box art, etc. and like to support the artists. I also know many people that buy music on iTunes because it's the "right thing to do". Most (but not all) people that download music will do so to listen to it for a short amount of time. If they couldn't download they would probably just wait and hope to hear it on the radio. There are still people who download large collections of music which they would have otherwise bought, but they are a minority. 327. The labels take tons of money away from the artist. 328. I don't think any artists are going hungry 329. I see that people are more apt to listen to a certain album/genre that they may not have if they had to pay 13-20 dollars for the album in a record store. I see people around me still buying records that they would have bought if file sharing was not around. 330. Things haven't changed much.... 331. the business model of riaa/mpaa is dead with the demise of the distribution chain. 332. it's a fantasy industy with record companies adding little value in the chain between artist and buyer. 333. Music indusry is no more a high margin industry. It has evolved from a lean and costly music offer with high concurrence barrier to a massive offer industry with low concurrence barrier. For decades, music industry profited from inflated cartels price ; now, music industry refuses to admit that the time for high margin is gone, refuses to lower its prices, refuses to break its cartel anticoncurrential illegal agreements, refuses to build a large cheap efficient modern non DRM offer including music from the past for which there is no more registering available, causing the whole industry a severe depression because of its incapacity to adapt to XXI century reality. 334. untrue 335. Record companies, artists, and every else involved are still making money. Artists are still selling record-breaking numbers of albums. 336. Artists do not make their money from recordings but from live appearances. The more famous the more they can charge. 337. If they by fact are getting rich, how can it be a fallacy? 338. No lifestyles are changing. Britney is still a millionaire, Execs are still buying boats, and even the less successful artists like Dan "Automator" Nakumara are still doing very well. 339. just offer your songs for a fair price, i wont pay money for copysecured shit i cant burn for playin in my car! 340. Anyone who thinks artists on major labels have to endure any real financial hardships is a moron. 341. The artists are so rich, it seems like all the can author is songs about money, expensive items and being rich. 342. I've seen musicians wearing several pounds of gold, surrounded by body guards, also gold encrusted, arrive at casinos in luxury liners. Thier distain for other people and the help were obvious. They think they're getting over on us. 343. The money is still there to be made just in different ways. 344. The music industry is just as successful from pay-to-download services like iTunes and even free sharing as it is from purchased CDs. 345. RIAA collects for itself and the corporations and gives nothing to the artists. 346. A monopoly is being threatened; this is an attempt to prevent further damage to the monopoly that the media associations currently enjoy. 347. Artists do make money, and probably are in the top 5% of any the countries richest. I do not see any fallacies in owning jets, castles, holiday villas and resort islands. 348. I see any suffering on the indusrty part as self induce due to overpriced cds and no talent artists. 349. Artists make their money when they are on tour. Artists do not get anywhere near their fair share of record sales too. Listening to freely available music inspires people to buy music anyway. 350. Everyone has to work harder and provide more value for the money. 351. If anyone's been robbing artists, it's the recording industry itself. 352. they are still getting rich. hundreds of sales won't affect the artists or the record companies but the stores that sell them as the stores buy the cds of artists from the record company. 353. record companies and artists are richer than ever. 354. Heard of the rust belt Times are a changing RIAA does not get it 355. The real money never went to the artists. The record industry is an industry of blood sucking parasites 356. They still keep getting money from live concerts, which have not suffered and are usually what gives them more money than the CD sales as per se. And record companies still get the money even if the CD's aren't sold, as they sell them to the music stores. 357. Artists would sell more records if their Product offerings were better..Also the reason they are not selling, is why buy a album when only 2 or 3 songs are worth listening to. Indepent artists on the other hand have more consistant quality with their CD's therefore taking away sales from boring homogenized mainstream artists..Lets the RIAA give money by incentives of quality,not by gambling like they have been on potential sales. It is not the consumers fault.. 358. Any decline in their earnings is far more to do with the fact that they have competition from computer games, cell phones, DVDs and any number of other ways for me to spend my money. This competition was negligible 10 years ago but now it's a major factor. 359. Music is bigger than ever 360. they can afford the lawyers to sue people. they still have a lot more than the average person they are suing. it looks like artists are really struggling on MTV cribs, doesn't it? 361. Most bands are getting more screwed by Record Companies than anything else. What royalty rates do most bands get? 362. The rIAA is getting rich off of the lawsuits, and using them to gain more funds to sue more people. they won't even let artists themselves distribute music online, even if the artist themselves want to do so! The RIAA has way too much money, and they're a bunch of greedy crooks that need to be put out of business! 363. How can it be a fallacy if they are making money and getting rich? How many record company executives and artists have lost their houses and lives due to a lack of money? 364. The music industry is doing just fine and is doing just fine. It seems more like exceptional greed to me, going after college students? They don't have any money, but you can scare them and get a bit. Do that to several thousand and you make quite a tidy sum. 365. The artists are still getting rich. 366. They are still making more than enough money it's just less than before, mostly because people are tired of them peddling the same old crap more so than file sharing. 367. Screwed 368. Of course the record compainies are still making money! Look at all the CD sales, and the majority of people that download music use iTunes anyway! 369. RIAA is adhering to an outdated business model, and using fear, uncertainty and doubt to avoid dealing with reality. 370. Record companies do get a lot of money, i.e. through ringtones. However, artists are still getting a ridiculously low cut of the price of an album or track. Even when the middle-man (think CD manufactures) is dropped, like with iTunes, artists don't earn more than a few cents per track. 371. File Sharing can make people wanting to buy the original CD 372. The RIAA is a racketeering agency akin to any of the mobs in America. They're victimizing people based solely on greed. If it wasn't so why would they go after sites like allofmp3 who pay high percentages of royalties to artists? They fear change and so like any troglodyte they tried to simply kill competition. They are luddites who fail to understand that the old days of forcing music on people in the only structure they understand is over. If I were in political power I would bring the RIAA under congressional review and treat them like any other organized crime entity. 373. The RIAA is inherently dishonest, and have proven themselves to be liars so many times in the past - why should I EVER believe ANYTHING they have to say? 374. Artists ARE still getting rich. Record companies ARE still making money. Maybe less than before, but who cries when out-moded businesses go the way of the dinosaur? Who is clamoring for subsidies for the Pony Express? Should Western Union sue people for not sending telegrams? The record industry should get its act together and stop relying on outdated business practices, alienating their customers, and price-gouging. 375. If the record companies are not making as money as they used to, it's because they insist on clinging to an outdated business model. 376. Only a select few artist ever get much royalties anyway. Most artists, even ones with hits, get the shaft. File sharing has little affect on the artists. I understand that the record companies are losing a Cash Cow on CD sales. CDs are WAY overpriced, and I-Tunes, etc, is as expensive and more restrictive. The record companies have failed to prepare for the technological changes, and it is their own fault. They need to come up with a business model that fits current trends. If not, they deserve to go the way of the doe-doe. 377. Appear? If you get rich you get rich, how can one appear? 378. They are making money, lot of money .. 379. Fat Cats 380. Record companies need to change w/ the times, the current state of buying is not working anymore. Regardless, artists and companies are still making a fortune, file sharing has little effect on record sales. 381. artist are still making enough money and would make a lot of more if the record companies got their act together and give the customers what they want: DRM free music at low prices. At low prices people won't bother looking for illegal downloads but would purchase them legally. Just look at the success of AllOfMp3.com 382. Pop artists still make exceptional amounts of money and the RIAA execs don't seem to be suffering. 383. The RIAA are parasites on legitimately talented artists. They take too much money from the hands of those artists and spend the rest of the time flooding the market with overproduced clones of overproduced mediocrity. 384. Any time an artist DOESN'T make any money, they need to re-evaluate their marketing decision and take another look at their recording contract. 385. Record companies are getting rich on the backs of a majority of their artists. The only "artists" getting rich are majors like Metallica, et al. 386. The RIAA refuses to evolve and would rather return to the days when they just sat back and raked in the dough instead of adapting to a shrinking global village. File sharing is not hurting the music industry... its the RIAA and it's stranglehold on the music industry. 387. Most artiists I'm aware of still get a pittance from record companies. Royalties tend to go to the composers. 388. I have read statistics that for every $1 USD that the is paid for a CD, the "industry" (i.e., NOT the artists) get $0.89. That is the definition of obscene profits, and is gouging consumers AND artists. The RIAA and their corporate pirates should take less profit. 389. The recording industry is making huge sums of money still and would make more if they embraced the new ways of listening to music instaed of fighting every new thing that changes the way people enjoy music. 390. Publicity, through music sharring always benefits the artists in the end -- many artists I am huge fans of (and purchase their CDs), I discovered through file-sharring. 391. Not everyone will pay for the songs, IE: Cassette & VCR tapes. They tried this with them too AND LOST. Now they are upset that they cannot control a technology that they let loose before securing it. Your problem. 392. The RIAA is loseing money they are trying to protect there jobs... the real rip off is the 10 songs on an album for $20.00 and only 2 are good songs 393. As long as they still exist it means they get enough money. Otherwise they would do something else. 394. the recording industry is making money, but it isn't generating the number of multi-million selling albums that it's grown used to. 395. The artists are getting ripped off by their record companies. The few high up in the pecking order in the record companies want more. 396. The big four simply aren't concerned about the smaller artists they claim are the real victims. 397. Record companies are still making their money and they are still screwing the artists as much as they can. Very few artists have ever gotten rich. 398. I think the record companies are afraid the artists won't need them anymore, and they are doing whatever is possible, even if illegal and unethical, to maintain control. 399. They just refused to join the technology race. 400. There is still always the core of people who buy music, go to concerts, and even decide to download before they buy. The labels and artists are still getting their fair share of money. 401. I believe they are overstating the supposed 'impact' file-swappers are having on the industry in the vain hope of gaining sympathy in Congress. The simple fact is, the money the record companies and artists make from tours alone will be more than I will ever see in my lifetime. 402. The music industry continues to push manufactured music that reproduces a number of basic forms, raising up and disposing of an endless series of one hit wonder artists. Buyers of the chart hits have become disenfranchised with artists who only produce one song worth listening to, and as a result they turn to file-sharing to get some kind of value for money. Meanwhile the internet has allowed smaller indie artists to proliferate, and to continue to break out at an almost unprecedented rate. The music industry is not dying, it's just becoming decentralised, with fringe artists and small sub-genres benefitting from the "long tail" effect. The big five publishers need to justify their failings in front of their share-holders and choose to do so by blaming their poor sales on the straw-man villain; piracy. The practical reality is that most people use file-sharing as a means of sampling music, and continue to buy what they like. 403. If record companies weren't making profits (or looking forward to making profits in the medium-run) they would stop operating. They clearly aren't even thinking about this. Many major recording stars make wages that an economist might classify as 'supernormal'. This keeps prices artificially high. Add to this the fairly sizeable profit made by major recording companies, and the price of music is, in the minds of many consumers, artificially high so they look for a way of circumventing this. If music fans were able to pay musicians (and technical people) directly for their music, we would see lower prices, a more honest system and less piracy. 404. RIAA are greedy crybabys, with their own agenda. There have always been people who wouldn't buy an album even if it was free -- and there always will be. This current situation is nothing new. Lets go back to 1976 and home taping.... Instead of suing KIDS, maybe they should force artists to work harder to give people their money's worth for that $18 for a single CD. And maybe they should figure out that if AOL can afford to give away FREE a cd with artwork, CDs shouldn't cost $18 to a kid who doesn't even have a job yet. Finally, lay off the myriad of foreign country sites that also sell music. If they're illegal as the RIAA claims, how did they get the music to sell in the first place, and, how come Apple hasn't complained yet that they're sales are down? Enough! 405. Compare the price of DVD's with CD's, any new DVD will drop to about £5 in a very short time, not so with music. Yet music does not require the same level of production costs as movies, so why the high continued high prices? Is it not Greed and salary comfort of industry leaders and the artists themselves, most of which display no real talent genuine originality, especialy amoungst the chart topping morons of recent times. The real victims are the customers, and have been for a long while now, and will probably continue to be if good reliable web sites like allofmp3 are bullied and crippled using underhand methods. 406. I have bought MORE CDs from shops than I EVER used to buy soince I started sharing and downloading . You simply find MORE groups to love !! 407. I see that file sharing has no impact on a reduction of sales, the record labels have been very slow to listen to what the customer wants and insist on putting DRM on music that has been leigtimatley bought, if you had the choice between paying for something restricted or getting it free in better quality and not restricted, what would you choose? 408. money in money out 409. record companies and artists would make more through increased exposure of worthwhile titles whereas dross would get more efficiently weeded out 410. most musicians make their money from other things such as live performances and selling merchandise. It's record companies who make money from actual record sales, unless the band is absolutely massive. The record companies need to evolve to suit what their customers wants. 411. The recording industry is getting richer, same as always. They're using online file sharing as another means to garner more cash and make sure everyone feels bad for the poor, hard done by millionaire RIAA moguls and musicians. 412. IF THEY EARN 5 ZILLIONS INSTEAD OF 10 ZILLIONS THEY SAY THEY ARE LOSING 5 ZILLIONS. I WOULD SAY THEY ARE STILL EARNING 5 ZILLIONS. OR THAT THEY DID NOT EARN AS MUCH AS THEY EXPECTED. BUT YET, THEY ARE EARNING AN AWFUL AND DISGUSTING LOT. 413. Bears are Catholic. and the Pope dislikes indoor plumbing 414. Too many inbetweeners making profit of artists work. 415. Artists are still earn millions. There is more than enough money to go around, giving everyone in the industry a fair wage. 416. tHOSE ARE TOTAL LIES!!! 417. They can make a fair profit - their prices are too high. 418. The record companies are greedy bastards who produce drivel. Prices are dictated only because of monopolistic collusion between said companies. Artists are getting rich, but are still overpaid for their value to society. 419. Music sales are up. Loss from P2P is perceived and simply cannot be quantified. 420. Record companies never helped anyone why should anyone give them money? 421. they profit from over-marketing and selling largely crap music wrapped around one half-decent song per album. they hold back the arts, not advance them. 422. The music industry are screwing everyone over especially potential talented artists who are ignored in the face of maufactured groups, simply because for these, profits and controllability are maximal. 423. The RIAA has enough backing to pick and chose it's own fights, and unfortunately for it's own sake hasn't taken to read into the future of music distributiona and those artists' that rely on the RIAA may be paying the price for it. 424. I think the music industry is changing. So artists aren't going to get as much money. They're still getting a whole lot more than the rest of us. 425. Utter Bulls**t 426. Record companies are still making money and (some) artists are still getting rich. 427. Artists don't make the money...RECORD companies do. For every Madonna or Rolling Stones, there are a million smaller acts that have to tour incessantly to make ends meet. 428. Music companies artificially raise the price of CDs in order to increase their profits. They then drop the price back to a reasonable level if there is a public backlash, but quickly re-raise it once the story is forgotten. The companies will lease or lend an artist the trappings of an extravagant lifestyle while their albums are selling, but use shady accounting practices to avoid actually paying royalties to the artists. 429. 1.) Record companies are still making money, including from sales of artist-related merchandise and concert venue income. You can't download a T-shirt. 2.) The wiser artists, recognizing that it's useless to rant against a tsunami, have caught the wave instead and are cutting out middleman by offering their music directly to the consumers (i.e. "direct-to-download" distribution). It's the wave of the future, you're either riding it or are drowned by it. 430. The record companies & artists will always get richer, that is a fact 431. The record companies are still making money and artists are still getting rich because the music is being sampled by more people than ever before. The people that like the music will INDEED BUY IT. 432. The music industry and the artist that provide songs for us are making a "Boat" load of money off of its fans. I feel once I buy that song, I can share it with any one I want. It not as if the artist or the music monkey's "RIAA" is going to come to my house and take back the song I bought. I entered into no agreement with them that I sould not share said song. With that said, If I buy a song or two and I want to share it with friends I am going to do just that. Will I lose sleep over the fact that the artist is not going to get his money from my friends, I think not. 433. Record companies inability and refusal to come to terms with the changing attitudes towards them and the versatility of the digital format and restrictions of DRM to end users are the real causes. 434. The record companies and the artists will always be making their money regardless of how much filesharing goes on. 435. I think the RIAA are nothing but a bunch of extortionists. Charge what the music is worth and I'll start buying from them. Until then, never will I buy another CD. 436. They just aren't making as much money as they think they should, but they are still making more than they deserve. 437. Artists aren't getting the money anyway, RIAA is. Thats why artists have to tour so much. 438. In my view, it's the record companies that lose, NOT the artist. The artists only get a sliver of the profits from record sales...that is why you see groups touring until they're senior citizens... =) 439. the riaa uses the media to spin the facts to their advantage. their traditional business model ( 1 super album to support all the less sucessful ones) no longer works we are buying only the individual songs that we like. The record companies are making money as well as the artists but it is no longer able to support their prehistoric overhead. 440. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. 441. Though it would appear that record companies are still making their money and that artists are still getting rich, these impressions are...actually true. 442. The RIAA only exists for money, and money alone. 443. They are still making money just not as much. It has brought a normalization to an industry that otherwise inflated prices and thought only of itself. 444. The artists do not make a fair share compared to the rest of the music industry. With online distribution sites like iTunes, Apple makes more money than it should due to the DRM process. The whole way the music industry is set up is backwards. If labels want to continue making money, do not set up an economic model where it costs $1 a song, this is unreasonable. Have fair prices and have 90% go to the label and artist and the rest to the distribution agent. 445. They're making millions, if they weren't they wouldn't continue making CDs. Have you ever seen MTV Cribs? Every musical artist on the show is living in mansions with bathrooms bigger than my house! Not only do they have huge homes, they're driving around in cars that cost more than my yearly income. 446. These impressions are accurate. 447. Artists are still getting rich, and the music industry is still making money. Filesharing has broadened consumers buying habits and made them more unpredictable (and pursuadable), which is something the RIAA doesn't want. Most good artists would still do what they do if they made nothing at all anyways, becuase they like to create music. 448. All about money. They are making money. They just want more. 449. The world market for artists now numbers multiple millions, therefore music sales produce much higher returns than ever before in history. Record companies can earn the same amount as they did before, even if they reduce prices significantly. 450. The record industry has failed to adapt to the environment and instead tries to force everyone to keep doing it the way it has always been done. If they started offering Albums online in the way that allofmp3 does for REASONABLE PRICES and without DRM then I would probably use these services. I don't think I spend less money on music than if I bought CDs... I just try more! 451. the greedy record companies hire the over-zealous RIAA people to make as much money as possible. 452. Record labels are earning about the same amount of money they always have, while artists are still getting screwed. Labels earn massively higher amounts of money than artists for any type of sale. Note: this only applies to the Big Four labels and their subs. 453. people wouldn't be in the industry if they weren't making money 454. This industry has consistently feared and opposed every new technology while always reaping greater profits once forced into adoption. They have no credibility and, apparently, are incapable of ever learning from their mistakes and procrastinations. 455. The record company's are the only ones that ever made money off albums. 456. the RIAA is a mafia cartel making all the money while the musicians are screwed. 457. Record companies are making recoed profits and artists are earning more than I can. 458. DRM's suck!!! 459. they all get paid too much anyway 460. The record companies are still making good money from back catalogue sales, but the recent artists who they are largely promoting are rubbish and not what the larger proportion of the buying public want to buy. Hence there are many artists/bands doing their thing via independents and/or the web who are doing very nicely. e.g. Marillion. 461. It's stupid to think the record company owners aren't sleeping on a pile of money every night. 462. The recording industry has been gouging its artists for years. Few artists trying to "break-in" to the business see any financial gain from the sale of their music. The RIAA members screw the artists out of any royalties claiming they have to charge the production and promotion costs back to the artists against any royalties. The industry has everything structured so that there's no risk to the companies, only the artists. Fuck the "industry." 463. The business model is failing, not the artists or record companies. The artists will always be paid in one way or another...it's the level to which the RIAA and recording companies are needed that might change. 464. If the weren't making money and getting richer, they would either be in bankruptcy or stop producing the crap the call music. 465. I think that consumers are now more empowered to choose how to purchase desired media. Companies are supposed to serve people that is how capitalism works. If a company does not serve properly it will do poorly. Actually the money is merely being distributed more to the people that deserve it, and the companies that serve the best products. 466. If I and 10,000 other people were to download music illegally, oh no, the Artist won't be able to afford their umpteenth Ferrari until next year. How devastating.... 467. the fact that bands can still make bajillions of dollars proves the music industry has nothiing to bitch about. if "american idols" can be come millionares from selling their crap then big business music still has a market. What they need to do is go back to economy 101 and study a supply demand graph and analize elasticicy of demand and surplus and shortages 468. The rich are getting richer. 469. they're signing bad artists and wasting money 470. As I understand it, artists make most of their money through ticket sales. The internet and file-sharing in particular provides far greater exposure for most artists than they would otherwise receive. Record companies are still making money through physical media sales, but they should shift their focus to promoting artists online and distributing music electronically. They should also allow for the distribution of music through file-sharing. This would be of the greatest benefit to all involved, including the fans. 471. they're still getting rich! 472. labels gets most of the money 473. There is more music than ever now. How do you explain this of things are financially so bad for the industry. 474. Nil 475. The fat cat's are getting fatter 476. Music artists needs to adapt to the new world, NPR had a piece on a musician that recorded his own instrument at home, and bought the other instruments on the internet (in the piece, the drums) for approximately $120 per song and instrument. It is then released through stores like e-music. This basically cutting out the middle man. The artist sells fewer songs/albums, but makes more money per song, and does not have to float a ridiculous studio bill from the record company, making it hard for a small artist to survive. This way more artists can live off their music, and we get more music to listen to. Its a win-win for everyone except the record inustry. Tough luck for them, but same thing happened to the button makers, and horse carriage makers and so on. It is called evolution... 477. i buy the stuff i like. 478. N/A 479. Record companies still making money = True. It is getting harder for them but it is more to do with their bad marketing than piracy. Artists still getting rich = False. By their own admission less than 1 in 10 signed artists ever make it. A level playing field will allow more artists to make a living at the expense of a few becoming insanely wealthy. 480. no loss of revenue, just additional exposure 481. first part yes, second part no. artists just aren't getting a sweet enough deal 482. record industry getting rich and the talent not getting much, never has from record Co. 483. The record companies steal from the public and artist alike, and have been for since before the birth of Rock 'n' Roll. 484. bad music = low sales 485. they own the artists 486. I think the record companies should put out good music rather than the junk they put out now days. If you look at a lot of independent labels that put out quality music you will find they are making a nice profit and growing. That's what is causing the RIAA grief and big labels, not file sharing. 487. I started buying CDs because of Napster! And I mean the old-good-free-Napster... 488. As U2 said: "What's ruining the music industry is just BAD music" 489. Well I'm certain that the record companies are still making money and some artists are still getting rich. I mean they report their quarterly profits. The fact that the RIAA lies and spins facts is not surprising to me. 490. It's a same, scholars like the "Ying Yang Twins" who have trouble stringing a sentence together are making in the /low/ millions... I have a couple degrees and I'm not doing badly... but not making the kind of money the poor RIAA artists are scrpaing by with 491. They are rich as hell and still screwing artists. 492. 50 cent doesnt need any more money. 493. record profits 494. The record companies continue to get richer by exploiting the artists. 495. I see that people still buy the cds and music from the artist and they are making ass loads of money but they still want more. 496. If they still have money to pay for subpoena - I guess they are not broke yet ;) 497. They have all the money they want in the world 498. ... 499. Grocery & furniture stores dropped so many flyers in my local newspaper I had to cancel it - (the trees - the waste). they were forcing me to see their products. I view these files being shared as the artists' flyers. I bet the ones who download songs they actually LIKE end up sending some cash to their fav artist thru other means - purchasing a momento from them like a cd at a show for which they paid a cover charge. 500. The only people this affects is the RIAA and the labels. The RIAA has always poorly represented the artist except for a very few elite artists that also have a huge cadre of lawyers and advisors. 501. Because of the way the label system works, the big five are screwing artists much, much more than file sharing ever could. I'm much less interested in supporting the label's bureaucrats and lawyers than I am in supporting artists. 502. The rich get richer and the poor stay poor. Also if the bands would create good music instead of a good song and 12 crappy songs on one disc they wouldnt have to worry. 503. Artists and labels are making a ton of money....CDs are still marked up to no end compared to cost. 504. I feel that if an artist makes a good record, people are going to purchase it even if they have previously downloaded it. 505. both have money coming out of their ears 506. The way I see it, it's just about 50/50. The big stars are not the ones hurting, and those alt. bands don't mind filesharing. What gives then? Perhaps the ones really affected may be those in the backline, those people that we cannot see. Until they stand up and out, we wouldn't be able to tell. 507. this is a confusing question. they are both making money. 508. The problem is that the Labels are failing to develop artists. They want the quick buck, so if they bring out prepackaged acts and drop them like a hot potato if they fail. The artists and groups they promote are designed to look good, but have no substance behind them. 509. Record companies get richer, everyone else gets poorer. 510. FIRST !!!!! They scary I going for free ,new, not nown musician and artists.They like controll whot I gona be liked. 511. The industry and medium of commercial music is changing due to technological advances. While artists are not making money the way that they used to (selling 8-tracks, vinyl, cassette tapes, and now to a large extent cds), there is still more than ample opportunity for artists to reap the benefits of their creative endeavors in new contexts. 512. just a big exageration by the RIAA to blame the poor profits from mediocre artists or works on ppl instead of improving the industry's products 513. It only affects the record industry itself and not the artists. once the artists sign over their music to a record label, its all in the hands of the record label, therefore, the artists still get their deserved money, but the filthy rich record labels are the ones who get to suffer with only a mediocre "couple million" dollars. 514. Big artists are getting filthy rich, while indie artists can barely make a living. 515. they all still make their money since its in a contract, but the execs just dont get as crazy of a bonus 516. Companies got used to the income generated by people moving from vinyl to cd (like vhs to dvd). Now people have already paid out to update their collections, companies want more. 517. Most signed artists have never really made much money. The record companies, on the other hand, make far too much - at the expense of their artists, no less. Record companies are no doubt making less money these days, but that's because their business models are antiquated. The companies, like any other business, need to stay updated. 518. I run an independent record label and file sharing seems to only have effected our promotion tactics. file sharing does wonders for promotion. our sales have not been effected. 519. Loss of money is caused by retarded songs. 520. Because of online file sharing, non-mainstream artists are now able to more effectively promote their material and generate revenue from touring, publishing, licensing and merchandise--and with less reliance on the financial assistance of large corporations. 521. Greed Sharing is free advertising. Played a song for a friend once. "who is that?" he asked. I told him and he went out and bought every album that the artist had ever done. The radio stations play the same song over and over. p2p allows exposure to new work. 522. The people who are losing jobs and money are the people working for the major record companies, who have largley played out their roles. For the vast majority of people, the demise of the major record labels is a good thing. 523. Skewed system - few artists get major spoils...most artists don't get what they deserve...the fat labels get fatter 524. The record company executives and RIAA's wallets are getting fatter by the day from the bullshit they keep spinning. 525. The real money for artists is in live performance. Fuck the companies, it's about people and the music, not big business. 526. Look at the tax records of companies and artists 527. The RIAA and Rocordcompanies are still making lots of money, but the artists get as little as they can possibly give them. The artist would be better of without the RIAA 528. sales seem ok. 529. i didn't see any artist become homeless since the awakening of file sharers (like when i used to swap cassettes whith mates) 530. The record industry will try to get their fangs into a big chunk of the concert earnings - which have exploded in recent years, enormously benefitting from the free publicity that the P2P community provides. 531. The artists are making tons of money they drive bentlys buy homes for 2-5 million dollars and you say they are loosing money? 532. ...Share What I Know, Learn What I Don't... ...then travel the world for free from networking through universal language : music. ...send large money sum direct to artists' independent labels address/etc, they send it back!?! 533. The Industry is getting rich and screwing the artists out of the money. 534. They'll always recieve money for their music other ways, the record companies are just bitching cause they are losing money 535. They're greedy and they never paid artists to begin with. 536. the only folks getting rich are music exec and their shareholders.... musicians get s*it..the work force gets paid s*hit... 537. The record companies & artists have other income streams that pay more than the recordings do. The recordings are just a vehicle to sell the other merchandising & to get people out to see the artists live. 538. I see the RIAA racking in cash, and giving a minor % to everybody else associated. 539. asdf 540. The only fallacy is in the latter half of the above statement. 541. The rich music companies are not getting as rich any more. The poor artists are still getting screwed same as before. Of course both are making more money than I am, so screw them both! At least I can still pay for the cost of my music... FREE! 542. So your telling me its a there just pretending to be rich. The artisist are still very well off. TO well off they are to spoiled. They need to lose some money, 543. The paradigm is changing, you can't compare things that way. Cultural Industry's profit was determined by overall historical conditions that aren't true anymore. 544. No label has folded. No studio has closed its doors. Fair use for all. 545. More money 546. They are still making money, probably more than before file-sharing 547. record companies are still making their money and that artists are still getting rich 548. The RIAA is not making profits that were based around over-charging for CD's that costs pennies to make - even cheaper than vinyl! They were even investigated for price fixing! 549. There is more diversity. Every band out is not able to make money like the Beatles did and the age of everyone knowing the huge albums are gone. They should invest in better artists and work on prolonging their careers so that they can more money on lower sales from more bands. 550. Record companies still getting rich and the artists sure aren't getting poor 551. Sharing Helps Independent Artist or the small artist by getting there name out. and for big artist, if a album is leaked it can give them positive buzz, and sell more cd's on release. all file sharing helps everyone when viewed positively..and utilized to it's full potential. it's the marketers fault when he can't make money, he needs to find another avenue of revenue. now when a person is making profit off of reselling someone else's work, that is bad sales tactic and should be stopped. 552. The fallacy is ... "the RIAA is good for the recording industry and the artists". The reality is the record labels syphon off more money then the artists ever get to see. 553. They're just not getting as rich as they did before. 554. are you dumb? 555. RIAA is evil, and therefore liars. 556. File sharing is the best thing to happen to the RIAA since air play on the radio. 557. Record companies are stealing the money from the artists and the artists are getting shit. 558. Well, it is a fallacy that artists are getting rich; the record companies are getting rich--the artists for the most part, would be better off working almost anywhere for minimum wage. The same sentiments have been echoed by too many artists in the music business: Courtney Love, Dick Dale, Joni Mitchell. Toni Braxton was stuck with such an onerous contract that the only way she could get out of it was to declare bankruptcy. Later on, apparently the RIAA used some of its political influence to help change the American bankruptcy laws to ensure that doesn't ever happen again. 559. Record companies are still making their money and artists are still getting rich. 560. That is the exact same thing people were saying about cassette tapes when they were first introduced and the VHS- beta-tapes. If people really like music, they will pay for it - as I see it, this 'piracy' will only force companies to make more really good musicians. 561. they make more than me. 562. they're still making money 563. The RIAA has shot themselves in the foot they need to provide competitive online music offerings 564. Record company losses are due to their own short-sighted actions. 565. There is plenty of money for the labels and artistsl 566. Record companies are still making their money and artist are being kept dirt poor other than a few token people meant to hog the spotlight and divert attention from the majority of artists. 567. the **AA is analogous to a union of salesmen reaping more profit than the manufacturers, the design team, the board of executives, the labourers and the store owners all combined. 568. Most of the money goes to advertising and other "bureaucratic" elements. Hell they make money off of the songs played on radio. That means they have topay someone to keep up with that. The artist aren't losing money, its the big guys on top who are worried that their stockpiles of cash won't grow as fast as they'd like. 569. I see record labels spinning numbers and statistics to keep their monopoly because they're unable or unwilling to adapt. 570. They are fool of shit. If they are losing money, it's because their business model is outdated and they refuse to get with the time. I say let them die. Most commercially available music sucks anyway. 571. THE RIAA'S TACTICS EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM MORE THAN IT ACTUALLY IS. FILE SHARING IS ONE COMPONENT OF THE PROBLEM BUT THE PROBLEM AS A WHOLE CONSISTS OF OTHER CONSTITUENTS THAT THE RIAA FAILS TO MENTION BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT INTO THE AGENDA THEY HAVE IN MIND. FILE SHARING IS NOT THE DIRECT CAUSATION OF THE DECLINE IN MUSIC SALES IT IS A CORRELATION. 572. Record Companies failed to see where the market was going (namely online) and have been playing catchup ever since. 573. record companies are still making their money and that artists are still getting rich. 574. I don't feel that artists are compensated fairly regardless of how many albums are sold or pirated. Instead of purchasing a CD at a big box retailer and having the artist receive ~10 cents per track, I would rather download the album and support them by purchasing a concert ticket and buying merchandise at the show. By purchasing a CD at a concert, the artist receives a much larger profit because the artist buys those CDs from the label at wholesale cost and puts their own markup on them. I really don't care how much the labels are making, because they profit much more than the artist anyway. 575. Record companies have sold non-drmed music for a very long time in the form of CDs without losing huge profits. Artists have never gotten rich, discounting the tiny handful of pop-artists that the companies promote. Record companies need to adapt their business strategies to avoid becoming irrelevant in the digital age (ie. to avoid being skipped by new artists, who can make more money promoting themselves online without a middle man, or through excellent drm-free distribution networks such as eMusic) 576. the artists are still making loads of money due to concerts and appearances and such. 577. Plantation owners are always afraid of the great slave rebellion. 578. riaa goes extinct music thrives with monkey off its back. musicians PERFORM like any other person and get paid for PERFORMANCE. Carpenters give up royalties on stairs and follow the performance model. The word ROYALTY comes under scrutiny, revealing the nature and origin of the monopoly of copyright 579. record companies are keeping almost all profits. they are suffering because of the decline in quality and the hassle of DRMed music sites and encrypted CDs. I myself have "pirated" CDs that I own just to put them on an mp3 player 580. MTV. They still make shit music that no sane person would buy. They only advertise 'commercial' bands. So when i want to buy any songs, i have to pay the obscene ad cost to push the shit music. Bastards. 581. They appear to refuse changing their business model, and will use whatever extra-legal or questionably legal practices they can to forestall any change. If anything, the recording industry's shortsighted and blatantly money-grubbing tactics have persuaded me to share more... 582. Artists were never getting that rich except in the absolute top tier of record sales, and I have a hard time believing that the loss to the Record Companies themselves has become that great at this stage. 583. lots of money is still being made 584. Some are getting rich, but most are being hurt. 585. Bleak. 586. Prepared media is dying and RIAA doesn't want to see this. 587. They obviously make a lot of money, if the can't handle spending and investing it's their problem. 588. Artist should focus on live performaces or concerts. Cds or music files should be merely promotional or they can sell them. But if i do buy a cd or music file it is mine. I can throw it away or let my friends have it or share it. The record companys are just taking money from other's work. I really don't see a place for them anyway. 589. errr.... they're still making money... still selling millions of records.... 590. SHaring has become the new radio, but instead it is a bottom-up, grassroots version. I do feel bad sometime for the artists, but I try to see them live or buy their CD. 591. Artists are still making money. 592. They aren't losing, they just aren't gaining. 593. Maybe they say so, but they don't really provide any tangible facts to prove it. 594. The reason the record companies are not making money is the product is less appealing than it used to be. It is over-priced cookie cutter pap. And drm is just killing them! I use file sharing to test-drive indie music, which I then purchase directly from the artists or from emusic, which has no DRM. Also, it has been proven time and again that people WILL pay a fair price for content they value. See: Jane Siberry, who offered all of her music on-line under a 'pay what you think is fair' scheme. She found that less than 20% chose to pay nothing, and of those who did choose to pay, nearly half paid MORE THAN the suggested minimum. 595. music making more money because of file sharing 596. bands and srtists still get get their revenue where they always have- on tour and on merchandising- its the mr 10%'s (more like mr 75%) that suffer- fuck em. The corporations been screwing musos for years they are just pissed we continue to cut THEM out of the equation 597. the record companies mismanged the new technology 598. Artists make nothing on CD's, its around $1 per CD. Even a platnium record is only 1000000 for the entire band. The vast majority goes to the RIAA. 599. more people are being exposed to more genre of music 600. RIAA has put out nothing but garbage for the last 10 years, where are the NEW Led Zeppelins, The Who, Rolling Stones. There are none, our generation is a generation of copy cats, nothing original, so we might as well copy to our hardrives the crap that's out there. The RIAA rapes the artists anyway, does it matter what the RIAA says, no it does not. 601. Problem is that the RIAA is the middle man. It doesn't want money going directly to the artists without getting its own sizeable cut. 602. Hell, they're right: The artists aren't getting rich -- they only get royalties until their massive contract fees are paid off by sales. 603. The artists are who matter, and they make more money from venues and merchandise than they do from their albums. 604. No comment. 605. MTV, and laws allowing Corporations to eat up Record Labels have produced a music industry hell bent on the hit single. My generationg, sadly, is one of the "single," or "track," my parents were of the "album." Why buy a 15 dollar cd for one song? At the absolute most, piracy has just revealed to the masses absurdity that is the music industry. They forget to mention that quality bands still have high cd-sales...good music=$... 606. Record companies and the RIAA as we know them today will eventually disappear. Artists will have a much more direct contact with their fans and will get the bulk of any money. I think that technology is still at a "toy" phase. When it gets more advanced several years from now, music will be availabe anywhere 24/7. It will be seemlessly available and no more clunky devices, but you will have to pay for it. The big difference is the amount you pay. In the future it will be millicents to listen to a song whenever you want but you will pay everytime you listen. Good artists will make a lot of money. Poor artists will fall by the wayside as it should be. No more musice industry created celebrity artists. Nueral net tech to learn what you like and create customized playlists without any time consuming decision making. People will likely pay some small subcription fee to music gurus that they choose to recomend new artists. 607. it's all about the money. 608. Can you say "MTV CRIBS"!! 609. Record companies still ripping off artists in order to maintain profit margins. 610. Record companies are not having an accountant-led inquisition on expenses(the first sign of not making money) 611. The record industry is releasing less quality, and even less quantity - OF COURSE THEY WILL SEE LOWER SALES! Filesharing has nothing to do with their loss of sales! 612. record companies are still making their money and artists are still getting rich 613. The artists are making just as much as they were before downloading was popular. If any are suffering it is more likely because of releasing cut-rate music. 614. The talent pool is nonexistant. Most bands make their money from tours and mechandizing not CD or single sales. radio stations play the same old boring music day after day. Can't tell you the last time I heard something new that excited me enough to run out and buy the album. 615. Free publicity for artists, songs, albums, and when those are more popular and purchased or concerts are gone to... record companies get more money. The RIAA needs to be put out of business and a NEW organization will arise that knows how to conduct proper and competent business in cooperation with todays filesharing technology. When 9 year olds are regularly able to use it... clearly the RIAA is a fool to focus their efforts and money on an unwinable fight. They might as well save that money and pay themselves. If the RIAA complains they have less money, its because they are squandering it on pointless lawyers and feeble attacks against their own customers. If the RIAA continues to start a war, then the RIAA will lose big time. (They better think before destroying their industry - Best Option: Redesign how they do business and make money, or even better... just keep doing business and put out some decent songs and groups! I haven't heard many quality records, and if they are losing money, THIS is why!) 616. cd sales are down, because people have many different options for their entertainment dollars riaa are making huge somes of money from more than just cd's 617. rich artists companies stillmake money 618. As long as artists keep charging $17 for a cd and not allowing you to choose which songs you want to buy, they will continue to get rich. 619. After listening to Pandora, I downloaded the following CDs: Anberlin, Amber Pacific, Flickerstick, Fireflight, The Veronicas. Out of those five, the only one I have not bought YET is The Veronicas. How file sharing would damage, if I bought the CDs of four of five artists I downloaded to try out? 620. I doubt very much that the actual artists are seeing any of the money generated by RIAA/MPAA lawsuits. It appears to only be funding future lawsuits and enabling the content cartel to further streamline their extortion methods. 621. Most record companies shares are going up, thus they are making good money. 622. Record companies aren't adjusting to new market conditions by adjusting their business plan. 623. Well, maybe they're fallacies in the sense that most artists do not "get rich" and never have, but the so-called record companies are still rolling in dough because their money comes from government-enforced monopolistic distribution channels. They get paid even though they don't do any real work. 624. P2P for free, like it or not, is a competitor with CD sales. By the RIAA's reasoning, CD sales should have dropped to 0 by now. They haven't because CDs still provide a better product and service than online sharing. People like to feel a sense of ownership when they buy a CD - you just don't get that when you download an MP3. Artists and record companies are still making plenty of money. The fact is that online sharing has done as much to contribute to music sales as it could have possibly done to harm them. I routinely buy music that I have downloaded to try out. I think what gets them concerns them is that sucky artists don't get up-front sucker sales anymore. 625. File sharing only increases music sales by allowing one to sample music from artists one would not normally not consider buying an entire CD from. 626. How can it be false to appear that they are still making money, when they CLEARLY are making more than damn near anyone with an honest job? 627. It may not be as much, but RIAA members are still making money. Same for the artists. 628. The music business is not dying, it's changing. 629. There business model is broken, and needs to adjust to changing technologies. The cost of producing and marketing an album has become much lower, and they no longer have the monopoly they've enjoyed for decades. 630. their rich 631. It has been covered before... The industry is NOT LOOSING money because of P2P, it is not even loosing any money, only making it more and more... The bastards are greedy and try to get even more money - not by stopping P2P (they know that would make only +0.5% or so of the total annual profit), but rather forcing people to settle and pay big money for something they are not even accused of (no evidence...) Dumb, dumber, RIAA! 632. How can impressions based on reported profits be fallacies unless the reports themselves are false? What other source are they suggesting the public cite? 633. Prices are too high. 20 bucks for a CD is insane, especially with hundreds of much better underground artists around who sell their stuff at half that prize. If the prices of CD's drop, the sales go up. Additionally, a lot of (commercial) music is crap. Usually there are just a very few good songs on an album. It's simply not worth spending the amount of money it's sold for. Sums up: lack of quality and too high prices. Music is a form of art, less a business. 634. The RIAA is just another excuse to control everything. Sharing files is a positive for the music industry. 635. Artists are still getting rich, but possibly fewer are getting rich. Major record companies can probably persist for years. In the long term, a record company that can nurture artists and build a fanbase should be fine. Hit and run pop stars probably fare the worst. 636. CD sales are falling, but artists are still making money. Legal music downloads are making up the difference as well. The fact is that artists make more money by touring; the labels don't pay all that much after their "expenses". 637. That they are? 638. Arctic Monkeys, Lily Allen and many others started by having their music downloaded for free, now they and the record companies are making money. 639. Many of the files shared would never be purchased. As such they can not be claimed as 'lost sales'... as they would never have been purchased. If anything, it's a method to expand their potential market with new listeners. 640. I'll start believing such crap when we start seeing artists begging on the street, not on "The fabulous life of..." on VH1 641. I don't care. 642. Most of the money made on boughten media goes to the RIAA or MPAA. Most of the artsits frankly don't give a shit about online file sharing. File sharing is only a minor factor in the loss of media sales. 643. I forsse a change in structure of the culture "industry". Artist will be more selected by merits and sponsored by advertissement and donations. Large record company and commercials "artist" will disappear. 644. The record companies don't care about the artists, they just care about their own money. 645. filesharing has always been there. A southpark episode describes it best about the celebs loosing money as a result of which they might have to wait another week to buy a new ferrari 360. 646. Same as always 647. They are still getting richer (record companies at least). 648. Sharing music HELPS the artists get their music heard by a new audience 649. I will give them credit that music sales are down due to free music sharing, but I still buy CDs. (Then Rip and share them.) The only profit I make from sharing files is the media I put them on(burning a CD.) If these artists can't put bread on the table because they can't sell thier music, they are in the wrong industry. 650. The RIAA are adying horse, ready to kick at anyone who mwants to eat their food, rather than look for other sources of food 651. I see it that way - I don't buy b/c I can't afford to buy. If I could afford paying for all the music I like, I would, since I see this as support for the artist. Since I can't afford to pay anyway, I'm not really "stealing" anything. By downloading and sharing, I'm actually showing my support, that I like what the artists in question do, and if some day I'm able to buy all the music/movies/books I love, then I'll have no need to "steal", though I still intend to share. But you can't say I'm robbing anyone, since otherwise I wouldn't be able to buy, so I don't think record companies make less money due to people like me. 652. wtf? producing bad stuff is damaging their companies, suing their customers and preventing them from using their products with respect. 653. Is it me or do they still have 7 houses in beverly hills.... Unless it's an small unknown band, who usually don't care about piracy, they are not worthy of my money as they produce crap... (in large ammounts) 654. Not even the RIAA really thinks anyone is losing money. It's not about losing money. It's about losing control 655. The record companies are ignoring the fact that the demand has changed. They deserve to fail and die. 656. -no answer- 657. I'd like to support artists by purchasing digital music if it's good quality and without DRM. 658. record companies are still making their money 659. Let me know when Britney goes backrupt 660. Try it before you buy it, if your like me or my friends then you like to know what your getting into when you get your next cd, music is a passion and thus its important to know that you getting a quality item, 30 second demos are nice, and sure its also nice to use services like napster or whatever but the problem is lack of controll, its what everyone wants (not excluding the RIAA). 661. 'Artist' get payd too much at the expense of others. 662. The record companies are making money because of p2p 663. the artists r doin just fine 664. they're still getting paid 665. lies 666. Music sales went up during the peak of online filesharing - fact. Music sales falling in the last year or so are more due to the RIAA et all failing to remain competitive by exploiting new technologies, and by the generic piss-poor selection of "music" they distribute. To suggest otherwise proves that they are either blatantly lying, or utterly totally clueless...take your pick which. 667. i see the riaa wanting more money so they go out and sue random people and claim that the artists and record companies are losing money. 668. The artists are still getitng paid either way - they're still arrogant, they're still selling merchandise, they're still selling out shows. That's where the money is - NOT in the album sales. 669. Music costs more than movies, how can that be? The price of music has forced me to stop buying. If I download, I download only music I had no intentions of buying anyway. It's not like I stole a CD from a store. It's a victimless act. 670. BS 671. The record companies shot themselves in the foot in the mid nneties. Their recent tactics of 'poll, demography, sign, sell and conquer' are beginning to fail. For over fifty years these people controlled and funded the largest vectors of investment in and info about music. The creating a machine designed to make them buttloads of money. They deserve every bit of this. The artists that are signed and don't hate the machine for what its done to art and their less successful comrades are lucky fools. 672. The execs. are making it big. Unfortunately not all of the artist are getting they're fair share. The record co.s are at fault not P2P users. 673. File sharing gets more people listening to music and enjoying it, because many people wouldn't go out and buy their CD anyway. That should really be what artist's focus on, people listening to their music, not becoming rich and famous. 674. Some artists are still getting rich, ALL the record companies are still getting rich 675. Record companies have it such that innovation is stifled, and to make it into the big time artists have to sign extortionary contracts and conform their music to fit music industry tastes. 676. The market is shifting, with the value of music dropping. Their is still money to be made however with concerts and merchandise. Their is also no longer a need for the record labels as artist can distribute their music very easily with the internet, the new market just means that the RIAA and the labels they represent are no longer needed. 677. they are crazy and charge way too much for cd's, etc. 678. They may not be receiving as much money, but I'm sure they have enough to keep the lifestyle they have become accustomed to. 679. The RIAA missed the boat starting with Napster. 680. Business people sometimes get rich. Most artists are on welfare unless they have a day-gig. 681. Money is still coming, just not as much as potentially possible if all the pirated users are converted. 682. Artist are gaining more visibility through free sharing. Thus fans are buying more legal stuff and people who just want to get an impression can download an trash if they dont like. 683. I see the RIAA as still gaining profits, and now adding up more profits by suing the people that would otherwise support them. 684. Most artists are still getting paid, and most record companies are quite well off, even more so than the artists. The RIAA is leeching off the "cost of doing business" piracy, during a time when the causual comsumer is marred by an abundance of economic problems. Besides if the record companies the RIAA is formed from weren't that rich, they wouldn't be able to fund this idiotic campagn of thiers. 685. listeners are still supporting artists through record sales in festival and live concert ticket sales 686. Sharing is advertising. It increases profits by giving artists exposure. 687. Greedy corporations trying to keep change from happening which will cause them to lose control if change did happen. 688. Record companies need to change their business plans. 689. They're making money, we're getting what we want, what's the problem? 690. Internet downloads can, in fact, be used to turn the industry around. It is obvious that the industry is changing from a disk format to digital file format. Just look at the rate of iPod sales, etc. The industry needs to recognize this, stop bitching about a defunct medium, and embrace the new way. Many artists have already realized this, and offer free downloads of certain songs, which often entice users to either pay for a CD or to download more. Concert tickets and merchandise make up the biggest portion of an artist's income. Look it up, it's a fact. Then stop whining and make some changes! God. 691. I see a huge greedy industry willing to run over poor people for amounts of money insignificant to them...... 692. They are making way too much money. Musicians should make music because they love to, not so they can buy their 16th car and goldplate their faucets in each of their bathrooms in each of their houses. Record companies charge way too much for a CD and take nearly all of the money earned and give little to the artist. 693. Ask the artists and industry workers if they're actually losing money. I'm sure they're NOT. 694. i still see the artists and riaa management living in big houses 695. The riaa is exploiting the artists 696. Online distribution opens up new possibilities for listeners who would otherwise not buy the CD. It spreads the word about upcoming artists. 697. The artists and RIAA are the ones living in mansions. Not me. 698. They've had a monopoly for far to long, easy money for far to long. They dont invest or develop new talent unless the it's some copycat me too band that fits into an easily marketed genre. The whole industry is stagnant just like the pharmaceutical industry. It needs opening up to new competition, monopoly's need to be broken. 699. they make enough the way it is 700. The RIAA is a criminal organization that should be completely and utterly destroyed along with their members. 701. In Canada, stats shows the opposite. Its shows Canada as being a leader in online purchases regardless of made-up RIAA hype. So yes, they are full of it, and its false. 702. Bay City Rollers v Arista Records. This is proof that the RIAA isn't even paying artists, even after 25 years. If the RIAA isn't paying back then, who knows how little they are paying artists now. 703. they have more money than god so why care?? I don't feel sorry for them 704. Thise with talent can get rich, those the record industry promote as flavor of the week will die off. 705. they are getting extremly rich.... 706. bull, make more than one song thats worthy of buying the full cd then i'll buy it 707. CAN't trust anything said by the RIAA... 708. File Sharing Dosent Hurt Artist, All It Does Is Promote Their Songs. Record Companies ARE Still Making Their Money. 709. The statistic's don't lie. 710. "artists are still getting rich" - only the top .5 percent or so make money; most are in thrall to the RIAA: unable to sell their music themselves or to others while under an unconscionable contract. 711. as new technolgies come along so does change, as we see a new media takeover the world we see change, its happened before and it will continue to happen. they are all about profit, so they are at the bottom of the list when it comes to caring or about support the people that actually make the music or do somthing significant. the sharing of music has happened since music was created its what makes music music, the ability to learn and share it freely is what is called exploitation of music, this is what the RIAA is fighthing for, to continue the exploitation of music. 712. riaa is still making money they just want more and more of it 713. lies 714. I see without the "riaa-dollar-eyes" meaning i still know that the music industri still make bucket loads of money on record sales and concerts and merchandise sales and licensing sales, and let's not forget the royalties from radio which taking the whole world into account sums up into quite alot. 715. there reet as cheese 716. Fundamental change in the way music is promoted, distributed and consumed. 717. They should make good music, and make enough money from concerts and selling more music without copy protection online. 718. The RIAA is still getting rich out of the artist's pockets, and lying about the effects of "theft." 719. How many songs have been sold through ITMS??? And they are just one of many online outlets to sell music. 720. Artists make money from concerts and merchandising, the record companies screw then on royalties from cd sales. 721. It's their own fault for not providing the means to purchase music online at a reasonable price. 722. They are losing money, because people hate them. And many buy the downloaded cds they actually like, after listening them time after time. 723. Look at the big picture - Technology is changing, and the RIAA's problem is that they're still relying on an unstable business model. It's nothing that hasn't been said before, but that doesn't make it any less true. 724. File sharing promotes bands, think about the Bootleg Tape trading days of the 80s that helped spread the word about up and coming metal bands creating interest and audiences at concerts. With-out free music swapping, Metallica would have never been heard of. 725. The records companies and artists have earnings up their asses. 726. Most artists make their money from touring or royalties from radio play, neither of which is affected by filesharing. Record companies have their own royalty system for radio play, at least in the UK. 727. It's fucking obvious the artists are making plenty of money. The RIAA knows it, they just don't want to admit they're wrong. 728. File sharing is threatening the labels' control of music, threatening their imposed artificial scarcity. This is immensely good for music and artists, but requires a new business model, probably one centered around music as a service, where there is currently a strong increase in willingness to spend. Independent surveys show that file sharing does not affect CD sales. But if it were true that CD sales _were_ hurt by file sharing, then nothing could be better. Record labels are hurting music and artists and need to die. They do not add value any longer and their monopoly is hurting the value chain. 729. People are still buying and helping to make millions for the RIAA's artists. 730. They are still selling their crappy music with crappy audio quality, still the artists is rich like shit. 731. the reccord companies have been ripping the artists off for years. they only exist on the profilts from tours. the whole industry is a huge ripoff of the artists 732. They are making money, but copyright infringement is reducing that. 733. There are still artists getting rich and the record companies aren't exactly filing for chapter eleven... 734. What makes them fallacies? The industry still sells. 735. They are filthy rich. 736. See statistics on record company and artist intakes. The RIAA refuses to acknowledge the rise of indy record labels and the internet's ability to spread unsigned bands as part of the equation that (marginally) drops their sales. 737. Join the Kopyright Liberation Front 738. The RIAA is a middle-man taking all the money. If artists aren't being paid like the RIAA says, then the RIAA is. 739. music industry needs to come up with the times.. make good music and people will buy... make a cd with 1 good song and the rest crap.. it will be downloaded 740. From what I understand what the RIAA says to the public and what the labels say in their financial statements to the government are two different things. 741. They are greedy bastards, not all artists are greedy bastards, though. 742. the companies are still getting rich, less so the artists. 743. Artists make a good bit of their money from selling merchandise (t-shirts, mugs, pens etc) as well as ticket sales from concerts and other musical and public appearances 744. Artists ARE still getting rich, and they make too much money 745. record companies want to squeeze as much money out of anything they can to get money. its all money money money to corporate America 746. The music industry is rife with people making tons of money off of the public. Everyone from the artists and the criminal middlemen of the RIAA. 747. They are continiuing to make money even though fewer CDs are sold. The RIAA essentially, "count it's chickens before they hatch" to make their claim of not making money due to file sharing 748. if J LO can afford a 6 million dollar ring i really DONT think the record industry is poor!! 749. The record companies are raking in money, but the artists are still getting shafted. 750. the total music or file sharing only account for 1% of the total Profit these guys get out of selling the music Legally, so that shouldn't worry anybody. 751. they're still making money and artisits getting rich 752. The artists are getting rich MEH 753. Total bullshit if one bothers to take a look at their (big 4) income statement and balance sheet 754. record companies are spending too much money on attorneys, artists are still getting screwed 755. RIAA will get richer.... The artist are getting screwed more by RIAA then from "pirates." The RIAA comes in the mafia and demands a cut for "Artist Protection." If the artist tries to go inde to avoid the big labels and the RIAA ridiculous fees they get bullied by there tatics including no air time from radio stations, TV, and other media except the internet. out of a $17 CD $1 is the actual item, the $15 goes to both the RIAA and the label $1 goes to the artist. Out of the $15 $5 goes to RIAA $5 for promotion $5 to the label's pocket book. The RIAA takes that money and throws it away to go on legal crusades that have no legal merit and to line there own pocket books. 756. just a front, greedy bastards, they need to leave individuals alone, 757. The only artists who get rich are those who fulfill their lengthy contracts and manage to remain popular. The record companies get rich at the expense of artists. 758. Deindustralisation of music. Nobody need these industrial parasites. Age of industrial revolution ended. Somebody plz kill these dinosaurs finaly. 759. The record company takes most of the money from album sales. All the artists see is less than five percent of the total income from cd sales, even if that. 760. I'm still doing the same thing I was doing in the 60's when it was said to be alright. That is getting a song or songs for free. The methods have changed. Instead of getting them from the radio with tape, I now get them from the internet as a digital file. Times and technology changed is the only difference. (This is the first comment section for those questions below 10.) 761. Fancy cars and big houses? THey are still making money. 762. 0 changed product is bad 763. The RIAA can't have it both ways. Either they are falsifying their continued success or they are falsifying their devastation. Because there is no apparent evidence that the latter is occurring (apart from their own statistics), then it is this that they are falsifying this. 764. They are makeing a bundle. 765. RIAA seems to be gradually increasing sales but the number of people accessing there content has boomed and they want to milk these new listeners. 766. Music companies are unhappy that they can no longer keep scamming customers with such high prices, and cheat artists with restrictive contracts 767. LMFAO .. that is why the rappers can afford 7 sets of teeth for each day of the week ,,, all with different jewlry ... yeah .... suffering .... they may only be able to but 6 sets of platinum "grills" ``Night_raid 768. I see artists as hard up as ever, with the record companies still making a proffit, though not as large as it once was. 769. P2P, in my opinion, only hurts the labels. I have been told that musicians make money only from the concerts. If that's true, then P2P is not hurting the musician, it can only help by getting the music in more peoples hands and driving up demand to see the good groups in concert. As far as I am concerned, the musicians are getting screwed by the label, and have been long before P2P was around in it's current form. 770. The artists wouldn't get any of the money anyway. I pay a tax to the music industry every time I purchase a CD or a DVD for computer backups and I've never, ever burned music onto a CD or a DVD, so I'm paying for nothing, for no reason except our politicians are either stupid or crooked. 771. The RIAA takes the largest part of the money, it doesn't go to the artist. The artists are better off selling their music online by themselves. 772. that record companies are still making their money and that artists are still getting rich 773. As the companies still making money. 774. Sharing music is the best way to discover new artists. Much of this talent would not be discovered any other way. 775. they make money form merchedise, gigs, tv interviews etc not just from selling songs. 776. I believe that the recording industry as a whole is definitely making money. This belief is cemented bt the fact that they can afford to sell their music cheaper in China, where I live (as low as $3 for most CD singles and on average $5-$7 for albums) to compete with commercial piracy. 777. The shareholders of the record companies are still getting rich. Most artists still aren't. If they are, it's mostly from live performances, rather than the pathetically small proportion of the profits from records that they get, as it always has been. Also, going back to questions 7 and 8, there's no such thing as "intellectual property" or "intellectual property law". You should never use that term, as it's very misleading and biased. Please see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml. 778. Record companies are really about marketing rather than music. They should have no rights to fence off music, which is based on common creative cultural expressions. 779. It dosent "appear" to me that artists are getting rich anyways, their main sorce of income comes from concerts and merchandising. As far as record sales, RIAA if they are in a good mood might give a penny to the artist. 780. They still make money, A LOT that is! 781. They are just greedy pigs 782. When Ludacris can't afford to have every TV station ON EARTH transmitted to his house, afford $250,000 cars, and to have a barber on staff at all times, then you can say that artists aren't making money. 783. i see it as people get to explore more music and other media, and when they find something they really like they will likely go buy the cd/dvd 784. they still make ludicris amounts of money while i make 3 bucks an hour. So it hink i should be the one complaining not them. 785. Artists are doing it tough. Industry fat cats are still fat. 786. Some guy with a facefull of gold teeth and HumVee Limos is not suffering in the least 787. The retail and file sharing markets greatly overlap, filesharers also buy music. The music industry is alive and well. 788. Greed has made them change their bussines model: From art to racketeering and extortion, in the hope of becoming billionaires instead of just millionaires. Livig la vida mafiosa... 789. just plain old lies-record companies almost print their own cash 790. Plenty of income coming in from concerts... any decently managed company could profit in their situation. 791. Most of the profit from record sales goes to the record companies. The artists are not hurt as much by file sharing as the record companies. Meanwhile, artists who perform their music live at all venues are doing all right. 792. Since Discovering File sharing have bought more product than I was before. File Sharing has increased not decreased my cash product spend. 793. The price gouging on music continues, the record companies continue to make money while their artists suffer as they always have. The best solution for artists is direct-selling their music on the Internet and at concerts and avoiding the recording industry whenever possible. 794. The RIAA is producing a bad product. When a company produces bad products they tend to lose money. File sharing has nothing to do with it. 795. The record companies are still making their money, but the artists are certainly not getting rich. 796. They should do what every other business does when sales go down: DECREASE THE PRICES OF THEIR PRODUCTS!!! I would buy CDs again, but they are more expensive than DVDs now, and I want to stretch the value of my dollar. 797. I believe music sharing leads to increased exposure of artists. There are so many groups I would have never encountered had I not been exposed to the tastes of people from all over the world. RIAA must adapt to a changing market. If they are truly losing profits so drastically, then they should make changes within the way they do business to ensure continued profits and success of signed artists. Work with online solutions instead of filing suits against families without computers and internet access. 798. just because THEIR artists arn't making money dosn't mean artists in general aint making money. I've recently been to a couple of bands gigs that weren't signed to a label, paied money directly to the band for purchase of their cd as did many others... 799. The record companies make far more money than I (probably) ever will. 800. Companies rich, artists not so. 801. Artists make money not only through selling albums and songs, but through live performances and concerts as well. If in fact P2P networks are slowly suffocating album sales, it's not to say that's the artist's (or record company's) only source of income. 802. Earnings Statements don't lie, but if they did the IRS would be very interested. 803. P2P is free advertising. For example, look on limewire for morrissey, and you will find a few singles, no full albums. 804. Bottom line; they're still making huge profits, sharing doesn't mean squat. The supposed loss of profit seem to be based off 2 main fallacies; 1; someone who downloads the product would have bought it if it wasn't available online. And 2; Someone who downloads the product won't buy it afterward. Plus, file sharing has done NOTHING to concert sales which is where most of the real money for artists comes from anyway. 805. all the reports that I hear about they are making plenty of money 806. The biggest stars getting richer and the medium to low star is getting porer. And the record companys take most of the money. 807. The RRIA is wasting the money they get from the settlements and the artists get nothing. 808. Exact opposite... 809. They lie to suit their purpose, which is to end the threat of COMPETITION through a new method of distribution .. they lose absolutely nothing through sharing. 810. Most artists receive little or no royalties from the recording industry and receive most of their income from performing. 811. Greedy f**ks who can't move with the market, and sue anyone who disagrees. 812. The RIAA is still profiting but, as a musician, I know from personal experience that royalties paid are minimal or none. 813. The record companies add NOTHING to the music that is worthy of the monetary penalty they heap on consumers. I believe, and the facts DO appear to bear this out, that artists themselves would be MUCH BETTER served financially by marketing directly to consumers over the web. The Record Companies are simply middle-men who act to PREVENT the free and easy exchange of artistic product. The RIAA is a dinosaur who apparently didn't receive his own copy of the memo -- the dinosaurs died out 65 Million years ago when an asteroid or comet struck what is now part of the Gulf of Mexico. WAKE UP -- YOU'RE DEAD ALREADY! 814. Record companies are still making money and still screwing the arists. 815. The record companies are still making mind boggling profits. The artists are primarily starved by the record companies.

Says the RIAA: Each sale by a pirate [or file shared] represents a lost legitimate sale, thereby depriving not only the record company of profits, but also the artist, producer, songwriter, publisher, retailer, … and the list goes on.

Total Responses: 1,078 True   11.0%  (119) False   89.0%  (959)

If you've answered False to the question above, how do you see things?

Total Responses: 827 1. pre my RIAA boycott I used to buy more CDs from artists I got to know through p2p than media/marketing. (Now I buy indie only) 2. Licensed services? Idiots. Like they need so much. 3. [true] Sure it does. So what. 4. Downloading something does not imply that it would have been purchased if the download was not available, and there is no way to prove that the person would have. Maybe they could force confessions like in the witch trials? I think that would parallel the RIAA's activity pretty well. 5. I never would have bought 99.5% of the crap I downloaded. I only downloaded it because it was free. I deleted most of it after I realized it was crap. 6. Sometimes this is true but sharing is also a way to preview music before buying a legitimate and usually better quality copy. 7. i would never dream of buying most the stuff i download, or example if i only want one song off an album, or i need to learn to play a song 8. I would not buy this much music, ever. If I would stop file sharing they would not get my money anyways... 9. Good, drop the prices on cd's and I will care. I will support my very most favorite artists by seeing them tour and buying their merchandise so the RIAA doesnt see a dime of that money. 10. 1 file transfer != 1 lost sale, If I had to pay for every song i've transferred then I wouldn't pay. its that simple. 11. consumption falls as price rises. price the stuff as the big 4 do and consumption is necessarily low. but at near-zero cost consumption is very high -- people otherwise unable or unwilling to listen to a musician's work will do so; but raise the price, and no sale 12. I download one song at a time, and without p2p I would listen to the radio. 13. The economy is till going and now everyone is happy. The Music Industry has no clue, the "pirate" is richer for his work (yes he/she did make an effort to do this, it's not a lay back and watch it happen business), and the final consumer enjoys a cheaper product. 14. Most of the stuff I download, I would never actually pay money for. I downloaded A Flock of Seagulls the other day. I wouldn't pay more than a couple bucks for the entire CD and its currently priced at 17.99 at my local Sam Goody. WTF? 15. Your more likely to download and listen to something you would never have heard of before and possibly buy it if you like it. However if you can't download it, there is little to no chance you would have bought it anyway. Therefore it's stupid to assume that every file shared is a sale lost because they wouldn't have bought the shit in the first place! 16. Most of the people i know who have downloaded music, have downloaded music they would never have bought, mostly because they have never heard it. It is really expensive to dish out 15 dollars for something you have never heard and can not take back if you don't like it. These same people have bought complete albums of artists they would have never heard before if it was not for peer to peer. One friend of mine is a huge Van Halen fan, all because he downloaded the song "jump" a few years ago. because of this he has purchased about 5 Van Halen albums, and from hearing his music, I have purchased 7. Thats 12 albums sold because of one downloaded track. 17. False 18. Because if i had to pay for it I wouldn't partake at all. At least I'm listening to your music and watching your movies. Would you rather I listen to your music and not pay, or not listen to it at all? 19. each sale would not have been a sale in the first place, at least with file sharing people are exposed to music ( new music also in fact) and if they truly enjoy it they will go out and by the cd. 20. Artists make most of their money from concerts. Yes, they are losing a sale but they gain free marketing. 21. just another way to inflate the numbers to support their jihad. 22. Not everyone who downloads an album would pay for that album. In fact downloading albums allows peopleto open themselves up to buying music they otherwise wouldn't have bothered buying. If anything downloading is adding to the amount of money the RIAA makes. 23. 99% of all downloads would NEVER of been purchases. and in Many cases could never of been purchases as the record companies only select a very small portion of content to actually produce and promote in stores. In many cases a downloard is far more equivilant to listening to a song on the radio or at a listening station in a record store. Music is something people have to try before they will buy it. 24. Many shared files encourage the person who received it to buy that album or movie or whatever. The problem for them is that they make albums with one hit song and charge $18 for an album that has that one song and the rest is awful. If the whole album is good people will buy it. 25. A very small percentage of the money goes to anyone involved. The record company is the one making all of the money. 26. If there was an option to be able to give an album 1 play before it becomes "piracy" it would affect cd sales as 99% of the major label output is crap. 27. If someone were to steal a pie from a bakery, per se, the only person that would get impacted in the short run would be the bakery owners; it's unlikely that the cashier, baker, or janitor are going to get a pay cut. Even if, say, Marie Callendar's were to get stolen from about once every day at different stores, the company would not lose enough money to cause a severe pay cut for it's employees. 28. That a person who downloaded a file would not have necessarily bought the album/song 29. a) the person might not by the song if he had the choice - so no money lost. 30. If I like the artist, I will buy something from them or contribute money in some way, regardless of my access to their music. 31. File sharing gives a consumer the opportunity to trial their product and then choose or not choose to purchase it, which is a far cry from being forced to purchase an entire album for the 1 or 2 songs that an artist has had the time to craft amidst the pap that the label forces them to put in as filler. 32. 1 song shared does not mean 1 CD lost. There are still people who buy CDs. The only thing is, the 'industry' has to work harder and provide better content in order to get people to buy their stuff. Better, longer albums will prompt people to buy more. 33. Bullshit. See above. 34. File sharing means I've discovered music I never would have otherwise, and I buy their CDs 35. Listening to music via the web is no different than listening to it via the radio. The recording industry has failed to embrace technology and new talent, and has failed to come up with a business model-so their complaints are sour grapes, they are the cause of the own failings. 36. A downloaded file does not = a lost sale. That is obvious. 37. Many people will download songs to "test drive" a band if they like the band, then they will in turn purchase their albums. 38. 99% of the files i have I would _never_ have bought.... 39. Some sales yes do that but if a person really likes the product they will go purchase a legitimate copy.... Sales have not dropped off because of piracy. They dropped because The music industry was charging extortion rates for a CD and because they did not want to change with the times.... If sony had opened up an online music store back when napster started then people would go direct to buy a song with them.... MAybe they need new management to tell them where the future is heading ... 40. A vast majority of filesharing downloads are by those who would never have bought a given album/song. I would sugest that 80% of the downloads would not be sales 20 years ago. Internet radio actually compensates, by reaching non-techie's who just buy the songs. 41. All of those employees are paid, though if the record companies lose enough money they may have to downsize. 42. Bullshit. The record companies already take so much of the money that should be going to the artist that the losses to the band's roadie crew are cents per year. 43. Record companies do not have true artists working fro them, with notable exceptions. A true artist does nto require any of the other things listed to be successful. Let alone a record company. 44. They make nough money on selling stuff as it is and concerts, etc. 45. Each file download represents attention gained for the artist, by people who may not have otherwise been willing to shell out exorbitant amounts of money for a CD. This bolsters sale of concert tickets, where the artists really make their money. Publisher and the retailer were only ever there for the convenience of the artist, and do not have an inherent right to continue business against the interest of the public and musicians. 46. Completely false. We can rent movies, not CDs. As a result, I have no way to use the product without paying for it first. This has often led to the purchase of crappy CDs. So I download them to decide if I want to pay for them. Even if people don't buy any CDs after this, it doesn't represent a lost profit. I know people that never have, and never will pay for CDs. 47. F the riaa 48. I've bought many cds, games, etc. after trying them out from downloading. 49. Artists receive very little from their record companies as a result of record sales. Artists make money from increasing their brand value for promotions and concerts... a condition that is enhanced when more people hear their music, whether paid-for or otherwise. 50. I wouldn't even listen to half the shit i do now if it wasnt for the internet, id listen to the radio, but pretty soon the RIAA will make you pay to listen to that too? 51. sometimes its just people testing the music before purchasing. 52. Same as above, the increase in file sharing has increased popularity of the product, and allowed lesser known artists to be heard when they normally wouldn't have benn. 53. RIAA made me stop buying songs/videos. If they didn't do all that stuff... I might never had heard of Napster or Limewire! 54. Previewing media led to over $1200 in purchases. Roughly 85% purchase rate for media I wouldn't consider otherwise. 55. If I were to download a song I liked I would go buy it. If I didn't like it I would delete it. 56. most people that share instead of buy whould not be buying even if they weren't sharing. 57. I don't share music online because none of the RIAA labels have produced anything worth listening to. I doubt that people would pay for it if it wasn't freely available. To equate a copied song to a lost sale is pure B.S. Most of the time people end up chucking the copied content the first time the listen to it. 58. a file shared does not equal a lost sale. 59. The only people who are losing profits here are the record companies. The artists still get their sales through live shows; which is where there major money is made. The suits are just upset that they're being excluded from the massive profits they're used to making. 60. Without file sharing most people would just have less music. At the prices of music it is worth the free trial to see if i actually want to support the artists by going to the artist's site and buying it directly. 61. The people who are pirating songs would find other ways to get it without paying (radio, rip a friends cd, etc) just like the old days. 62. I still buy cd from my favorite bands. 63. An illegal download does not necessarily mean lost profit. Many people restrict themselves to music they know they like when they must pay for it. When there are no or reasonable costs people can try out new musical genres without worrying about the red ink. 64. In most cases people who 'pirate' music wouldn't have purchased the CD anyway. 'Pirates' download music because they aren't sure they are going to like the CD or band so they sample it first and in most cases buy what they like. 65. Arrgh!! I still buy music all the time. 66. Online music sharing enables people to listen to new music, that they might never have been exposed to. Why take a chance and waste $20 on a CD you might hate? You don't. But this way, you can download it. Next album that comes out, you might buy it. There will always be people that leech, but contrary to what the RIAA believes, people DO want to support their favorite musicians. Give us a way to do it online without screwing us with DRM and crappy quality sound. 67. Many people, including myself, download music to test it out only to buy the albums later. 68. Firstly, most of the profit of the sale goes to the music distributor. Secondly, filesharing allows people to discover new music which they would subsequently purchase. Thirdly, songs are often downloaded when purchasing the entire CD is undesirable (possibly due to the low quality of music being manufactured now). The sale of singles from online music stores remedies this issue to some extent. 69. they have gained a future sale if the file sharer likes the music; if said sharer hates the music they have lost nothing 70. I wouldn't buy half the crap I download. I don't have money. Period. But I like music so I share it with friends that I make anonymously over the internet. So sue me. 71. E.g. I downloaded Shrek, and PAYED and WILL PAY to watch Shrek 2 and Shrek 3 (cinema) 72. Alot of the media I buy I would not of purchased or even knew it was out there had I not downloaded it first. 73. People download music that they want to check out, especially music that they probably wouldn't spend $20 on a CD for. If they really like what they hear from the download, they would probably legitimately purchase a CD once they know it's worth the cost. Also, they might go to concerts, which allows them to make more money. 74. if you have the ability to find something and you know someone who doesn't but wants it? what is the problem with making a little personal gain from taking your time to get it for them? the artists aren't going to notice... that five dollars may be your lunch tomorrow... that artist isn't really thinking about where their lunch is coming from. 75. prove that they would have bought it to begin with. 76. Concerning me: I never bought as much CDs since P2P gave me the opportunity to get to know real great music. 77. RIAA continues to use the artists as an appeal to guilt. If the money a consumer paid for an overpriced CD went more to the artists they hold up and less to the executives and agencies, then perhaps the guilt of depriving the artist of a legitimate sale might override the guilt of putting more money into the pockets of the already rich. 78. I am 30 years old and have never spent money on any CD, Tape or record in my entire life. I have listened to the radio, borrowed tapes from friends and downloaded music when it's free. Every file I download is therefore not a lost sale, because I would never pay money for something as non-important to my life as music. Instead I pay for my food, rent and transportation. 79. The record company gets ridiculous profits anyway (see Raping the Artists). The artist (et al) receives payment via the contract and concerts and only gets more recognition from people who would have otherwise never heard of the artist without filesharing. 80. just want to set the rates for pay music so everyone will have to pay for every song played 81. I have downloaded albums that I would never have bought. THe albums I truly love, I buy, the album I listen to once, realize it sucks, and then delete it from my hard drive, I don't buy. 82. RIAA = Whores 83. I buy DRM free music that I would never buy on CD due to the cost of the CD. With DRM free downloads I tryt differant music. Therfore each purchase I make does not equate to a lost CD sale. 84. lies 85. File Sharing can quite capably encourage record sales by allowing a person to sample a song befor they buy it. While its true that some people would never buy and merely steal, the vast majority of people do not and are more than willing to buy an album that they have enjoyed, even if they enjoyed it for free. The fact that records are not selling does not suggest a rise in piracy, then, but rather a rise in music that simply isn't worth buying. 86. Legit studies conclude the contrary - If anything deprives the artist and songwriter of monies it is the record company - failure to pay royalties - reducing the royalty percentages 87. Not everyone would go out and buy all of those cds. the more exposure of the product you are selling(the artist) the more likley you will find a buyer. They are actually attacking the very people that they are trying to cater to. Now with the increase in internet radio fees to put the small radio stations out of business is only hurting the exposure to their consumers since the artists will be heard less. 88. mostly it's used to sample music that you may like and then wish to purchase later on. Sometimes I use it to back-up older albums and cd's that I purchased and wish to preserve longer 89. It is not true, if it weren't for downloading, that I would have paid for the tens of thousands of dollars' worth of music, games, movies, and programs that I have downloaded. I have discovered many bands and genres through downloading. 90. I have no sympathy for true commercial "pirates" that attempt to SELL illegal copies as though they were legitimate. However, merely SHARING (for free) a file does not necessarily reduce legitimate sales. IMO the majority of people downloading shared files WOULD NOT HAVE PURCHASED the songs anyway. (Nobody i know has enough money to buy everything they want!) If file-sharing had never been invented, would CD sales really be all that much greater today? Or would they still be down from years past, because maybe, just maybe, there's less truly GOOD music worth buying? 91. Same as 11 92. Why should I pay 15-20 for a CD that sucks when I can download a song or two and download the album off iTunes. MP3 quality sucks. 93. It's only the RIAA money the RIAA is concerned about. They pay artists a measly pittance. 94. Each sale by a pirate could allow that to be true. But the majority of shared files either don't represent a lost sale. They are someone that wouldn't have bought. Or they will buy more due to more exposure to new artists. 95. I dl a lot of music (100s of albums), but if I were to purchase I'd probably buy 3-5 CDs a year, resorting instead to indie and freely available (indie etc) music. 96. I wouldn't have purchased the file anyway. It's a form of price discrimination. 97. Some people view the prices as too high for the product offered. If it was cheap enough, people would buy it. If it was expensive, the music would die out. 98. This is a fiction. I would never have purchased (at RIAA prices) 95% of the music I have obtained by other means (never by filesharing, in my case). The music simply is not worth the RIAA price under any circumstances. I would simply do without it. There is no lost sale. Further, at this point, I would not even buy the remaining 5% that I otherwise might have bought for their prices, such is my dislike for the RIAA. 99. The Artists can distribute their profits more evenly if those contributing to the music are suffering financially. 100. I wouldn't buy most of the crap i download anyhow. i delete 99% of it as soon as i hear it 101. legitimate purchasers still purchase. "Pirates are people accessing music they might not otherwise ever acquire. 102. It is common knowledge that bands, the people who I personally believe matter, not the execs, get a very small cut from record sales. To really support them one should go to concerts or buy T shirts from their websites. I 103. Few people who share recordings would acquire the same item if they had to pay for it. Conversely, if people had no opportunity to share, most of the sales would go to the few lucky artists that the recording industry choses to promote and exploit since those are the ones that receive all the publicity. The cost of sampling other artists and talent would become prohibitive, as it once was before the Internet. 104. Many people will download a song for free that they would never pay a dollar per song for. So if a teenager downloads 1000 free songs, it is unlikely he'd would've spent $1000 on Itunes if he didn't have access to free MP3s. 105. Every-one mentioned above still gets paid ,all file sharing does is allows us the consumer to get the same product at a great price.If file sharing is robbing the artist and every-one of money why are they still recording? 106. See response to #11 107. there was so much music that i found on filesharing that I have never herd of and went out and purchased the cds 108. Pure unadulterated idiocy. Im exposed to far more music and thereby far more likely to buy CDs (if it werent for a self imposed ban) and go to more gigs than ever before. You cant sample a CD in a store like you can at home. 109. The labels rip off everyone down the food chain. It's the label and only the label that would feel any major pain. 110. Many songs will only ever be listened to once or twice. It is not feasible for most people to pay the $1 charge for all songs they listen to. 111. I use file sharing to find new artist. If you depend on the radio for this purpose you will only hear what the stations get paid to play. 112. most songs people share they wouldn't buy anyways they figure its free why not listen to it. 113. if someone gave me there dvd collection doesn't mean i was gonna buy it 114. Sames as previous textbox 115. I see it more of a previewing of the song and if I like enough songs by an artist then I will go buy a hard copy, the quality of shared files is so bad how can it be considered a fair representation of the original ? 116. Surely people are buying pirate copies because they are cheap? That does not mean to say that they would buy the legitimate release if the pirate sources dried up! 117. Who knows if they would have bought the music in the first place? 118. There are files people get that they would not ever have paid for in the store because they were just trying them out. Hey! It turns out they like the musician so they go to concerts. 119. I have downloaded things, liked them, and then bought them legally. Downloading = increased sales. 120. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Most file downloads are from someone who either doesn't have the money to buy the cd or who wouldn't buy the music anyway if given the chance, or someone just surfing around finding new artists. Most of the people who download things in specific end up buying it or more from that or related artists if they find a good deal. 121. You wouldn't necessarily have bought it or ever listened to the artist. You also may never have gone to a concert of theirs or bought other merchandise. 122. If they put their mind together for something better than this, I am sure they will come up with a plan to make money by other mean. 123. Perhaps a sale by a pirate if money is transferred, but if the file is only shared this would be like me using a friend's CD I didn't purchase the music and perhaps will never. If anything it may help sales. I tend to purchase music if I know I want to keep it. I have bought more CDs since I have been able to listen to it first. 124. Some music I just would not buy, but after listening to it I am more inclined to purchase. 125. Each and every sale? Yeah right. 126. Many of the files I download I would never purchase. 127. Not everyone that downloads a song would buy the song if they couldn't get it for free. 128. artsits and the rest of the list get very little from the sale of albums in stores - and again the offered downloads are poor quality and encrypted. 129. Although not EACH theft does not equal a loss of sale, theft does lead to many loss of sales. What the exact proportion is is unsure but maybe 25%? 130. Not every file sampled represents a lost sale. Some music being traded isn't even *available* for sale. 131. Most music downloaded via a file share would not have been purchased otherwise. Must music I have downloaded in the past I would never have bought anyway. There the so called losses are actually minute and made up by the music industry. 132. Smart artists know, if we download a song, it's going to increase the likelihood of a cd purchase. 133. If it were impossible to share music files it might result in a few more sales but in most cases people who are copying or trading files have time but not money and they would not actually end up buying the songs anyway so it does not follow that EACH file shared represents A lost legitimate sale. 134. I wouldn't have bought the album unless the price was realistic, 135. There are many songs that I casually enjoy, and I wouldn't go out and buy the record over them, because chances are I wouldn't like the crap most "musicians" put out nowadays. Two good songs and 11 fillers is not an album. On the other hand, I've found numerous small bands via file sharing and then went out and bought that artists' CD and gone to their concerts, making it a extra legitimate sale that they would not have gotten otherwise. 136. Most people download music because it's easy and free, not because they definitely want it. A lot of the downloaded music is only listened to once (if at all) and then deleted. Even if that music would have costed only a few cents, most people wouldn't even consider buying it. The idea that every download would have been a purchase if the download were impossible, is complete nonsense. Many people still buy songs they downloaded if they like them, to have a better quality copy and to support the artist. 137. i didnt buy it before i file shared, why would i buy it after file sharing had started. if it wasnt free i wouldnt be listening 138. On-line music allows for artists music to be known, and they can make more money from tv and live performances. 139. Because someone downloads a song or album..That doesn't mean they would put money down for it. In the case of pirated material being sold, I believe it is wrong. 140. These are NOT lost sales! They are lost POTENTIAL sales, and the two concepts are very different!! 141. I whouldn´t buy the things i download. 142. While filesharing is okay to me. Mass sharing and selling of copied material is undermining what the artists deserve, their due money. 143. Most people who download stuff without buying it were never going to buy it in the first place. Would you really pay for the new Hilary Duff or Paris Hilton? Maybe you'd be curious enough to give it a spin, but not at a blow to your wallet. 144. most of the music i try out on all of mp3 i would not buy the whole CD in any case. But it allows me to find new artists that i might be more inclined to buy the CD from the record store. 145. Each file shared is one person trying before he is buying, since the music industry is putting out shit, very few sane people buy their product, as thus, they should crank out better content to stay alive. 146. I believe that the price of 14-25-60-100 dollars a cd, set, or compilation is over priced, the industry has not given people any reason to continue to pay outrageous prices for a cd. They can not prove the details of the costs of making that cd, and when you print 1 billion cd's that means the costs are bound to go down greatly to produce that cd. That is a fact of business, order in buck and save money. 147. Through iTunes, for example, only the artist, recond label and iTunes makes money. There is no real need to charge 17.99 for a CD when the only person making the huge percent of that profit is the retailer itself. 148. That's rubbish, and probably the industry's greatest fallacy. Same with software piracy. Few people who download protected works would have bought them otherwise, many probably don't even have the money. On the other hand, there are people who download music merely just to try it out and end up buying some or other album afterwards - this could be considered music that would not have been sold otherwise. 149. -there is much music people would listen to but never buy the cd, there is a need for a large consumption model 150. I see some people who would never buy a song in the first place downloading them for free 151. the music companies are making too much margin, are not prepared to adapt their business practices, and are trying to legislate to maintain the status quo. 152. Bullshit. That long list of people doesn't see the money anyway. Plus, a properly run web model would be the income without the outlay. Lastly, DRM prevents people from buying their goods who otherwise would. 153. wouldnt buy 90% of what i download 154. People still buy the music they enjoy, there is just changing times now, and now that we have entered the digital revolution many more people download music, but people will still buy the music they like and support their bands. 155. See 11 above 156. So false I fell off my chair laughing. My guess is that less than 5% of pirated downloads could have been sales 157. The artist already gets a very low percentage..the record company is losing 158. For each file shared, some people go out and buy the album. It's impossible to determine the validity of their statement. 159. I actually think it is true, but didn't want to leave it at that. I think it is true, but I do not think it is a bad thing. The capitalist mantra of "Let the market decide" is the principle at work here and the market does not want to pay way too much for dumbed down product any longer. 160. Usual marketing gumph ... 161. They are correct to some extent, however if someone purchased vinyl and wants to replace with a download then why not. The dues for the music have been paid already. Surveys show that people are actually prepared to pay for music provided that the cost is not excessive as it's recognised that making money is necessary to making music. However the cost is too high and the industry is seen as greedy. The current situation is an inevitable balancing of things, prolonged by the actions of the RIAA. If costs were to be reduced and the RIAA did not on the attack then the situation may be different. 162. The Record companies keep more than 99% of profits and the rest gets divided by many people 163. If it's good I buy the real thing, if it's not good then I don't. 164. Does each play by a radio station represent a lost legitimate sale? 165. a) Just because someone is willing to download a file does not mean they are willing to pay $20 for a CD with it on. b) Most people download many times more music than they would be able to afford with their disposable income, even if they *wanted* to buy all the music they regularly listen to. c) Many people use file sharing to find new music and will buy records and attend concerts of those artists they have discovered they like. When this happens, sales and revenue are gained, not lost, through file sharing. d) Many downloaders will only listen to a recording once or twice and then discard it or simply forget about it since it has no physical form... making the download exactly the same as if they'd listened to the song on the radio. Does each radio play of a song represent a lost sale, then, RIAA? 166. True music fans still buy their music. It is my opinion that those who download music are the people that don't spend money on music for a gazillion of reasons. Most of those people would only listen to the radio anymore if they didn't have filesharing. 167. Heh, if I couldn't get the music for cheap, I wouldn't buy it at all. How's that for lost sales? 168. Cut out the fat bastards at the top end 169. i am gong to answer anyway, sharing a file one has bought is totally different than hacking into an online music store and taking it, once you buy the product, cd, song, it's yours and you can share it however you want No one is stealing, No one is saying that they made the music, put it together, sung it, etc.. Everyone is just making a copy and giving it to others, however I would Agree that in the end if someone DID steal the CD from the record shop or hacked into an online store, sure I agree they should be arrested, for more questions out of me, email palmonezire31fanatic@yahoo.com. 170. you can't sue someone for not buying , when you calculated that they should . otherwise you could say that 'home cooking is killing the restaurant industry' . RIAA seems to be excluding the existence of free will . 171. While I agree that artists should be paid for their work (the artists - not the RIAA), it is ridiculous to believe that everyone who downloads a title would otherwise have bought it. It's more a "I collect it because I can do so free of charge" thing. 172. So I guess every time I share a song with a friend in my car that represents lost revenue because he could have sat in his car and me and mine listening to the same song that we each bought. Anything can be lost revenue what about Freedom ! Low Sparks of High Heeled Boys. 173. Is one a materialist . . . or a spiritualist? Is one trying to take money from people, and basing one's subsistence on a parasitic attitude and culture? If so, if that is the objective, parasitism, then why should one complain if dog eats dog, or fish eats fish, as the case may be. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If the objective is spiritual, then one truly has something to give. In giving, one finds comfort, because he knows that others will be happy in the receiving. If one is not giving, then one is trying to extract something from someone else. This is false advertising. If one truly has something of value, then one should give it, and the Universe will return. If one does not have something of true value, then one attempts to take from others what one does not have: satisfaction. Those without satisfaction feed on others who have nothing. This is purely parasitical, and a prime example of the Newton's Second Law, the Law of Entropy. One should seek to serve, not to take; to give, not be a cannibal. Materialism is cannibalism. As Lao Tzu said, "When one loses sight of love, then come laws." What became of true love? True Music is Love of the Heart, not the pocketbook. True Love is where one would do anything for one's Lover. 174. If i have no intention of buying music, they aren't loosing anything by downloading it 175. How can this be so? I may only be using the shared file as a taster of an artist I have never heard before 176. Each file shared represents an increased level of spending per file shared. Most file sharers will buy a good CD with more than a single spoon fed hit of the week. 177. although it may be true profits for multinational corporations are going to be reduced, fans will continue to support artists by buying their merchandise and the biggest revenue for any artist.. going to their shows 178. True the sale is lost. but I would only pay for the albums online now. so the production crew and the web publishing crew are the only people that are loosing out from me not buying. Music is WAY too over priced. 179. File sharing is having a mixed effect - reducing CD sales, but also increasing awareness of unusual music, and RIAA has failed to implement business model to take advantage of technology without garbage DRM. 180. If I never buy music. How could my downloading affect sales? 181. if you are selling, you are a pirate and should be jailed. If you are sharing, even with friends you've never met, you are entitled do so. If I buy a soda, is it my right to give a drink of it to anyone I choose. If someone gives me a drink, can I not give a drink to someone else in my turn. 182. most people only want the one song and wont go and buy just that one song reguardless 183. Much of the music I've seen shared isn't available for purchase at my local store or online shop. Also, for some of the garbage that is produced, if I didn't have access to it free first, I likely wouldn't buy it at all. The fact that I can get free music means I can try more music without getting ripped off. And if its good, I'll buy it. So the only potential sales lost are on music I wouldn't buy or would regret buying. So in the end, nothing lost at all. 184. A sale by a pirate is definitely a lost legitimate sale, you can't argue with that, but the real issue is obtaining music for free. 185. On the contrary, people listen to music and artists they would not normally know of or listen to. This helps to promote the music and the artist, bypassing the large record companies and loosening their control of the recorded music industry. This is what it is all about. It is not concern for the artist and their music but concern for their loss of control of the recorded music industry. This has been demonstrated several times before. An example of this is when magnetic recording tape (then CD's and DVD's) was developed and it was claimed this would bring doom to the recorded music industry. They said the same with TV, video recorders and the movie industry. In both cases it has been a boon to the industry with more music and artists and movies and actors coming to the publics' attention. 186. If I would not have bought the song to the pirate, I would have NOT bought the song AT ALL. 187. Who would buy the tune they just downloaded if they had to? Maybe 5%? They're grasping at straws. 188. If a song has a value then how can a theft at $0 be equated to a lost sale at $10-$15? Clearly there's a point at which a consumer no longer finds value in the product. The gap between 0 and 15 dollars leaves a lot of room for this to happen. No doubt some sales are lost but what is the actual relationship? 189. Certainly not a lost sale. Wouldnt buy music for such prices anyway 190. many people download hundreds of songs, albums and films. they would never have the money to buy such quantities. 191. I only usually download music that cannot be purchased in the shops, such as live concerts on internet archive. This has exposed me to artists I would not otherwise have known about, and if I like them I will buy their studio albums. 192. Each time I download something, it is with the intent to buy - if the product is quality and I enjoy it. I do not buy cars without test driving many models. I do not buy bulk food unless I have eaten it before. I do not buy music without determining if I like the songs. Very simple. 193. That is bullshit! Has the corporate world ever thought of volume, you would think they would be smart enough to know what that means. If they would just sell cheap enough they would have more people buy. They have gone out of reach and I believe people are smart enough to know that and that is where all the problems have started.. 194. Lots of downloads stimulates music lovers to purchase the real product. Where this doesn't happen it is often the case the person doesn't fancy the music. Downloading does not imply your are already a fan and have already decided on purchasing more from the artist. 195. File sharing may lead to some loss of revenue but its certainly not 1 for 1. 196. See my answer to 11. I am not concerned about Madonna loosing a few millions. 197. This is a common fallacy. If someone cannot afford to purchase a the legitimate copy, they will not purchase it. In the old days, kids would buy one copy of a tape/cd and then share it with each other. 198. In almost all cases, i would not have purchased the product otherwise. before file-sharing, my music purchases were limited to maybe 1 album every couple of months. 199. Should be free anyway. 200. I do agree that it is a lost sale, but usually the artist, songwriter, producer are the same person..a la Joe Satriani. And the list doesn't go on and on because that is all the people who get paid, the artist, the record company (which is the publisher), and the retailer. 201. Music coming out nowadays sucks- if I didn't use file sharing, I just wouldn't listen to ANY of it rather than waste my money trying to find one good CD. 202. Most artists are worth more than one song. It's not worth spending the money on an entire album when all you like is one song 203. Straight forward economics here, people only have a finite amount of money, how can a claim be made for goods if the person wouldn't have purchased it due to their budget in the first instance. 204. EVERY decent song I have downloaded has resulted in my purchase of not only the album the particular songs came from, but usually all of the albums from that artist. I'm talking full retail, Best Buy Compact Disc purchase. 205. If a person did not want to buy it then they're not gonna bother regardless. 206. mp3 downloads can operate as a preview of sorts, songs that people really enjoy would most likely still be bought. 207. again, RIAA are a bunch of cunts! 208. It's not lost money. They never had the money, and they money they never ahd was never taken from them. 209. Considering the amount of $ you give them vs. what you take yourself, I fail to see that big of a change in how much they earn anyway. 210. Fuck the RIAA 211. same as previous 212. Because I can find new music and then go an purchase an album if its good 213. Each 'pirated copy' is free advertising for the artist / label that the person wouldn't have bough anyway, which may lead them to buy that music or other in the future (or it may not, but then, they wouldn't have bought it anyway) 214. As I said earlier, the artist always profits from the contract. They are not affected. And if they want to earn some money, go give concerts, period. The rest of refered profitees are just unneeded in the music world, and depriving evolution. 215. Some albums (in fact, most) aren't available in this country. The so-called charts don't tell us anything, and the music I like is extremely hard to get hold of. Therefore, there's no way I'd buy it. I mean, I would if I could...honestly! 216. This is plain silly, you cannot claim that every gift or give-away means a lost sale. I have tons of stuff (not just MP3s) that I got for free, that I wouldn't have bought otherwise. Like the sweater I got from my mother-in-law. 217. If files are offered at a reasonable price people are happy to pay, if not they will steal/'share' since finding russian MP3 sites i no longer use filesharing software, they aren't necessary 218. The RIAA fail to see any sort of value of file sharing and are too quick to condemn it. Many consumers feel that downloading an album is simply a way of previewing (at high quality) the album that subsequently they may well purchase. 219. People who pirate via file-sharing simply copied CDs before file-sharing was available. If deprived of file-sharing, they would simply do so again. If CD copying was somehow made impossible, they would use tapes, or analog cables between stereos, or something else. Those who want to buy do so. Those who don't, won't. 220. Music fans have always sampled music to see if it was worth buying before doing so. Each sample listen never did = a lost sale. But there is a difference now. Why buy if the sample is good enough to keep? 221. When people download files this does not mean that they would actually really buy these files if they weren't available for download. So, the equation 1 download = 1 lost sale is simply wrong. 222. I prefer to sample the music before I buy it. 223. Gasp. RIAA takes 80% of the profits anyway. 224. See answer to 11. 225. In a business model losses are factored into costs 226. If CD's were 100% good I'd buy them. Can't buy a CD for just 1 or 2 songs. I'd rather go without the CD. 227. I download a lot of things I would never buy at current CD prices. If I can get an album by a band I've never heard of for free or for $~4, I'll pick it up, but I won't drop $20 on the same album. 228. Completely false, and they can't prove that every copy of a song is a lost sale. 229. I buy it if I like it....and file sharing is a great way to try before I buy 230. I buy any music I download if I like the music 231. It does not...that's saying that every single person that "pirated" a song would've bought the album. That's not the case. People are buying music in the manner they wish to. 232. Cos then they charge 100 bucks to see them live and get the t-shirt 233. in monetary values, i have spent as much on music through sites likes allofmp3 as i would have done on cds. the difference is that with allofmp3 etc, i have got so much more music for the same money. i can not afford to buy the amount of music that i do by means of cds - i am essentially putting as much money into the system, regardless of how much i get out of it. the difference being that with allofmp3.com, the money is distributed among more bands 234. only tracks that were intended to be purchased in the first place are lost sales and often these downloads then lead to other purchases anyway. 235. Many songs that are shared would never have been purchased, they're just downloaded because they're free 236. Not everyone that file shares would be willing to pay for the music. However, if they are not willing to pay for the song they shouldn't download it. 237. The sale of infringing articles and the non-commercial infringing via sharing are two entirely different things, and can't sensibly be put in the same sentence. 238. How much money GOES TO THE ARTIST.....only pennies!!!! While the most part goes to office dwellers....skyscrappers lawyers... 239. A huge amount of downloads are people trying out music. Most peopl I know, including myself, will purchase the albums they find to be good after downloading. 240. The loss of profits is minimal for all parties involved. And there would be no losses if their greed did not drive up consumer prices to the point where file sharing is a necessity. 241. A bootleg copy that costs $5 is not hurting them. If people like it, they'll buy a higher quality DVD... or rent it from blockbuster and RIP it. 242. Anyone who downloads shared files is a big fan of music. Nearly all downloaders spend a lot on music anyway, so they could not afford to buy all those CDs at full price. Many downloads are rarities, bootlegs and mash-ups that you can't buy anyway, or samples of an album that encourages you to buy it. 243. every duke box has a 1000+ songs, you only pay for those you play. 244. Each sale by a pirate is a chance for someone to hear the artist's music and to then legitimately purchase their music if they like the music they hear. 245. claim is invalid, people will legit buy what they like 246. It's true, money would be lost, but the word "depriving" disgusts me. These people have been ripping us off for years. Pardon me, but F#$K them and they're millions (our millions). Payback is a b#$ch. 247. Three's no way to quantify this...there's no way to determine whether or not a download would have represented a purchase if the 'free' download wasn't available 248. The failure of the RIAA to accept the new method of delivery and to lower the prices to a point where no one would bother "stealing" a copy is at fault. Most of the shared music lead s to sales. A pirate is a different entity, that is a company or group that manufactures and distributes stolen music for profit . . . I would agree that represents a lost sale but that has nothing to do with file sharing. 249. More money goes to the RIAA because of online sharing than has been lost due to piracy. 250. The cassette tape did not ruin the music industry. 251. File sharing of copyrighted files are legal within my household, my own files I can share with whoever I want. By the way have you guys never heard of GPL and GNU? 252. there is a alot of music that i would not buy, but if it was given for free i might listen to it. but i just don't like the group enough to pay for it. 253. It's not simply about the MP3. Concerts, appearances and all the stuff that's licensed by one such author gives cash. Some even go pay for the album after listening to the song(s). There is a risk that said person does not go out and buy anything. Same risk is taken through direct robbery. 254. copying has been around for yearts, why the problems now? 255. Would not buy these albums that I get by sharing normally -- still buy a lot of CDs 256. Making money out of selling other people's work is evil. 257. not everyone who downloads a song/cd illegally would have purchased the song/cd in a store. if something is free, most people would take advantage of it solely because it is there. 258. As i stated before. taping recording radio and sharing music wit friends has allways and will allways go on. 259. i've purchased thousands of dollars of music in my life, and the amount ACCELERATED after file-sharing became realilty. this rhetoric ignores the scores like me that bought simply because they heard the music first AND ACTUALLY LIKED IT. 260. Most Peopel I know that downlaod Music Go Out and Buy teh CD i fthe Like it so that they can get a Higher Quality of Audio. 261. Many times, I would never buy a song I'm downloading, I would do without it. 262. The RIAA is the first to damage business. They simply are going to disappear in time, since artists thmeselves will sale their music on the net, or in outlets that will burn a CD to your measure from the net. The only good thing they made in 50 years was to standardize the curve for the LPs, too little too far away. 263. economy of scale should make an mp3 1p 264. The industry is changing, like any other industry. What the people need to do is adapt and maximize their profit in today's economy, not yesterday's. The world is no longer flat, yet the music industry is still trying to tell us it is. 265. I would direct the spin departments of the RIAA to learn some economic principles. People will take a copy of things for free where they would not purchase a version for a sum of money. 266. I've only got so much money I can afford to spend each month on music, that doesn't change. For example this month I am going to spend my money on a Flaming Lips special edition DVD/CD with special pack and posters included. It does make artists vulnerable because people can now try before buy and they will find out if an album is crap before they buy it despite mega marketing campaigns 267. See above, nr 11. Furthermore, when cd's will be sold at a more democratic price, be sure file sharing and pirating will get weaker. Ask Polish people, for example, or Russians more obviously to buy a cd for 18 dollars when their monthl salary is around 180 dollars for Polish, maybe 10 dollars for Russians. As a matter of fact, to be sure we have satisfaction from our purchase, we tend to buy already known and established artists with cds so expensive, it's extremely difficult to discover new or more alternative ones. File sharing helps people's curiosity to develop. 268. Chances are, if someone is going to download a song, they have no intention on purchasing it anyway. Therefore, no losses have occurred, since even if they couldn't download the song, they still wouldn't buy the CD. 269. A missed opportunity to sell downloads. 270. Most shared files are downloaded to see if the song/band is even worth listening to. We had this battle in the day of cassettes and vcr tapes they claimed it was costing them money. If people like they buy the origional for the better quality of the repoduction. If they want to make more money maybe they should work on finding talent not entertainers to produce albums. I hate autotune sounds on albums 271. You can't avoid that truth. Somebody is reaping the profits of someone else's effort. 272. I wouldn't buy half the music I download. Lots of times I download without knowing if I'll like the music. 273. They're still making boatloads of money. 274. Many people would not spend the $15+/album or the $1/DRMed song, so they would not get the music at all if they couldn't download it for free. 275. Most CD's are way too watered down with crap music and cost too much for me to buy every cd with 1 song I like. Either I download the song or nothing. I don't buy cd's anymore. 276. My definition of "pirate" are organizations like the RIAA. 277. Artists are indentured servants to the labels. They do not see the profits of their works. 278. Pirates help advertise...the best quality for the long run is still to buy the CD when you decide it belongs in your music library. 279. Wrong. Somebody had to buy the Cd/Single/EP. 280. HAHAHAHAHA, that's rich. Many who download also buy music, and it's also been proven that the most popular downloads are the highest selling albums. Also, if the music isn't that great or if the album has one or two songs somebody wants, and they never would have bought the CD just for those one or two songs, then this argument flies out the window. 281. Sales of pirated music is not the same as file sharing. The question they never address is, if people weren't downloading illegally, would they still buy the music? Hell no--people download tons of stuff just because they can, and never listen to it. 282. Check how much iTunes passes onto the record companies for each 97 pence track they sell and you'll see its at the very most 15 pence. Go do the math!!! 283. Most of the music you come across file-sharing is material you would NEVER discover through mainstream media and record shops. I have gone to more concerts and supported many bands (not record companies) with more of my hard earned money because i got to hear them in advance, all thanks to filesharing. 284. I buy more music now than I did before because I relize how much I miss it by being able to buy inexpensive music. 285. Sounds that I have downloaded from file sharing have been song that are either out of print and no longer available to buy or songs that I would not have purchased in the first place but did because they were available 286. The record company takes a lot of the money. The artists that make the music should actually get their fair share. 287. I still go out and buy the stuff that is worth buying / available if I think the artist is worth supporting 288. Each shared file doesn't necessarily equal a lost sale because the user might be willing to download the file for free, but be unwilling to pay money for it. 289. Record companies have been getting rich for years and exploiting artists. 290. its year 2007...cds or old and digital music is the fututre....charge less and get rid drm 291. It has been proven that downloading from the net does not negatively affect sales. 292. this is bullshit. its already been found that most people who share files buy cds as well. 293. idk 294. they are fighting not to loose their total power - shopping systems where you can buy cheap mp3 are not wanted because they want to feed each other 295. see my anser in 11) 296. If they're after money, they sucks ass. An artist shouldn't make music for himself, he should make it for people and make people interest on his music, NOT to make the artist interesting people's money. C'mon people! Get a job and be a free-lancer in music business. 297. it helps exposure 298. I have downloaded over 350GB of music. There is no way in hell I would be buying all that music. There is no lost sale, because a sale would have never been made. And even if file sharing didn't exist, I am not the richest person in the world, so I would probably end up copying the CD from someone who has lots of money or is spoiled. 299. Like above. With the internet the artists should now be able to market their own songs and take out the record labels. That is what they are scared of and they are trying to maintain control the best way they know how. Sue. It is just pure greed. 300. each shared file is more like free advertising. 301. If you buy a car then sell it to someone else, do you hear the car companies complaining about that? Like I said in my last statement, if the artist sells 100,000 cds which is low, then 1.5 million dollars is being made. If the artist doesn't sell that many cds than the public obviously doesn't enjoy that music. There are way too many one hit wonder bands nowadays and not everyone can be a puff daddy or a tim mcgraw. 302. Wouldn't buy 90% of the music i have bought online, therefore the revenue is probably less if i only bought physical media, plus less artists would be supported by a fan base. 303. That is a dead business model. Most people are willing to pay a fair price for a fair product, and once that fair product is offered file sharing will lessen, and profits will increase. 304. statistics show record sales are better than ever according to web news 305. People who can afford to go out and purchase a CD/Movie Will. They wont get a second rate copy online for free. If they download something doesnt mean they can/would of bought it in the first place. 306. Each shared file increases the notoriety of the artist. It only hurts the middlemen. 307. It spreads word of songs that would otherwise never be heard 308. if they've lost a sale, it's because the "pirate" found out what kinda crap was on their album, and decided to avoid a purchase 309. If I really want music I pay for it. If its been downloaded then regardless it wouldn't have been brought anyway! 310. it encourages you to buy a cd if you like it, one that you would not have thought about before 311. A download is a way of checking out an album you might not be sure about rather than spend €16 on a turkey. It's a way of discoering and listening to acts that you might never have discovered otherwise. The labels are the only ones taking a hit as the artists still generat revenue from other areas such as live shows & merchandise that the labels can't get at. 312. See VHS circa early 80s ... 313. Just because some one down loads a "file" does not imply that he/she would spend money on it to buy it. 314. Spin 315. Just because a pirate downloaded pirated music DOES NOT mean that he/she would have gone out and bought a legitimate copy. 316. Just because you downloaded a file or music does not mean you were meaning to purchase it in the first place. If and only if the music is worth purchasing after downloading will the transaction go through, and hopefully through a source that does not give all its profits to the mafioso RIAA. 317. What if I would have never bought the file/album in the first place (which is almost always the case for me because I don't care enough)? The RIAA would have never made a penny off me either way, so I don't see it as revenue lost. 318. First let's distinguish among pirates: those who download songs without paying are NOT the same thing as those who make money selling pirated music. Second: a file shared is NOT a lost sale. I download music that I will never buy, for example, and on the other hands I buy music I really like even if I already have the downloaded songs. It's not that I buy ALL music that I have downloaded and like... only music that I really like. If I was put in front of the choice to either buy or let go of the music I only partially like, I would let go. Another point is that if music would cost less I'd buy more. For example: since music is so cheap on AllOfMP3 I actually re-bought I already had on vinyl, instead of taking on the hassle of converting it (which requires particular equipment and lot of work). 319. If I have a choice between paying and not paying or paying less, I'll be picking the latter. RIAA has inflated the prices of CDs for years. We know it costs less than a loaf of bread for the media it's distributed on, why should I be paying a premium just to support their lobbying efforts to keep prices inflated and their failing business model viable. I want LOW COST MUSIC. 320. It makes me want to go and buy the entire DVD or CD. 321. These companies are fat and lazy and unwilling to move forward with the rest of the World into the online age. If they sell a CD, even an online version, it's 1 box or download they can notch up on a spreadsheet, 10 bucks in the bank to show the shareholders. Anything that requires an ounce of thought beyond that is equally beyond *them*. Grass roots free dispersal of new acts on Web 2.0 systems? 'Piracy'. Sharing a beloved track/album with close friends to spread the word about the band you love? 'Piracy'. Downloading a copy of a new album from a bit torrent site, listen to it and think it's Great and go out and buy it? 'Piracy'. It makes you sick it really does. 322. Just because a collector downloads a free file does not mean they would buy it. Personally, I buy music or content even if I get it for free to sample. 323. I do not like to back the "most would not have bought it." group. Though there is a little merit in it. I would look at it as free advertising. I hear songs all the time that most likely were not "purchased". Which I in turn if I really like it will buy from iTunes. (Yes, I admit it.) Yes, there is revenue loss from piracy. Nobody denies this. 450 million dollars in lost profit is just spin. If you adapt and provide a decent solution people will buy. 324. For free filesharing, See above. For sale by pirates, they have a point. 325. They just can't deal with the fact that electronic music is more accessible than traditional media. 326. see 11. 327. It encourages me to look at artists I wouldn't normally listen to and I'm not willing to pay as much as they want me to on music 328. I see this as a loss for the riaa/mpaa, not the artist. The artist now has the ability to directly benefit from consumers if allowed. 329. 78p a song in the UK is the issue. 330. I wouldn't otherwise buy any of what I pirate. 331. Many scientific studies proved that it is false. P2P has prospered on music industry deficiencies but not against them. P2P exists because it offers what music industry does not offer. P2P exists because of the great lack of intelligence of music industry. P2P is the result, not the cause. 332. bc, with fs you dl things you'd never buy. Artists and the rest should be happy, that peeps try our their things and evtl buy em if they like em. 333. if i like it, i will buy the album in order to have the real package 334. Most file sharers would not buy what they share either because they don't have the money to begin with or don't like the product enough to pay for it. Others use file sharing to test out a product before buying it or discarding it. 335. see above 336. Not all downloads are equivalent to a valid purchase. I for example own over 400 DVD's, still I sometimes download a movie to see how it is before purchase. They are not loosing money on my file sharing, quite the contrary. Before I started with file sharing and DVD I had about 10 VHS movies. 337. No - There are literally hundreds of artists that I have downloaded that I would never buy (Linkin Park, 80s music, top 40) but there are also artists work that I have downloaded, and later gone on to buy several albums, if not their entire discographies (Morrissey, My Bloody Valentine, Test Icicles) and there are still some artists that I dowload that I cannot find any releases from them - mostly indie/electronic - but if I could, I would without hesitation purchase. 338. its a drop into the ocean 339. Most (almost all) of the music I download entertains me for maybe a week. I would never buy something that ages so poorly. I blame overplay on the radio, commercials, tv. et al. 340. I believe all those people are trying to beat each other out thier share. Best example is Johnny Winters. 341. Money to be made via the net, 342. I've been introduced to more amazing artists by being given one of their songs. I guess I'm just a compulsive person, because if I really like a song, I'll go out and purchase the CD... and probably several more based on being given that single song. 343. the artist gets pennies off each sale. File sharing might persuade someone to buy a CD or hear a new band they never would have if they didn't download a band in the first place. 344. Original pirates (if they can be called so) must buy music to pirate it in the first place, so not all profits are lost if that is the case. 345. Music shared does not mean someone would be willing to make that song as a purchase. And many times free low quality tracks are deleted shortly thereafter, or never listened to again. Music tracks and files should be used to promote concerts. give us something tangible, something quality. not a file. 346. Most time it makes a person want to buy the album 347. If I really like a movie, I will buy a full copy, ie I have 4 copies of Dune the movie. 348. All academic studies of "file sharing" point to the exact opposite effects as claimed by the RIAA: better sales because of sharing, practically zero losses from the same. 349. A true music lover will find the quality of most of the file sharing trash. File Sharing helps only in deciding what song is worth buying. But RIAA does not want this, they want to sell crap at sky high rates. In several countries piracy of movies and music has been curbed by bringing the price down. With all the technology why are the prices of Audio CDs so high, Greed is the only reason. 350. Most people would not buy all the music they download, because it is to expensive. Omly a hanful of downloads would actually be record sales. 351. Artists do not get anywhere near their fair share of record sales too. Listening to freely available music inspires people to buy music anyway. 352. Most people would not buy albums at full price. 353. while it may deprive them of money the amount is very little and its not like they cant afford it. 354. each sale by a pirate is a sale that probably would not have been legitimate because the buyer could not afford legitimate products. 355. I discovered a lot of artists on the net. To bad they don't know how to sell their music.. All they need is a shopping cart and tell the RIAA to go the way of the dinosaurs 356. Most people who bought records before keep doing so, those who download songs "for free" do so because they do not have the money to buy it anyway. Rise and decline in sales has more to do with the quality of music, more than "freeloaders". You can't lose a sale from someone who can't buy it. 357. I see it as follows, I buy a cd, I like the cd, I rip the cd to my hd, and allow people to have access to it, I'm not asking for any money, so they don't loose a sale, I'm just helping people discover new music, if they don't like what I share, they can delete it after they hear it. 358. Pirated boots maybe, but not downloads.. If you down load a song with only 128 mb...Many music lovers still buy the Cd to have that CD quality and flexability. 359. They must think people are made of money! Most people I know buy a CD every couple of months. If they download something for free, it's hardly guaranteed that they'd have paid full price for it if the free option wasn't available. It's far more likely they'd just not have acquired it at all. 360. I would never buy the song. I always will find a way to steal. 361. I will sample a song from an artist I have not heard. then I will hear more songs by said artist that aren't found on p2p and I purchase them. or I will go ahead and purchase some I found anyway just to get better quality copy. 362. Too extreme. Many people file-share in the same way that they borrow CDs from a mate, or a library. If they like it enough, they'll buy it, if not, they return/delete it. 363. Previewing music via methods such as P2P is the perfect way to discover the music, and see if it is worth a purchase. Several times I've downloaded tracks from an album, and liked at least half of what I checked out and felt it was worth buying the album. If anything, file sharing increases the chances of someone hearing the album, and liking it so much that they'll want to buy it! I will agree though that counterfeit physical goods sold on the street does cut in to sales, but digital file sharing for personal use certainly should not! 364. Maybe there is an effect on the aforementioned people. The biggest loser is the RIAA. If they cared so much about the others they would not want more of the money causing less to go to the artist and others. They are great at slinging FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) to confuse us and the policy makers. 365. I have downloaded songs that I would normally never listen to, but something got my attention online. Because of that instance, I then paid for several songs or the entire album from that artist and purchased others as well. But I would never have discovered the songs or that artist without that download. 366. If I download an album and like it, I'll go out and buy the CD. 367. Just because somebody downloads something for free doesn't mean they would have bought it otherwise. People often download music from file-sharing services that they already own (to save them ripping it), to try out new types of music that they would not normally risk money on (which could lead to increased legitimate purchases) or simply because there is no sufficiently convenient means to purchase it otherwise. The volume of music files downloaded from file-sharing networks is not directly proportional to loss in revenue for the artists, and certainly not the primary cause. 368. Screwed 369. The music industry generates such a tremendous amount of money not only from record sales, but from concert revenue, that the majority of people that do share files don't affect anything. 370. online files are not tangible property and should therefore be treated differently. If I steal a loaf of bread, it does not matter when calculating costs whether someone else would have bought it because the bread is gone. With online files, a copy of the original does not remove the original, so it should be taken into account whether the person who illegally acquired the file would have bought it if he/she had not had access to the illegal copy. 371. Proving this would be very, very hard. Non-sense. 372. When someone sends me an mp3 and I like it, I proceed to buy the album. Sometimes it isn't in my favor but usually it is. Due to file sharing I've increased my own purchasing of music by at least ten fold since 2000. Literally hundreds of dollars in music I wouldn't have either known about or cared to buy, every year. These straw man defenses cast by the RIAA are nothing but rhetoric. Besides artists don't make their money in albums, they do it in touring, royalties from film and TV and merchandising. Record companies and the RIAA eat almost every dime of the profit made by selling music. Someone should clue them in that some of us actually know something about economics in entertainment. 373. I would never buy 90% of the stuff I download ANYWAY - it's not that good. The other 10% i DO buy - but I make sure it's not RIAA-member produced. 374. Because I choose to watch a baseball game on network TV, should Major League Baseball sue me for lost revenue? If I went to the game, and it was telecast on ESPN, should THEY sue me for lost revenue? If I decide to watch a movie on video at my friend's house, does that count as a 'lost sale' because I didn't see the movie in a theater, or rent it myself? Absurd argument. 375. If the internet disappeared tomorrow, you would not see a corresponding rise in CD sales. That's because their "dirty little secret" is out: even when you factor the costs of production, packaging, distribution, etc., CDs probably cost less than $5 per unit. The public has realized this and no longer desires to pay a 3-400% markup. There's no reason, except greed, CDs should exceed $10. That's a 100% markup, which would provide ample profit. 376. Technological changes have forced a shift in how music is distributed. With the way technology is, people are not willing to buy a CD. They want the convience of DRM free music files. Personally, I refuse to purchase CDs as a protest to the way the RIAA has treated people in their lawsuits. CD sales are down significantly, and I believe that is a good thing. I will continue not to buy CDs. 377. That is very one sided, there is no evidence that its a pure 1:1 ratio, and that does not account viral marketing. Some people including myself buy 'the legit' copies afterwards. 378. Only record company loses. Artists etc don't get money from a bought CD. 379. If the CDs/downloads were cheap, then no-one would bother file sharing or copying 380. File sharing often helps to promote an artist, not hinder that artist. 381. I've downloaded tons of songs (which is legal where I live as long as I don't share them). Lots of those songs I would never ever purchase and a lot of songs will even get erased from my harddrive... on the other hand, if I really like a song I purchase it online. And after that I will look for more songs by the same artist and purchase those as well. I won't buy any CD's anymore though, I want MP3. 382. If someone were never going to buy that track or disc in the first place, then sharing so they can download it isn't making a big difference. More importantly many people, myself included, view downloading as a good way to discover new music we like. If I don't I don't have any local radio stations that play enough variety to cover my tastes, therefor by not downloading, I would in fact be buying fewer CDs. Because I can download I can try before I buy, and explore many times more bands than before. As a result, since I do like to own and support good artists, I can end up buying more records. 383. Just because I bought or shared one track doesn't mean that if I couldn't do it, that I'd buy the cd. As a matter of fact, I typically buy more cds when I can share music online because I'm exposed to more music. After the RIAA hit napster I just quit looking for music online and my purchases dropped. Same thing is happening with allofmp3.com. 384. I'm not going to go out and buy an album of 13 to 17 songs only to find out that they all SUCKED ASS, save for one or two tracks. If I truly LIKE an album - AFTER listening to some tracks obtained via download - I WILL and DO go out and buy the CD to support the artist - from them directly if possible. 385. Each file shared results in a new consumer for CD's and other merchandise who may not otherwise have heard of the artists whose track(s) are being shared. 386. File sharing for profit is where the RIAA needs to focus their enforcement. However, it is impossible to regulate the free sharing of files. The knee-jerk reaction of the RIAA to punish any file-sharing individual is the wrong approach. 387. If the host company is making a payment for royalties, where's the problem. 388. see #11 389. I have purchase more music since I started downloading (including CD's) becasue I now that the most of the songs I will like. Before downloading I would by a CD and more often than not end up giving it away because only one song was good. After a while I just gave up on buying them all together becasue it was a waste of money. 390. I would NOT buy music I can't hear first. Most stores do not have the music I prefer, only the artists that RIAA and Handleman 'feel' deserve publicity. I tend to purchase MOST of my CDs used or directly from the artists. 391. Not everyone will pay for the songs, IE: Cassette & VCR tapes. 392. People don't have infinite amounts of money. They can spend their money only once. For example a college student with low income who downloads lots of stuff wouldn't be paying for most of the stuff he consumes because he doesn't have the money. If said college student couldn't download anything, he would probably go to the library to get his media and wouldn't pay either. 393. Since access to new/non-commercial music is so extremely limited, file sharing is a good way to spread the word about albums that are flying under the radar commercially. I myself have bought many albums at retail after first getting to know the artist (long ago) by a tape made by a friend, and more recently, by a burned disc. 394. Not absolutly true. Some people use the argument that they wouldnt have bought the damn thing anyway, which is probably true in many cases. Also if the companies brought out a music selling system which gave consumers their rights as well as being as easy to use as P2P file sharing these sales might be regained. 395. Most high downloaders are still frequent purchasers of music. Many people still choose to purchase a good quality album they have previously downloaded. If Sales are being lost it is in no small part due to the draconian approach adopted by an industry afraid of change. 396. Most of the music I share I would never buy unless I had heard it first. Having heard it, I buy a lot of stuff I'd previously downloaded. 397. I believe it's silly to think that every file traded equates to a lost sale because much of what is downloaded is done so because people don't know if they'll really enjoy it. I believe that most people who download music know and understand that much of what is being produced by the major labels is poor quality, and wouldn't pay for it anyway - especially at the exorbitant prices the labels seem to think is fair. However, there are a lot of good artists out there who don't get a lot of exposure or promotion by the labels, and file sharing introduces obscure artists to a whole market that wouldn't know of them otherwise. And in those cases, I believe that people would gladly pay for the music that they enjoy - especially if the price was reasonable. 398. My personal experience, I've downloaded movie that I've watch and if I could not downloaded them, I would just wait to see them on one of the movie channel that I do pay for. I've downloaded music that I liked and them bought the CD anyway, but lots that I didn't buy was music I would not have bought in the first place anyway. 399. . 400. Why does the list go on with internet sales? 401. 'Depriving' is the term I have a problem with. I fail to see where the over-privileged can be 'deprived' of anything. 402. A file shared is not a sale lost. People download a prodigious amount of music because it is free, and thus allows them to sample a wide variety of different artists. People download music which they would never normally pay for in the shops, regardless of whether or not the option to download the song was available to them. 403. "Each sale by a pirate [or file shared] represents a lost legitimate sale" is a non-sequitur. You might as well say that every free demo clip or every radio play is a lost legitimate sale. 404. Possibly true, but instead of crying over kids filesharing, maybe they should focus on keeping record labels honest. How about that? How many lawsuits have their been in the past 40 years? How about focusing on managers and regulating their contracts so that artists are protected? How about that? Oh, wait, none of this makes them any money. Nevermind. 405. As a loyal user of allofmp3 I cant without a doubt that the above mentioned web site has opened up a massive opertunity for someone like me to hear all kinds of new music, most of which i would have never discovored in a general music shop. And after experiancing rather unkown artists ive been compelled to purchase t-shirt, patches and various other merchandise which surely must be a financial benifit to the inviduals involved with the music. And besides, the level of money made amoungst the music ladder is nothing short of greed. 406. I have bought MORE CDs from shops than I EVER used to buy soince I started sharing and downloading . You simply find MORE groups to love !! 407. I wouldn't buy all the music I've downloaded, I would only buy about 10% of it. So it isn't a lost sale, in fact it's taught me about new artists I wouldn't have heard before and I've then gone on to see them live, something I never did before. 408. every ones getting their cut especially the exec's 409. most sales would never have occurred in the first place, however the increased exposure gained by an artist may well result in increased sales 410. I very rarely buy cds at least with sharing music online I get exposed to new artists. If there is someone I like I'll go to their shows and be more inclined to buy future albums, however I'm not going out and spending atrocious amounts on cds only to find out the band is rubbish. 411. Most of the files I download are files I wouldn't pay money for to begin with. I would not spend $20 on a cd because it has 11 songs on it, 1 of which doesn't suck. I still purchase cds, movies, gamse etc when I know I'm getting my moneys worth and not some pandering pointless drivel. 412. IT IS NOT TRUE THAT I WOULD BUY THOSE FILES I GET "ILLEGALLY" IF I DOWNLOAD THEM OR COPY THEM IS BECAUSE THEY ARE FREE, I WAS MUCH MORE SELECTIVE BEFORE FILE SHARING EXISTED AND WOULD THINK TWICE BEFORE BUYING. IT IS ONLY BECAUSE SHARED FILES ARE FREE THAT I HAVE GOT THEM. I STILL BUY GOOD MUSIC. AS ALWAYS DID. AND EVERYONE WHO SHARES AND GETS MUSIC STILL BUYS. WE ALSO GO TO CONCERTS AND BUY MERCHANDISING. WE LOVE MUSIC SO WE STILL SPEND MONEY IN MUSIC I ONE OR ANOTHER WAY. 413. I listen more from sites like allofmp3 than I ever would at the eu price. 414. Download to try out many songs that I'd have never spent money for. 415. Because of the cost of CDs in the UK - usually around twice that of the USA, buying as many CDs as I download is not an option, therefore, they are not lost sales. 416. Their argument is so laughable I don't even want to waste words refuting it. 417. Most music today is crap and if the market was truly allowed to function outside of a monopoly would be worth only pennies. There is no need for the middlemen in music nowadays, and the only person losing profits is the RIAA. The middlemen the RIAA describes see only a minimal portion of the dollars paid by consumers anyway. 418. They are assuming that when I download a file I actually would have bought it. 419. Most file sharers only sample music. They either delete the file immediately because they don't like it or they eventually support the artist by buying content or attending live events. 420. i'll download music i don't think is worth the cost of buying, and good music i've discovered by downloading has ended up with my buying dozens of albums. 421. The record industry would see things like that. Perhaps it would be true if they weren't so greedy in the money they want per album etc. 422. Only a small number of people share music files online. If everyone shared music files online then there would be a noticable drop in profits. The proof is on MTV Cribs. Don't think they're losing much, if anything at all. 423. No, because most of the music i've ever run across on any file sharing system is usually of low-bitrate and only really good for preview purposes. If i like the track, i try to find it at a legitamate 'digital store' at a high bitrate, without DRM. Many of my purchases of MP3s are of Dance music (pretty much on small labels) and can be found at high bitrates and no DRM. 424. Music distribution is changing. The RIAA needs to get with the times. 425. Correct answer to the question is "True" but the reason is inadequate for today business model of getting revenues. 426. most ppl wouldn't buy it anyway 427. It's obvious that most most people who obtain a free copy of a performance would not pay full price for it. 428. If one shares files, they're acting more as a marketing representative of that artist, encouraging others to either buy their own CDs or go and see the artist when they're on tour. 429. File sharing promotes sales by allowing people to test-drive a song or album before purchasing it. It also allows people to put off buying an album until the price is no longer over-inflated. The record companies are actually complaining about losing the ability to force people to buy an entire album-full of otherwise lousy music in order to get one or two good singles. 430. Just because a person downloads a song illegally or purchases the song via other means does not mean that the person would have bought the song if the "illegal" means were not available. For many people, if the "illegal" means were not available, they'd simply do without. 431. This is skewed statistics at its finest. First, simply because a person has heard a does not mean they were going to buy that song in the first place. Lost "phantom revenues", i.e. sales PROJECTIONS, should not count as long SALES. Second, a large majority of consumers of the so-called "pirated" content are generally law-abiding people, and will gladly pay 10 cents (or another REASONABLE price) for having "legal" access to the content they were able to preview for free. Most people are perfectly OK with compensating an artist *directly*, it's the layers of middlemen they have an issue with. Third, when the distribution system gets overhauled (see previous response), artists might actually make MORE money from direct sales. 432. They've been making an obsene amount of money for yeras. This just represents a small drop in their huge profits. They still make loads money though, just not quite as loads as before 433. I have found and heard music from many artists via file sharing that I otherwise would never have heard of, and have in turn bought their music. 434. A download does not mean a lost sale. I've downloaded hundreds of songs but I've bought ONLY the 20-30 that I actually appreciate. The rest were deleted. 435. many people download things they would normally not buy. if they want it they will buy it on cd. 436. The entire music industry is fulthy rich and I as a music lover is trying to say money on songs. 437. Just because someone downloads a 'free' song does not mean that the same person would actually buy it if they could not get it for free. Nonetheless, the above question is probably correct to an extent. 438. I get pirated music that I'd never normally buy. If I like it, THEN I may buy something else from that artist. 439. I won't buy many CDs at full price, but I will at a deep discount. And as there is no CD or packaging I shouldn't have to. 440. See my previous answer. The record companies still make millions because the majority of users still buy the hard copy. 441. A shared file isn't even remotely comparable in quality to the original pcm. They should consider shared files as a form of free promotion. the album format no longer works. Lower prices on individual songs would make in volume sales. 442. The only one losing money are the factory workers. 443. If an artist's music sucks, I'm not going to buy it. Plain and simple. 444. 90% of shared files would never have been purchased in the first place. It allows more people to experience music who would not have had the opportunity before. 445. If it costs me $1 a song or $15 for the CD when I only want 1-5 songs, I am simply not going to buy it. So I would rather use allofmp3.com. 446. Many people who download music "illegally" wouldn't buy the CD even if they couldn't download the music. Downloading music isn't the same as shoplifting. If you shoplift, you're taking a product that actually cost something to produce. Downloading music is simply transferring bits of data which cost nothing. 447. unless a "REAL" dollar is part of the transaction there is NO Piracy -- Flea market sales of clones/copys ARE piracy 448. Most people don't download albums. They download individual tracks because they are unlikely to buy an entire album anyways. If they wouldn't buy the whole album anyways, then the industry is not missing out on a sale. 449. A pirated sale would probably be a lost legitimate sale. But a file shared is not. I download cd's before I buy them so I know what it sounds like, if I don't like it, I don't buy it. I have also found alot of artists and albums I liked through file sharing. My cd purchasing habits has actually gone up since I've had broadband. 450. People share files for a variety of reasons. Top on the list? 1. $.99 a song? No way.. to expensive... 2. Low Quality! 128kbps aac? No... 3. DRM! I don't want to be restricted to a certain brand of player. 451. Record companies are simply greedy and the amounts they pay major artists are ridiculous. 452. I downloaded a Timbaland song to see if he really plagiarized, which he did. I would never have bought the song. Many times I download music by an artist because of how bad they are. I would *never* buy music that is as bad as some I download. 453. downloads only occured because they were free and a sale wouldn't have otherwise coccured. 454. THe more music you hear of an artist, the more likely you are to buy their album. 455. I stopped buying CD's long before I could download music. Even if I couldn't grab a song here or there I still wouldn't buy CD's 456. Sharing exposes musicians to new audiences. People who really like the music end up buying it. 457. There are many songs I have collected that I wouldn't have bothered with if I had to pay for an album to get. 458. most music is crap. if a CD has 10 quality songs, then it is worth buying. stop manufacting bands like cars and record real artist 459. Just because someone downloads material, it doesn't neccessarily mean that that person would have purchased it legitimately. If that person never intended to buy a CD in the first place, how can the RIAA count it as a loss if they download the CD instead? 460. each file shared represents someone trying before they buy - they didnt like it? they wont buy it, they probably wouldntve bought it anyway (probably being around 80%) If they did like it they might buy it, or they might buy the next one (seriously depends on the price though) file sharing is the right price for everybody - people cannot afford an album/game/film then they can get it on the net for free. 461. Most people who download music for free either would not have the money to buy it anyway or (like me) want to listen to things at a decent quality before I buy them. I always buy CDs of the things I actually like. 462. It isn't file sharing, but the low over all quality of albums and the bad image the recording companies are giving themselves that is contributing to lower sales 463. The artist gets shit from the sale of recordings, unless they control their catalogs and lease said catalogs to the record companies. 464. If I want it, I'll buy it. There's music that's worth a listen or two, but for sure not worth the money. If I could hear the song a few times or return cd's (not happening), then we have a different story. 465. Most of the people I know have that have downloaded music have also purchased the albums shortly afterward. (or rather, recieved the cd or other physical that was already purchased) From the people I know,about 4/5 actually purchase the albums 466. The music industry can in no way out do the ability of consumers to share and advertise music to other consumers. I believe many people only purchase music that others have shown them or given samples to them. 467. Maybe the sales will lose profit, but many people still purchase CDs after downloading the music to listen to on their iPod. Saying that every file shared represents lost profit is ridiculous... 468. I'll download music I have no intention of buying because I want to hear it. If I like it then I'll see the band in concert or buy their stuff or tell people about them. 469. the problem here is that the music industry is hurt by shared music, but the artist are not. they see increase in concerts revenue with is mostly their profit. 470. The RIAA is the middleman. Everyone else will continue to make money. 471. if i like a song, download it, like it i will buy the album 472. File sharing provides exposure to artists that otherwise might not be heard by individuals. This allows for consumers/fans to sample music and find new artists which leads to an increase in the purchase of music, tickets, and related merchandise. 473. most of new music is crap i wouldnt pay for 474. but who cares should be better priced 475. labels are loosing the money 476. I wouldn't pay 12 bucks for a cd, so the fact that i download a potential good album doesn't lose a sale that wouldn't have occurred anyway 477. I see each file shared as indication to the industry that it will have to change and provide the customer with a good product that provides value for money. 478. This expands the market for music. It creates more music users. 479. Nil 480. the person just wouldn't buy it 481. See 11 above, plus the fact that channels like MTV (as it used to be) promoted the artists, and made people buy more music, including me. See it as promotion. There just have to be a legal, cheap, non-DRM-ladden store to purchase from and most people would buy as oppposed to download for free. AllofMP3 is an excellent example of such a store. I have purchased lots from them in the past when they accepted Visa/Mastercard. The price they charge I am willing to pay to get a high quality product that was easy to find. The prices the record industry charges for "last-century" CDs are ridiculous, and the DRM-ladden songs from iTunes or any other store is not worth the money. 482. i wouldn't buy most of the shit that's being produced these days. 483. It's not stealing. It's duplicating. I wouldn't buy 99% of the music I download and share. 484. Most CDs are crap, som why should we pay for crap 485. Popularity is everything. If it wasn't for sharing music i would not have half the bought albums in my collection as I would never have heard of the artist. Music is way overpriced so spreading it around evens out the value a bit. 486. new avenue of distribution, user can still purchase if they liked what they heard 487. is there even a publisher for online stuff? 488. A a "pirate track" sold / downloaded = a chance to try music otherwise not tried, B Big artists / bands make more on promo / consert / sales of shirts etc and that is NOT impacted negitivaly by "piracy" (new band / artist discovered = more chance of going to a concert etc) 489. People have a limited amount of money to spend on entertainment. If I can't afford to buy music, I'm not going to buy it. 490. i download music not available on a cd 491. who says i would buy the stuff 492. when i download and like the songs i'm more out to go buy the complete cd 493. I would not always buy if I could not sample the product first. Sometimes I have to hear something a few times before I really like it. When I do like it I go buy it to support the artist. However if they are on a major label I will try to find an alternative way to help the artist as I think the labels are too much of a mob. It's time we the people were in charge and not large corporations. 494. Each file shared makes a customer sure of what, and if, he/she wants to buy. It helps customers. I have learnt many bands through filesharing, and bought some of their CDs. 495. No one is guilty that they have all those unnecesary leeches (producer, publisher, retailer...) and they will not just STREAMLINED their business model 496. Well I personally know people who would still not buy much music even regardless of whether file sharing existed or not. Their music and movie collections are far greater than they would be if file sharing never existed, but there was never really a "lost legitimate sale". Different people don't buy music for different reasons, though. 497. I download music to see if I like it. 99% of the time I don't and I delete it. Yes, sometimes I cost the RIAA a sale, but you can't say that each download that I make represents a lost sale. 498. Tjey proboly wouldnt buy it. 499. I think the majority still buy cds and use itunes or zune marketplace. 500. every one gets payed some how. some get payed under the table while some don't it depends on who's ass you kiss the most. 501. if i like it i buy it 502. The record company takes nearly all of the profit. 503. They gain money because they are advertised that way and people go to there concerts. 504. It would be interesting to see $1bln a day of real money ($1\per file\a day). We don't have that much, I think actual lost is no more than 5%. 505. They are rich 506. Most artists make their money by going on tour 507. That's like saying each person who received a grocery store flyer (as in No.11) for free caused the grocery store to lose money. WRONG. The ones who got the flyers may have gone to the store and bought groceries. 508. Note previous. I also define piracy as someone selling multiple illegal copies of a work for profit, not an individual sharing a file/song. The first is a crime and should be prevented and punished. The latter is marketing and should be encouraged. 509. I am happy to support independent labels, and acquire independent music (or major label music) at a fair price in a format that suits me (thanks, emusic!). I don't feel guilty about "sampling" music that I wouldn't otherwise buy by means of filesharing. If I like it, I'll be at the artists' show, buy a t-shirt, buy the album. 510. Artist have never made millions from records, They make thier money from concert and venue ticket sales.. Make good music get a good following and make people want to pay to see you in concert. 511. What's causing the loss of sales is the bare-bones stripping of record stores due to mass market retailers as well as focus-grouped pop product flooding the stores. 512. Alot of times i will download something to check it out, if it wasnt availible for download i would have just skipped it entirely. 513. download = likely to see concert download = likely to continue to download - why not offer advertising to this person in exchange for free music 514. There needs to be a new way of making profits from music. When a 40 GB iPod can hold 10,000 songs (assuming an average of 4 MB/song), how can anyone reasonably assume that the iPod owner is going to spend $10,000 to fill it. With Terabyte drives coming out, the problem is only going to get bigger. It is already easy enough to build a music collection big enough to fill an iPod -- it is not that much harder to fill a Terabyte hard drive -- yet my income has not increased by that magnitude. The music industry is going to have to face the fact that technology has changed and a song is not worth what it once was. 515. File sharing leads to sales. 516. The decision to share/download files is an economic one of supply and demand. The majority of filesharers do not exlusively download illegally to obtain their music. Rather, some albums are worth the $15 cd purchase to the listener, whereas other material is not, and will be downloaded. But that downloaded material still has economic worth- whatever monetary value that listener attaches to avoiding the risk of an RIAA lawsuit. Were the music industry structured to realized this potential profit "lost" to file sharing, a great opportunity would arise. Granted, this would likely be a fraction of a retail cd's price, but multiplied over the millions of internet users, a truly new market for music would be created in an environment where the only cost to the record industry would be hosting files. 517. I in China. No CD to buy in store. Intert place only download to get. 518. "piracy" has always been present, some artists gain recognition by word of "piracy", some even improve their sales by it, but it's only as long as the product is good, if it poor or mediocre, then the word of mouth generated by "piracy" will instead sink it's sales. In essence it's a right effect but based on false theory. Before you bought an album to get a song, after you did, you noticed most of the album was not so good , but having only 2 or 3 good tunes, problem was you had already payed full price for the whole thing, with the digital era you can select exact tunes to buy and pay only for them, this obviously isn't as profitable for the industry, but that's not our problem, and since they already overprice CDs by almost 800% i don't think ppl should feel the elast guilty 519. Almost all of the music I download is underground anyway. Even if I didn't download the music, I would probably never buy the CD, not only because of the expense, but also because in most cases I probably have never heard of the band until I have downloaded their music. It helps build the fan bases of the less popular artists and bands. I don't know what to say about the mainstream artists, because I can't stand them. 520. If suddenly there would be no more trackers, no p2p at all, I would consider paying for video content, but I don not agree that every share is a lost of a legit sale. 521. each will still get paid, just the decline of sales limits the extreme ammount a record exec gets paid 522. I would never have bought the songs anyway. If anything p2p has let me explore more styles of music that I would never have even heard of before. 523. Technically, this is true, but, again, artists never received due compensation to begin with. File-sharing mainly just hurts fat-cat record companies. 524. the large record companies may be loosing profits but this is money that never gets near the artists, etc. i see selling pirated copies to be very different than file sharing in the copying a cassette for a friend way. 525. Take off everything after "profits." RIAA screws everyone else. 526. A pirate sale and a shared media file are far from the same thing. The only people who stand to profit from the latter are artists, who benefit from the increased exposure they receive, which increases their potential to generate revenue from touring, licensing, publishing and merchandise. 527. Bull ****!! They feel threatened. The average geek can cut a disk as good as theirs now. Still nice to have the cover and a real cd. Recording Industry Association of America 2003 46,386,219 27,665,291 Cary Sherman, president 1,005,000 Mitch Bainwol, CEO 844,231 n/a n/a Membership dues from record labels 528. First of all: noone would go out and pay for the music he or she downloads (if I did, I'd be broke ten times over). Second: downloading an album doesn't mean there's one less album for someone to pay for. Third: The people who actually deserves to be paid, the artists, can make their money from playing shows, selling merchandise et cetera. This will have the added benefit of weeding out people who are only it for the money. 529. I agree that the artist loses money when i don't buy a CD I otherwise might have - but i have issues with contributing some $7-8 towards the labels' coffers just to get some 10 cents across to the artists. unfair, i agree...but there needs to be a better solution . 530. Normally if people were going ot buy the CD in the first place they would have done so, so there is no lost sale for what didn't exist originally 531. Here in Mexico, the sale of pirate discs is widespread. At about $2 USD per CD, people can afford to buy music. At full retail, about 95% of the people wouldn't buy music at all, if the pirates disappeared tomorrow. 532. A file shared might never have been purchased. Also, a previewed dowloaded file may result in a sale that would not have existed. 533. I would buy less music if it wasn't for the try before you buy, that filesharing makes possible 534. i wouldn't have bought ANY of the files i downloaded 535. Just imagine if the bottled water industry used the same argument; due to people using free tap water, they'd be "losing" an amount of money greatly exceeding the total sum of all world currencies. 536. If I really like the cd I will buy it If I like only one song I will only download it. 537. screw the record companies 538. The RIAA... too talentless to be artists, too dumb to be businessmen, too greedy to be criminals... Really Idiotic Association of Arses ...afterall remember this is the organization that REJECTED the mere mp3 format outright/initially... 539. I wouldn't have bought the album any way. And I am more likely to buy an album if I get a good preview. 540. They'll always recieve money for their music other ways, the record companies are just bitching cause they are losing money 541. I use file sharing to explore new music. If I like something, I buy it. Mp3 does not offer the sound quality of a CD, although most CDs sound like shit anyway - because the music business doesn't care enought o put out a quality product anymore. Maybe that's why "sales are plummeting?" 542. as per answer 11 543. It poses a loss only to the record companies because the artist will still demand the same pay, and the record companies will keep paying them, and if they don't it helps the economy by preventing the rich from monopolizing the money. File-Sharing helps the economy by letting poorer people keep their money. 544. EMI skimmed millions from the Beatles. Sam Moore found himself without a pension. The Bay City Rollers received one check for about $225,000. They sold 70 million albums. Even if you bought a "legitimate" copy, the band didn't get paid. So what's the difference? 545. I see file sharing as a kind of "Try before you buy" thing. I don't like buying albums with 11 crap songs & 1 good one. Music is expensive here in Australia (most CDs cost around $25-30AU), so I need to spend wisely. Sharing lets me determine if the artist is actually good enough to deserve my hard earned cash. There are also the out-of-print & hard to find pieces that may be available by sharing. What artist really wants their music to die? Sharing keeps alive music that would otherwise be lost to the ages. Also -- if I like something I've downloaded enough, then I do go out & buy the item. I also see sharing as no different to after-market sales on auction sites or garage sales. 546. I don't buy pirate things, I do them my self! :P But really, alot of the stuff I do/would buy I am extremely unlikely to actually go and buy at stores anyway. 547. most files are shared, not sold, and why buy anything you've never heard or heard of? 548. They would never make a sale from me! Rent, food, utilities, car payment, insurance, gas, and taxes VS. entertainment. Guess who wins. After that, no money left for big media. Not that it stops me. I've been a pirate since my Apple II days... 549. I have yet to see any devestating effects 550. 1st: pirating is completely different from sharing. 2nd: 9 out of 10 pirated or shared records would never be 'bought' if not by those alternatives. 3rd: who defines what is a 'legitimate sale' of a non-scarce cultural good? 551. False, as I will review a movie or music file and if I like it I will support the artist by making a direct purchase from them. Labels are sucking the life out of music anyway. 552. more exploring of music to buy 553. I don't buy CDs now unless I have already heard a majority of the songs, which I get from file-sharing... Iused to buy all the time, but quit when I was unhappy with the CDs, After 5 years I started checking out P2P, and started buying again... 554. if one can't download, doesn't mean one will buy. 555. If it is for non-commercial use, and the copies are from CD's or itunes files already bought, then there is no moral reasons to equate it with stealing. 556. A lot of people like to try stuff before they buy it so they are sure that they will get their money's worth. 557. I would'nt buy a lot of the songs I download 558. Sale? most files sharers or "pirates" don't resell the files they download and share, so it's only a sale potential they are losing out on, and bad marketing on their part. music-tours/movies-highqualitytheater/etc. they are not losing a single buck of the file sharer, but on their own low quality marketing or bought experience they offer. 559. Many people will collect things if they are free. They may never read/listen to/use it but they will collect it. I can't bear to throw away a good strong box or a plastic container ... surely I'll find a use for it. 560. Most stuff I wouldn't buy becuase it's horrible and gets deleted in short order. The wonder of digital data and 561. try before you buy 562. RIAA is evil, and therefore liars. 563. Each file shared by a "pirate" represents an introduction to a new consumer. The same consumer that probably wouldn't have even known of the band's existence without file sharing. 564. Absolute stuff and nonsense. What really strikes me is the hypocrisy of the record companies--like they really give a damn about the artists, let alone the others. 565. 10,000 shares = 1 sale 566. they make more money than me. 567. alot of shared stuff wouldn't be bought in the first place 568. The RIAA has no god given right to make money. They must adapt or hopefully die 569. P2P is free advertising for the labels. Highest shared files also have highest sales. 570. Just because someone downloaded a file doesn't mean that that indivisual would have purchased the music track had he/she not downloaded the track. 571. File sharing allows one to preview albums before (a potentially bad) purchases. It allows one to listen to music outside of one's country. If I like an album and it is available in my area FOR A DECENT PRICE I will buy it. I cant afford to spend $30 to buy a CD from the UK on the fact that I know I like one song. 572. Shared files represent potential sales. Either due to sampling or aversion to insane prices. 573. The artist hardly sees a molecule from the sales of their work. Want your eyes opened, read: http://www.aandronline.com/reading-room/courtney1.html 574. If the artist and everybody else lost so much money because of file sharing then why haven't they gone belly up so far? Where are they getting their money? File sharing has been around for how many years now? They say they are losing money but do I see that as having any affect on them? I watch MTV Cribs and the houses are still huge and the five cars outside still look great. I don't buy they're propaganda, so I don't buy their CD's. 575. The data they present does not take into account 3 things: 1. Downloads from people who wouldn't have bought. (no loss) 2. Downloads from people who then buy the album/song. (gain) 3. Downoads from people who would've bought the legitimate copy if it was made available. (gain) 576. I download things to try them because I am not willing to spend the money on something that sucks. I'd say less than 10% of things I download are things I would actually pay for if it was available by no other means. 577. a file downloaded is not always a sale lost but the buying and selling of pirated goods should be stopped. only the creators of the content should be allowed to profit from the sale of the product. funnily enough I get the feeling that the people who created and work on the product rarely see all that profit. I think the publishers probably see most of it. 578. Each shared file shows how sick some consumer is of handing his money over so that some record executive or wall street suit can get rich, while most artists still stay poor. 579. Downloads are more promotional. 580. I will often download a song or album from a band that I have not heard. I would not walk into a store and spend $12-15 on a CD that I know nothing about. Every new band or artist I discover on P2P leads to new profits that would not have been had otherwise. For example, I was introduced to one of my now-favorite bands, Minus The Bear, when a friend burned a copy of one of their albums for me. Since then, I have bought their entire discography on legal, retail CD format, bought tickets to see them live three times, and bought a shirt at one of their shows. In addition, I found out about Horse The Band from another user on a P2P site who recommended them to me based on the fact that I like Minus The Bear. Now I have purchased a Horse The Band CD, seen them live, and bought one of their shirts. When I saw Horse The Band, they played with So Many Dynamos and I ended up buying their CD too. Now, by searching So Many Dynamos MySpace page, I have discovered two more new bands whose music I have downloaded and am listening to. More than likely, this will lead to future sales for both of those bands, and so on. So that original act of piracy has now lead to purchases of seven legitimate CDs, four concert tickets, and two shirts purchased at those concerts. Without that original burned CD, I most likely would have never made any of these purchases. 581. A file shared is not a sale lost. Copyrighted material should NEVER be sold by people who are not the copyright holder, as this diverts a legitimate sale from the legitimate copyright holder. However, sharing DOES NOT equate to a lost purchase, as there is absolutely no guarantee that in the absence of a free file, someone will spend money buying a legitimate file. 582. this is not much different than copying tapes in days gone by. it also allows the smaller artists to get their music out there and listened to and boosts the possibility of sales of a full album for them 583. Artists see little profits except from merch sales and gate receipts. 584. the price of copies is virtually nil. nobody needs to pay for copies. 585. Most downloaded music is done because it's free and easy, not because they would have bought it in a store. 586. I wouldn't buy more than half the shit i have downloaded. In fact the few albums i do buy i wouldn't of bought unless i had heard them first. Student = Poor. 587. I use filesharing to effectively "try on" new music. If I like more than a few songs on an artist or group's CD, I'll go buy it to support the band. But if there are only two songs worth listening to, I won't buy the album because it's not worth it. They inflate the figures of losses to piracy to the point those estimates are laughable. A file shared does not equal a traditional sale lost, it equals a lost opportunity for the industry because they don't really offer DRM free downloads. 588. more exposure = more sales 589. Accepting a free file-share does not conclusively prove willingness to buy said media. 590. a file shared does not equal a lost legitimate sale. only a fraction of files shared may actually equal a lost legitimate sale 591. I WOULD NEVER EVER BUY EVERYTHING I DOWNLOAD! 592. Different. 593. I'm in no position to buy most of the stuff I d\l. 594. A means to filter through all the junk 595. most of the music i download i wouldn't have bought in the first place. I used to dub tapes off the radio for the one song i wanted. cds are to expensive and usually i only like a song or two. 596. I try and see it as sharing allows me to find new artists, improving my chances of finding and thus buying a new artist. 597. Many times people download songs they would never buy otherwise, therefore, a legitimate sale is not lost. 598. Well, maybe it's true to a certain extent, but from what I see in record shops, I believe that there's a more or less standard number of people who buy legitimate CDs anyway. Those who can afford them, will buy them. Those who can't, would most probably never buy them in the first place, so essentially there's only a small percentage of "lost" customers, if at all. 599. Sometimes I may download a song to try it, and then not like it. It is the same to me as listening to the radio. I only listen to indie music anyway. If I like it, I have no problems buying it from a non-evil source. 600. I would never buy the item and if not available on p2p would not have it. 601. I download maybe 20 files a week, and buy or go to see in the movies what i LIKE. Ive bought MORE media since P2P and broadband,not less 602. People will take anything for free. Nothing says these songs would have been purchased 603. The growing use of the internet, including, but not specifically filesharing, has meant that consumers are beginning to purchase better suited products and services instead of what is presented to them, due to its less controlled, international nature. This means smaller companies gain, due to their unique selling point whilst larger companies loose, because they had previously relied on advertising and snowball methods. 604. There are albums that I wouldn't buy for any cost. 605. more people are being exposed to more genre of music - hence they buy more legitimate tracks .. and artistes are now more inclined towards live performance 606. The CD's I've bought in the last 10 years (I'm 49) were 'used' from record shops. My son has bought about 10 CD's (with my money). I've taught him this, "If he downloads some music, and if in his mind it's good music, then he should go out and buy it." But he too has a problem, he says most of the music is crap, badly produced, filled with sampled mp3 crap (even on the original). 607. I've checked music out of the library to have a listen before I buy. If I like it, I buy; if I don't like it, I don't buy. File sharing actually induces people to buy because once you hear a song you like, you want to hear more by the artist. 608. Each file shared could indicate someone who is interested in the artist but cautious about buying. Or someone who would never have listened to the artist normally, but is now. And again, most of the artists never see the money made on sales, just royalties. 609. Most of it probably is a lost legitimate sale. However, most of the music I download is to see if an album is even worth my purchase. If I like a band enough I support them as much as possible; I own entire discographies and am proud of it. 610. That's not true, i can download the last mp3 of britney spears (she sucks) and listen to it, but i wouldn't never buy it anyway, so they aren't losing a legitimate sale. RIAA STFU 611. The Music Industry, or the enormous corporations controlling the record labels, are the ones hurting the artists (and shooting themselves int he foot). Perhaps if they stopped shelling out 100+ million bonuses for their ceos, they would have some extra cash for their "artists." When you make music, and not profit, the goal of the industry you will see results. 612. NO WAY! Just because I choose to download something for free doesn't mean I would have ever bought the CD!! 613. it's all about the money. 614. I have actually purchased an album do to hearing a pirated song from an artist. I call that damn good marketing!! 615. if one had to pay for all the freely available downloads one would not spend or even have the money in the first place. It's like saying every 13-yr old who downloads and uses Photoshop would have spent $700 on a license in the first place. Hardly. 616. An awful lot of files downloaded are done in the hope that there's something good there; mostly, it's very poor quality. If it is good, then I buy it as a CD or DVD. Otherwise, ut joins the Great Bitbucket in The Sky 617. The assumption is that a downloader would have bought the CD with that song anyway - this is blatantly untrue. Many people download the song, find out they don't like it, and would have never bought a CD in any case. I find that we buy more CDs now than ever - BECAUSE of better exposure to new and old music. Radio sucks, so does music TV... where else do we find out about new or old music? 618. each file shared potentially results in the loss of a potential sale 619. Sharing is exposure. Even before I started boycotting I was only buying a handful of CD's per year. I have downloaded SO MUCH that I would NEVER have purchased - simply bc it is free and Dl'ing is addictive :) 620. Sample music to see what a band sounds like. Used to by music but stoped after Napster was taken down the first time. Spend as little as poosible on RIAA music now. Go to concerts a lot more now then I used to. 621. Hahaha. lol This is the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. A downloaded song was never a song that would have been purchased. They are full of it. They lose nothing on a download. In fact, they have gotten more money out of me because of the downloads. I have purchased over 1000 CDs in the last years. But I'll tell you something serious... I wouldn't have known half of these groups, or at least I wouldn't have developed an affinity for them enough to buy the CD or see them in concert, if i hadn't sampled a lot of their works over many weeks and months. That how it works. Easy to find, easy to keep, easy to listen, and before you know it, a fan develops, and fans go to concerts and buy memorabilia, CDs and DVDs because they want the full quality original work to support a GOOD artist! (I wouldn't have bought half these CDs if i didnt already know that i would like at least half the songs on them.) So without downloads, their money would be less... and if their money is less today, than yesterday, its because they failed to put out new quality music... so dont blame downloads on their failures. 622. i download to listen, most product is crap if i like it I will buy it 623. For each CD I buy that's crap hurts record companies profits. 624. See my answer above 625. Back in the days of Morpheus and Napster, I was spending TONS of money on CD's after discovering tons of new artists on the file sharing sites. Now that P2P has become such a legal risk and since the radio stations only play a sliver of the music available, I simply gave up on trying to find new music. 626. Artists can still make money by other sales (concerts, t-shirts, etc.). 627. Most fileshares are done by people trying new music or would not purchase the music in the first place. 628. Look, people who download a particular song may or may not have gone out and paid money for it. Sometimes they're just curious. Sometimes they think the song sucks and delete it. Sometimes they like the song, but they still wouldn't gone out and plunked down $20 for the CD it's on, along with a bunch of other crap they don't care about. It is a fanciful assumption to assume a 1-to-1 ratio with regard to sharing vs. sales. 629. To back that statement up, you would need a mind-reading device and a time machine, or possibly both. I say prove it. Each time I download music, I am MORE likely to go out and buy it if I like it than I would be with no way to try it out first. And these stupid DRM'd and short clips don't qualify as try-before-you-buy. I need to listen to it in my car, and hear the whole album before I decide if it's worth $15. 630. Same as my answer to #11 above... 631. If it wasnt free i wouldnt buy it (O_o). 632. There has to be some kind of outlet for people who can not afford to buy music. Copying from the radio or off a cassette tape has always been done. Thats how I use to do it. Personally I would do away with the RIAA and have each artist build their own website to sale their stuff. But I still Cant Afford to buy every single song I like. I could go on but i dont Want to type forever....... 633. People who are going to pirate the stuff are going to do it anyway, no matter what the RIAA (or the MPAA, for that matter) do. 634. I simply wouldn't pay for most of the music I now have collected. Even if that means I could not listen to it at all. 635. We all simply have MORE music now than we used to. People who bought lot's of records before still buy. People who bought little music before (my case) still buy a little music and download "a historical catalogue" of music that is not on the "Top 40" today, but might have been 30 or 50 years ago. 636. Each file shared by a "pirate" is a potential sale of product for the record company, artist, producer, songwriter, publisher, retailer... etc etc. 637. their rich 638. Same as the above; they are not loosing any money at all! Although I agree withe the: "Each SALE by a PIRATE, ... lost legitimate sale". I believe that is true - the 'hard' piracy, that is. 639. Sure, pirated works that are sold en lieu of the actual articles hurt sales. However, in the case of file sharing, there are usually 2 cases: 1, a file sharer downloads an item, and later purchases it, having decided it's worth their money for the better quality or collectible factor. Or 2, the file sharer never has been or would have been a customer, so sales are basically unaffected. 640. The old "try before you buy" reasoning. As stated in the previous textbox, lots of releases just suck. People who love the music will support the artists they like. Filesharing is purifying the quality of music. 641. There are more profits now then ever before for the record industry. 642. Downloading a file doesn't mean you would have paid for it otherwise. People are much more discerning about what music they get if they have to pay cash for it. 643. It's only a lost sale if the receiver intended to buy a cd and replaced it instead with the download. 644. The Same. 645. I'm into more obscure music and have since made many more cd purchases then I ever would before hand. 646. A lot of people download tracks not meant as singles as well as the singles. This then persuades them to buy the album and indeed they are even more likely to buy the next album without downloading anything 647. The selling of software, music, etc.., is wrong. Sharing is not. they never said shit when we recorded shows with VCR's and dubbed cassette tapes, but all of sudden its wrong. BS! 648. Many of the files shared would never be purchased. As such they can not be claimed as 'lost sales'... as they would never have been purchased. If anything, it's a method to expand their potential market with new listeners. 649. How can these guys ever believe that just because I downloaded a track, I would have bought it if it wasn't for P2P? If I were to buy every track I downloaded, I would have to commit a series of bank robberies by now... 650. I wouldn't be buying the album in the first place, so its not a lost sale. 651. Some people actually buy the media but want to try it out first. Even if that were so, some people just flat out wouldn't buy the media anyway even if they didn't obtain an illegal copy because of the outrageous price. 652. If someone download a file it doesnt mean at all he would have gone buy it. It is even free advertissement. I think most artist see it that way ( see survey ..somewhere) 653. Everybody will take things for free, he would never buy. The cost of opportunity is so low with filesharing or pirated stuff, that anybody can afford it. 654. -do- 655. It's more like shareware. If I like it, after testing, I buy it. 656. Partially true, while each most by a pirate [or file shared] represents a lost legitimate sale many of shared files would never be bought or even discovered if it weren't for sharing, and smaller yet unknown band may build fan base that way and sell their music afterwards, that way every download is also a possibility for new profit. 657. most of the stuff i have is a side effect of a piece of music that i would actually buy, considering that most CD's are stuffed with filler music 658. see answer above. 659. The things I've downloaded I would've never bought, as proven by the fact that even before there was the interent I've never bought any media.. (except a few truly awesome games at discount prices) 660. That didn't used to be true at all. It's a little more true now, because of DRM 661. The percentage the artist receives is negligible compared to the percentage the leeches get. They wouldn't be complaining if the percentages were reversed. 662. sales wont rise if i cant download anymore, i got NO money to spend for music. (and by that i mean i got problems to pay really important things like heating) 663. people try things they would never pay for 664. If I want to support the artist, I'll go to their concert. Buying the CD gives more money to the label than the artist 665. the very fact that they put there name before the artist on this statement shows how much care they have for the artist, also note that if the music is good most people will buy the cd or pay for what they want, if it sucks, then no worries because the downloaded file will go to waste. 666. I wouldn't have bought it anyway 667. lol, 1 downloaded song |= 1 lost sale, duuuuuuh 668. if you download it and like it, chances are you'll shell out the bucks and in turn buy it 669. What if instead of a lost sale that were no sale at all? that better? 670. How is filesharing "selling"? I fail to see how someone pirating an MP3 is profiting or making a "sale" by uploading a copy to anyone else, be it his family/friends or a total stranger online. I am strongly opposed to piracy for profit, and have no reservations supporting companies that sue bootleggers etc who charge for illegal copies...but to suggest filesharing is somehow "sale" related again shows the utter cluelessness or blatant lying (again, take your pick) that the RIAA et all are engaging in. Since using filesharing/P2P, i have bought over 80 CD's, by being able to download and preview albums to find what i like/dont like - before i had access to P2P, i owned none...simply because i wouldnt pay the extortionate prices set by the RIAA for something that MIGHT have 1 or 2 good songs and a load of garbage filler. If i couldnt download it, i wouldnt buy it anyway...simple as that. 671. If music wasn't so overpriced, maybe people would buy CDs to listen to new music. File sharing is an ideal way to find new music - if you like it, you support the artist. If it's not buying the CD, it's going to a show or buying a Tshirt - that's all. That way you can actually hand the artist what's rightfully their's. 672. See number 11 673. BS 674. Blackmarket fraud with imposter product has always been successfully battled in one way; quality. Make your product better. No one that buys a knock off high end watch would buy the real one. Now selling a fraud as if it was real....well thats like selling bad weed. The lost revenue is crap too. It assumes someone would have paid for the product under the same circumstances. 675. People will pay a reasonable price for unrestricted media. I think most of the pirated material is bought by people who can't or would not pay the high prices asked for a DVD. Myself included. I will often refer a movie to friends who will and can make the purchase though. 676. If their music is good enough to buy on CD then people will buy it 677. People download music to see if it's worth buying. If it's not, then they wouldn't have bought it in actuality either. 678. Many people do not have the money to buy all the songs they download and would not listen to the music if they could not get it for free. Above that their are many people that will download a song more then once simply because they did not store the original. Furthermore many people that do download a song still go out and buy the album or track online so the above reasoning by the RIAA is ridiculous. 679. they may lose a little, but they make it up in volume 680. If I where to download 1000 songs, that doesn't mean I have $1000 to spend (assuming iTunes cost of $1/song). Unemployed students don't have that kind of money. If file sharing didn't exist, there wouldn't have been a sale at all. 681. Downloading does not equate to a lost purchase as it hardly guarantees the downloader would have bought the music in the first place. 682. Honour an artist, share their music! The RIAA wants to destroy the artist. 683. There is always more music 684. the pirate may actually buy the music if they like it 685. Fans are going to buy the records or better go to concerts. People who just want to get an impression are downloading and trashing the music. 686. Through economic classes we have learned that there is a certain price at which more people are likely to buy than others. The lower the price, the more likely you are to get buyers. So it seems quite obvious that because of the difference in price its more appealing. However, since the RIAA doesn't lower their music prices it doesn't increase their potential sales. 687. Most songs I download, I hear on the radio often anyway. The number of actual sales hasn't decreased, the number of artists has increased, and therefor, so has the number of unsold units. Piracy has always been an increasing trend throughout the years. As far as I know, the record labels have always had that percentage worked into their business model. The companies the RIAA stem from only want to ensure maximum profits for themselves. They are doing far more than maximum harm for the artists and the music. 688. Most shares are "extras". They're things people can do without; most people simply would not buy. So maybe the companies are losing 1% of their profits. Big deal. 689. I'm cheap. I wouldn't by the album because of all the crap songs on it anyways. 690. Real pirates don't sell. 691. Wow. The artist lost 1 dollar. I bet they'll feel that when they're buying their 50000th car, 10th island, etc. 692. Technically, yes. If you download it, odds are you didn't go buy the CD as well. But again, companies capitalize on merchandise and tickets. 693. Files sharing is a way to test products before you buy them..... Furthermore what really stops me from buying cd's is the RIAA's campaign against the consumer who supports them. 694. If I didn't fileshare, I still don't see myself buying CDs. I have bought more because I got music online first. If I can't listen to it before I buy, then I won't buy it. And I only buy CDs that are at most $10CDN. I would never pay more because I never like all the songs on a CD. 695. i think it would be an incentive to the artist to make the song public to make it known by listeners, when someone likes the songs, usually the person buys the cd. 696. Selling pirated material is a NO NO. Those who just share copyrighted material usually wouldn't/couldn't buy them in the first place. Let's face it, there's not really a lot of material out there that's actually worth the money they're charging. 697. a file shared doesn't represent a lost sale, but (before their sue em all campaign) a future sale... i like to sample the menu, if it's something i like then i'd buy it. 698. they are still in the dark ages of 1 hit and 13 shit songs = $23 699. a download does not equal a lost sale. Most people would not buy as much music as they are willing to download. It would cost too much. 700. People are more likely to buy a CD once they know the content is great. The artists that are "suffering" are the ones that release crap and hope people won't find out until they own the CD. Online music sharing saves people from losing money and puts the fake artists in their place. 701. Most of what I got, isn't available on cd. It's never been rereleased. I quit buying cds about 15 years ago cause I can't afford them. 702. When i first started filesharing I used it as a means to find new music that i then went out and bought. I bought more albums than ever before. Soon as the RIAA started suing people, and as long as they continue, i will never give them of my money. 703. some people still choose to buy, and 1 download does not equal one buy 704. The RIAA is ignoring a lot of facts,like the fair use doctrine. 705. They assume I would have bought it, Wrong. I can wait 120-minutes to listen to it on the radio, or wait 5-minutes to down-load it and listen to it... same thing. Where was the RIAA when i was 12 recording radio music on my "ghetto box"? Same thing. 706. The RIAA isn't taking into account the sales of iTunes and other legit mp3 services. While granted, sales of CDs have dropped 17%, they haven't taken into account those sales. 707. i don't buy music/movies never have anyway, so if i download one they didn't lose money because I wouldn't have bought it anyhow. 708. They started this by treating songs as a commodity. I might have purchased a song I might not have but it's not guranteed either way. I have lots of shared music that really wasn't worth $$ in my opinion. 709. I spent an average of $150 a month when I could share...I was open more artist and music was fun and not a crime 710. wouldn't but it anyway 711. I don't have the money to buy it... So you can't lose something you would never have in the first place..!!! 712. A Pirate Being A Pirate Would Not Have Gone To the Store And Bought The Album To Get The Song He Liked, EVEN IF It Werent Available Online (He Would Just Get It From Other Sources, Like A friend). From What I Seen, Most People Who Download Songs Dont have The Money To Go Buy The Whole Album, Are Angry With The Music Industry And Download As A Way To Retaliate, Or Download Old And Rare Songs. 713. Many people "try before they buy", thus stimulating sales. 714. See Eric Flint's "Prime Palaver" essays at Baen Publishing's free library: http://www.baen.com/library/ A sample quote: "...I've sold four or five times as many books of my own because of the exposure which the Free Library and Webscriptions have given me than I've lost through putting the books up online for free." 715. i havnt bought an orginal bit of music or computer software since 1998 and i never will again, i dont see why i have a need for it. I dont want the music they are selling anyway as the music thats not on the 4 big labels is generally better. 716. if i couldnt get it free i just wouldn't get it 717. Well considering the company is pretty much the only link in the chain that have anything to lose if you take into account that say when a record company "creates" a Britney Spears, they don't say: "We will give you money for every song you create and you will get the licensing right so that the royalties go to you." It would go more like this: "Listen we will make you a super hit and almost all the money from the concerts and the sponsorships and the commmercials and everything else you do you'll get to keep, sounds good to you?" so no people still get to eat even the artists who make the music. anyone who says the industri is dying or will die needs to learn some easy math or open their eyes. 718. I have never bought a CD without hearing the music first. 719. Many people who buy/download pirated copies of movies/music/software would probably never have bought them otherwise--thus they cannot represent a lost legitimate sale. 720. You can't claim a loss on intangible items that are nothing more than 1's(one) and 0's(zero). 721. Just because someone downloads a song doesn't mean that they will purchase it. In many cases downloading one song causes someone to hear something new and in turn purchases the full album. I purchased 15-20 albums when I had the original napster, I purchase 10 albums per year now. 722. I've download hundreds of albums that I wouldn't have else wise paid for. If I like what I hear I'll buy the album. Music of the music I've since bought would have never been played on radio or tv music stations. 723. The money shared between all those is so marginally small, it can't be called a loss. Nobody would notice that. 724. Wrong. I'd rather listen to music on, say, Internet radio than pay the industry for its crap-on-disc. 725. I probably would not have bought it in the first place. I often end up purchasing the CD that the song is on if I like the music. As well as see them on tour, etc. 726. Not true 727. None of my downloading has resulted in a lost sale if the music was worth having. I still buy CDs but I'm a lot more selective nowadays. 728. A lot of the things people download they may not have bought. While there are some who would have otherwise purchased the music, there are plenty who wouldn't have even listened to it if they couldn't have it free. Do musicians even play for the music and the fans anymore? Or is it just about the paycheck? 729. This statement is preposterous. It ignores Economics 101 on supply and demand. If you have a CD that costs $15,000, you will sell less units than the same CD cost $20, but you will still sell some. By the same basic economic theory, there will be fewer transactions for a $20 CD than there will be for a $0 CD (supply which can meet every demand). Therefore, to assume that every file shared (at a unit price of $0) would equal a transaction at a unit price of $20 is ignorant of the most basic economic principles. 730. People download music to see what its like first, if they like it they will go and buy the album. 731. I hardly bought any music or movies before i started to fileshare. I still buy dvd boxes sometimes and albums from artists i like. I also buy many games every year, but now when i can try the actual game before i buy i never have to support crappy products and i never get disappointed. 732. only a small part of the library is available from the record companies, everything is findable online. 733. What, the people that have a different opinion than yours don't get to explain? 734. Most shared files aren't desired enough to be bought, but, rather, simply shared. 735. A lost legimate sale: True. I'm much more dubious about the chain-reaction economics, though. Really, it's only the record company that loses. They've already paid the musicians. 736. They need to restructure their agreements. 737. I download songs when I'm not certain if I want to buy a full album. If the band is worth it, I invest in the full CD. Without the ability to download multiple, full songs from the same album, I wouldn't bother to buy the album at all. 738. File sharing has led to legitimate sales to myself that would never have happened previously. I like to try before I buy. If I can't afford to buy it, I have it anyway. That's what they really don't like. they would rather i maxed out my CC, deprived my kids and made them more money. 739. I always buy things worth my money. Even after I... sample them. 740. people will still buy, just they know what they are buying now, and won't keep buying crap without hearing it 741. It is not necessarily the case that when someone downloads a song free off P2P networks, they would have bought it had it not been available for free. 742. people recorded songs on to cassette and films from the tv long before they started sharing things on the net, cassettes and vhs didn't kill the artists then just as file sharing won't kill them now. 743. I didn't buy CDs much before, and if I couldn't get a song for free, I wouldn't have bought it anyway. 744. just means that the record companies might have gained a little more cash if there was no internet because there would be not a decent competitor to the record companies business model 745. I don't have the money to buy some things, so if it was not available via p2p, I would not watch or listen to the content in question. I have a greater chance to buy something having viewed it/ listened to it then making an educatied decision on what to buy. 746. I say rubbish...How many unknown millions of songs and TV shows have been(and still are)recorded on analog tape? Those items certainly didn't represent a "lost sale" and neither does DLing a song file. 747. if i donwload a song and like it i go buy the album to SUPPORT a good band, if the song turns out to be crap i dont buy it and they havent lost a sale at all!!!! because i wouldnt have bought it in the first place as i didnt like it 748. Pirated copies of DVDs and CDs, like the kind that you can get in Chinatown on the corner of the street deprive them of sales because people will have a physical copy of something and that's the end of it. Sharing files does not as many people see file sharing as a way to try out new things and see if it is worth buying. 749. cuz most people like me download just to know that my money is well spent. 750. not every download is a lost sale 751. I'll still buy the songs if I like them. 752. They do not have god given right to my money. 753. Hardcore 'warez' people keep on sharing, no matter what. On the other hand, those who find new music online are more likely to support artists that they like. Actual pirate sales (counterfeit disks) are a problem, but that has nothing to do with filesharing. 754. most people who download weren't going to pay for their music anyway 755. this is a yes-no kind of answer some-one that sales poorly made CDR bootlegs are cheating the artist cause there making a profit without giving anything back. People that share music: 90% of them that like what they hear usually will buy a actual CD (when they are on sale.) just like the late 70's the 80's and 90's when they would snag a song from the radio or a friends music collection and make a "Tape Copy" the mentality of music sharing has not changed in the last 30+ years just the formats have. 756. they should leave the pirate alone, if thats what they want to call it or list it. i call it a shareer 757. Shared files are a way of discovering new music, which creates a larger base of fans for bands that otherwise would not have had a high level of exposure. This increases revenue from concerts and merchandising sales. 758. Most ppl simply cant afford their extrotionate prices. 759. One downloaded song does not equal the whole album. In fact, a couple of songs I have downloaded in the past have convinced me to the whole album 760. There is no where to hear new music. Can't go to the radio for it, payolla has gotten in the way. All I hear are the same songs, every hour repeated. Now it used to be I went to the radio and always heard new stuff. Times again have changed. If you want to hear new music without being gouged for stuff you don't want, p2p is the only place to do that. The one hit singles artist is all that makes it to the Top 10 and I don't really think they are much as an artist, they're more an entertainer. That doesn't carry well for staying power on the charts. 5 years from now, the has been isn't heard anymore. When you listen to the radio it seems like those with staying power are the 30-40 year old bands still being played on the air even though most no longer exist as a group. 761. Stuff I download I would never buy. I just want to hear them sometimes. 762. I buy if I like what I hear 763. We will pay for worthy products 764. The recording company is the major receiver of record sale profits (although the retailer does also stand to gain a small amount of profit). The artists and songwriters only see real investment in concerts, where a much larger share of profit can be made. Recording companies and retailers do not require the need of raw talent (or at least the appearance thereof) for their occupations, and thus to not need to work as hard as the artists and songwriters and therefore do not deserve the majority of profits. 765. They still make money because mp3's are pretty low quality if you are an audiophile. They allow you to sample a song and if you really like it you can go buy the CD. 766. Each download is followed by a potential sale. The probability of a sale depends on many factors, one of them being the quality of "product" that can be rated as "maybe worth downloading but not worth buying" 767. people lisen to cd in shops before they buy why cant people lissen to a high quality file online before they do. solution have online shops (itunes) stream whole song not 30seconds. 768. Pirated recording cost less than legal ones. Therefore you can buy more. Simply, with the same amount of money, you could not have bought the same number of titles legally. Thus, the RIAA can not claim every one of those pirated copies as a lost sale. 769. If someone cannot find a file to download it illegally, it is incorrect to assume that he will buy it. 770. NOPE, i alot of the time download things from cd's that i own, just because it is usualy quicker to dload the song than rip it and name it ``Night_raid 771. Many people who download shared music would never have bought that music in the shops, manbe the only way they would of heard them would be a friend 'lending' a CD. The knolwedge of this music then turns into more people buying concert tickets etc. increasing the revenue to the 'industry'. 772. If I download an album that I like, then I am more likely to buy it. The problem with most albums, there is only one or two good songs on it, and the labels want way too much, thereby reducing my intent to buy. 773. Bill Gates might have the money to buy everything, which is downloaded. I am not Bill Gates, i buy games and DVDs and music, if i have some money LEFT! We are talking about luxury items, NOT food or clothing or housing. 774. For what it's worth, in all honesty I would never, ever spend a penny to purchase the songs - especially now. 775. Sharing helps artists to get known, and increases their sales. 776. each file shared is no different than listening to the song on the radio 777. Sharing is based on the honor system. If you like it, then buy it. If you don't, then they are correct. 778. I would not buy everything I download 779. just because people download songs does not mean they were going to buy it in the first place. 780. File sharing/piracy represents no loss of profit, as I still support the artist by going to live performances. 781. Not everyone who shares a copy would have bought one. Piracy is attacking ships. It has nothing to do with reproducing information. 782. It should read each sale by a pirate or file shared represents a lost sale to a sucker who had the presence of mind to download and actually see if he liked it first before making a mistake of paying 20 dollars for an entire album where all the other songs are garbage, and I'm not saying the one he wants it for isnt garbage either. 783. If I really like the album, I would search everywhere for a more expensive deluxe edition with bonus material (if exists) 784. If someone couldn't download a song, it wouldn't mean he/she would have the money to buy it. 785. A lot of those developed into CD sales 786. Pirated copies are nothing different than previews offered on an artists site. 787. sometimes you download things you already own. also, if anything downloading makes you want to buy an album to get the rest of the songs, or older albums that aren't available on file sharing. p2p also reaches people that can't be reached by the distribution channels of the RIAA, e.g. south american countries are in the loop of music thanks to p2p 788. i see it as people get to explore more music and other media, and when they find something they really like they will likely go buy the cd/dvd 789. the RIAA is jsut so stubborn it refuses to change its business model so that people can buy legit music online until that becomes reality ( i mean without that DRM crap) people are going to download illegally. 790. File sharing aint hurting music sales at all they just want to complain and blame someone for something and they see this as the perfect opportunity. 791. I have thousands of songs I played only once. I would never have paid for the experience. 792. Sharing music is how I find music to go buy 793. just not true i have not bought any of there modern crap in years 794. Ridiculous statement, unfounded in reality 795. File sharers and pirated copies buyers are market segments they have decided to allienate and not to serve. So those market segments have found alternative providers. The fact that I am willing to pay 3 bucks for a pirated copy of a cd does not mean I would pay 25 for the original. I would not, so they have lost no sale and no profit with me. I am not prepared to foot their payola bills or their private jet's fuel. Filesharing for similar reasons and to find music you can no longer find in their market. Again, no sales or rvenue lost for them, since they do not provide the product I seek or do it at an extorsionate price I would never pay. 796. free ads for the artist, if the song is good, it will sell. If not, the charts wont be able to sell it. 797. If it wasnt free ii wouldnt have downloaded it 798. That's nonsense. Most people who share are downloading things that they want to hear but would never buy at the outrageous prices charged for CD's. 799. When I find something which I don't like I don't but. But then at least it's gotten me to listen. If I didn't have a way to try for free then I would just stick to buying tried and tested artists. File sharing is a form of advertising not theft. 800. wouldn't have bought anyway 801. I would not purchase most of the music I obtain from the Internet. Artists I really like I do purchase, but only at reasonable prices, either on Amazon as "used" or when CDs are on sale. Record companies need to understand that consumers want singles at reasonable prices, not albums for $20+. I'm really happy that I can get such great deals through Amazon -- I buy most of my stuff used there. 802. I listen to lots of music. I'm not rich so I can't aford to pay the high prices the RIAA companies charge for their product. I use the library, used cd shops and other means ; p to listen to new music. If it's worth my dollar then I'll purchase it, if not then I don't. If there was no file sharing or other means (besides the RIAA exploited radio stations) to here new music, then I guess I'd have to take my chances, but the amount of money I actually spent would not increase/decrease. The RIAA doesn't make much money off me either way. 803. The argument that a sale made by a pirate is a lost legit sale, but while that scenario is more likely, it's definitely not even close to 1:1. I think the vast majority of people download because they've been burned too many times buying a CD after they heard that hot single on the radio only to find that the 1 song they heard was the only good song on the CD. It seems consumers have become more risk averse in that regard, and would rather test the waters before diving in. 804. I've downloaded songs or ripped songs off of a CD at the library that I would never, EVER buy an entire CD for. The artist/record company/whoever never lost a sale because of tat. Plus I only ever buy a CD if I absolutely LOVE the band that recorded it, or if it is full of lots of songs I like. 805. Again, increased exposure. I often purchase albums or tickets to live performances of bands I have encountered online. Or, when their music hits the state, I make my purchase. I have also made purchases through online music stores such as allofmp3.com after encountering artists on P2P networks. Too bad the RIAA is too stubborn to recognize allofmp3.com as legitimate. 806. they think too much of themselves. I started to download stuff cause it was a novelty and it beat taping stuff off the radio. I continue because music is too expensive and most of it sucks. i do buy albums from artists but usually its only after having downloaded meny if not all the tracks from said album. 807. Online music promotes artists and generates hype. Furthermore, many would not have bought the music anyway. I won't enrich any company that is affiliated with suing the disabled, elderly and children to make a point by giving them my business. 808. Approx one sale lost for every ten files shared. 809. If it was true, a lot of companies that are running would be broke. 810. Potential buyers of CDs are not interested in subpar 128kh recordings as anything but a demo or sampling. Personally, I have bought several dozen CDs the last year or so that I never would have if it weren't for internet filesharing. These are CDs by artists that have never been played by my local radio stations and several that have not even been released in the United States. 811. Again, advertising. Its like free samples in a supermarket. 812. See 11 ^ 813. If your buying you get what you want.If it`s free you down load any thing 814. Most artist and worker are getting porer. But the high bosses and biggest stars is getting most the money 815. The big four pay almost nothing to artists. 816. People pirate the album to see if its any good or not, then some decide on a purchase. Not all pirates are bad, many still support their favourite artists. 817. It is sampling of offers and should not be used as an argument... 818. The lost sale doctrine is a complete falsehood. There is, nor ever will there be, ANY evidence that the downloader would have purchased, had the file not been freely available. There IS evidence, however, that if a downloader likes what they download, that they will purchase, to support the artist. sharing boosts sales. 819. Based on known current industry practice, as indicated in the response above, only the industry itself could possibly be losing because of piracy. However, their documented shady accounting practices make this impossible for anyone but them to know. Furthermore, it is well-believed that their losses are due to their antiquated business practices with respect to physical, mechanical recordings, which have become obsolete. They only have themselves to blame for their losses. 820. I've heard more artists with than without, and go to their shows. Wouldn't have without 821. File sharing is promotional tool. Modern day radio? 822. i wouldn't buy these tracks regular 823. The record companies add NOTHING to the music that is worthy of the monetary penalty they heap on consumers. I believe, and the facts DO appear to bear this out, that artists themselves would be MUCH BETTER served financially by marketing directly to consumers over the web. The Record Companies are simply middle-men who act to PREVENT the free and easy exchange of artistic product. The RIAA is a dinosaur who apparently didn't receive his own copy of the memo -- the dinosaurs died out 65 Million years ago when an asteroid or comet struck what is now part of the Gulf of Mexico. WAKE UP -- YOU'RE DEAD ALREADY! 824. Each pirate sale does represent a lost legitimate sale but file sharing, like radio, is a source of advertising that often can lead to increased sales. 825. Even the purchase of an automobile allows the user to try before they buy. If the product is "good", the consumer will but it.

Says the RIAA: To artists, "copyright" means the chance to hone their craft, experiment, create, and thrive. It is a vital right, and over the centuries artists, such as John Milton, William Hogarth, Mark Twain, and Charles Dickens, have fought to preserve that right.

Total Responses: 1,046 True   35.7%  (373) False   64.3%  (673)

If you've answered False to the question above, how do you see things?

Total Responses: 579 1. the copyright those artists defended has nothing to do with RIAAs Right of Exploitation. Most music artists are better off with people actually getting to know them. 2. A noble thought, if only record companies weren't so abusive. 3. Bull%#@! Artists, true artists.. they don't give a crap about getting rich and famous. They do it for the art and they do it for their own betterment. If I made an etching or a sketch that I absolutely loved.. would I care if some one copied it and shared it with 30,000 others.. no. 4. The latter part is true, I'm guessing. But copyright is a means to protect intellectual property from unlawful sale on a commercial scale. Copyright in no way affects a person's ability to hone their craft or whatnot, that's called artistry. 5. It only allows you to create and thrive if you are making wholly original work. Derivative parody, and "mash-up" works get squashed. 6. Why is copyright then extended until a number of years (75 I think) after the artists death? Do the artists continue to produce new works from the grave? 7. copyright is a way to stop others earning money from your work, not to ensure that no-one can gain free information for research purposes 8. That may be the way it has been, now the real progress is in open-source, online collaborations etc. The RIAA are trying to stop technology and legistlate a business-model, how can that encourage empreiments? 9. Why is it ok for an artist to sample up to 4 seconds of another artists work then? 10. Did copyright save these artists when they were upcoming to the music scene? no. 11. true in its essence, bur false in today's reality of wildly extended copyright duration and DMCA subversion of "fair use" 12. They've manipulated the meaning of copyrights. 13. Copyright is just a way to say, "Hey bitch, give me money and I'll let you take a peak at this. But if you do anything close to draw a picture of it I'll hunt you down and gut you like a fish." Kind of like the school yard bully. 14. Copyrights were meant to protect people from claiming others work as their own. I don't believe it was meant as a means to stifle innovation or preserve a dinosaur business model. No one wants little plastic discs anymore and I don't want an album full of crappy songs. Give me a download and the ability to get the song I want and I'll happily pay a fair price to the artist. 15. No one is taking their music away from them. They still have their music, and it seems to me that the biggest obstacle of creativity is the record company. 16. False 17. Copyright is simply your right over your own IP to prevent others from acruing PROFITS or causing detriment by using your IP. 18. yes copyright as in right out plagerism of their material, these people wanted their material read and shared amongst people. 19. That would be true if the artist actually owned the copyright to his works. This is not the case...The recording industry owns the copyright. I think this is WRONG. 20. Copyrights should exist simply to allow atribution of the origin of a work. Not who has an exclusive right to perform, modify, recreate, or sell that work. 21. Copyright should fairly compensate artists for their time efforts and costs in producing an artwork. 22. If it was the writings of dickens etc wouldnt be public domain now would they. 23. Twain is pulic domain. 24. It's ridiculous to say that laws are what drive the creative process. Law and creativity are two completely separate things and the vast majority of artists have not signed any kind of copyright contract. In fact, most music bound by such laws lacks creativity and originality. 25. It doesn't matter who fought for copyright. Since its beginning copyright has been out there to give people a monopoly over the market they sell in. 26. John Milton, William Hogarth, Mark Twain, and Charles Dicken: those were the days of 20 years copyrights. 27. A nice little pipe dream, but utter bullshit. First of all, "the primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the interests of the authors/creators, but rather to promote the progress of science and the useful arts—that is—knowledge. To accomplish this purpose, copyright ownership encourages authors/creators in their efforts by granting them a temporary monopoly, or ownership of exclusive rights for a specified length of time. However, this monopoly is somewhat limited when it conflicts with an overriding public interest, such as encouraging new creative and intellectual works, or the necessity for some members of the public to make a single copy of a work for non profit, educational purposes." Secondly, it doesn't provide shit to the artists because the record labels own the copyrights on all the music. 28. Yes, but the entertainment industry has raised the copyright limits, thus impairing creativity. 29. Copyright = control 30. I think they mean Metallica...... 31. IF an artist signs a contract today it is the worst thing they could do.... They can self publish there stuff and get it out there.... And make more money with out the companies.... Also it allows them to be creative without having to answer to anyone but themselves and the fans.... 32. RIAA is miss something here: Those people were fighting for copy 'rights', not pushing broken business models on new evolutions. This is like sueing auto manufacturers in 1910, because it put horse breeders out of business. Get a clue! 33. Making music should be the primary focus of artists. They're making plenty to support themselves comfortably. (Comfortably being a gross understatement.) If an artist is unhappy because he can't afford to get his Olympic sized swimming pool at his $7 million dollar mansion gold plated, screw him. 34. They did, but artists rarely retain thier copyright. 35. Copyright is not a right but a restriction, and made specifically for the sole purpose of inhibiting the ability of using someone else's idea for FINANCIAL gain. 36. Copyright is a business decision, not an artistic one. Artists have been honing their craft for centuries without the aid of copyrights. It only appears that today's artist requires the aid of multiple mansions, dozens of cars and a Gulfstream jet to hone their craft. 37. they want the money 38. Now there are organizations that take that right of the artists for themselves. 39. Copyright is designed to protect creativity and innovation, neither of which is threatened by file-sharing. The artists' creativity is not funded by record companies (see previous response). 40. Copyright laws were created to protect an artist from others reselling their work for less. It was NEVER intended to give copyright holders control over how that work is used. Fair use laws were designed as a "means the chance to hone [artists'] craft, experiment, create, and thrive." 41. Sorry,thats just a load of crap. 42. perpetual (90+ years) copyright was never supported by John Milton, William Hogarth, Mark Twain, and Charles Dickens. 43. prove it. 44. Then why are the most creative and experimental releasing their material from any publisher that isn't affiliated with the RIAA. Music from the big four hasn't advanced in years decades. 45. "Copyright is a chance for emerging artists to share their craft with the world and a means for them to show off their brainchild." 46. Copyright laws have changed drasticly in the time since mark twain, charles dickens, etc thanks to corporations such as disney, the RIAA and such. To bring them up shows just how much they are reaching to try to create an argument to back their position. 47. i agree, but lawsuits dont stop it, and dont scare us, and we still support the bands. 48. 'Copyright' is a service to the artist to make sure they are the only ones profiting from their creation. It has little to nothing to do with piracy, when a user downloads a CD or song, they aren't making financial gains. A copyright is to make sure that if a band comes up with an amazing piece of music, other bands can't copy it and profit off of another bands' creation. 49. When artists waste money on gold bathrooms and diamond "grills" I think they've gone too far. 50. How they wish to hold and pursue copyright is a personal choice of the artist and is not inherently a bad thing. However, the RIAA is abusing copyright laws to terrorise innocent people and spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt trying to hold onto a decaying business model without innovation; the artists are not making the choice to enforce these copyrights. Instead, usurpers of the artists' legitimate rights and freedoms are doing so, and thereby hurting the industry. 51. 'over the centuries' may only apply to centuries ago. 52. Erm, no. 53. Copyright applies to the original author so no one can take the same story, song and recreate it to make it their own. 54. If copyrights were so important to John Milton, he would not have sold the copyrights to Paradise Lost (arguably one of the greatest works in literature, and his masterpiece) for a measly 10 Pounds. The works of Milton, Hogarth, Twain, and Dickens are works of genius and not comparable to the latest flavor of the month from a one hit wonder. 55. If they truly love their art then they should feel free to share it. If I design a program that will help everyone in the world... I'll give it away... or at least ask for donations... people are always willing to pay for something that is worth it if they don't have to pay to try it in the first place. I am not going to spend 20 on a CD with one song I want 56. They're dead, the RIAA should go join them. To the RIAA Copyright means "we need to protect our ability to make money for solid gold humvees" 57. What? Are they insane? P2P is a very effective way of publishing -- creating public interest. Please, guys, the gramophone record is DEAD. 58. many artists write their best work when working without copyright, ie new artists that haven't even made any material for selling. 59. To the RIAA, "copyright" is a commodity that can be bought and sold; nothing more than a way to legally collect money from musical work that they themselves did not create. 60. I feel copyright is fair enough idea, but it should expire sooner, and have greater provisions for fair use, not less. 61. The RIAA is a bunch of spindoctoring morons. 62. copyright should be limited, 5 years for music, 10 fir books and 0 for record companies, record companies should not have copyrights anyway, they belong to the artist 63. Copyright doesn't mean crap. Copyright maintains their right to make money forever. If I print a paper product with the letter b on it, I copyright it as a novel, and someone else prints a piece of paper with the letter B on it, does that mean it is plajarism. People cover bands songs all the time, that does not mean they take it as their own. 64. RIAA = Whores 65. lies 66. It may mean that to the artists but to the record companies it only means$$$$ 67. sure, block i so no one else can use it. Not to hinder the transmission of your product. 68. Copyright should give them the right to control mass sales and provide compensation. 69. I answered true, however I believe that less onerous, more free copyright laws are a boon to creativity and artistist diversity. 70. I do not necessarily disagree with this statement... only the way the RIAA uses it. The problem is, music copyrights are essentially owned not by the *artists*, but by the *record companies*. Most music is created as a "work-for-hire", not as a pure stroke of inspiration. Artists are signed into contracts and put under pressure to produce entire albums' worth of material according to a strict timetable, regardless of whether they are feeling particularly inspired or not. So they end up having to rehash the same old themes that worked for whatever early hits they may have had, and all their work winds up sounding repetitive and tired. True "copyright" control needs to be stripped from the record companies and put in the hands of the actual artists. And the release schedule of albums needs to be changed from "I agree to give the label 14 new songs within eight months of my last album" to something more like "I'll give you new material when I'm damn good and ready!" THEN, and only then, will copyright be a legitimate tool to improve quality and foster innovation... 71. Q11 72. Copyright to an artist is probably not an issue. And I think that most prior artists were only interested in the temporary monopoly granted by copyright to further their creative output. I.E. to make money to allow them to continue to create. 73. Unfortunately, the pursuit of money has done more to destroy the music industry over the past twenty-five years, not file sharing. I want musicians to do it for the love of the art. 74. I believe that copyright serves a purpose, but that has been totally lost in recent years and cannot be respected. Consequently we find a state of copyright anarchy, since the laws are bad. 75. they have their right to it, but it should be teh right of the ARTIST, not some crappy label 76. I believe there is no correlation between copyrights and being able to create. The "pirates" aren't stopping anyone from making music or anything else, they are just sharing it. 77. The right to copyright should apply only to the written word, not to music. Imagine if someone tried to copyright a 12-bar Blues progression, or a Blues solo! Onlyl Song lyrics should be copyright protected, not recordings of performances whether live or studio. It would be legitimate to give song lyrics copyright protection when they are used in print, but not when they are performed. Nevertheless, it might be legitimate to require that artists give credit and acknowledgement to songwriters when they perform their songs . 78. If you've purchased a CD or MP3 you should be able to give it to whomever you want. 79. Copyright means that they own the right to that music. If they dont want it to be fileshared then don't put it out! 80. witch hunting and greed 81. How many dirt poor creative masters of their craft have existed in history? Only 2 or 3 right? Fools. I would say the inverse is true. Too much wealth and creativity is likely to dwindle. 82. Mark Twain would have been all for P2P. They should read his stuff instead of box him into a false statement. 83. Society is showing by its actions that copyright do not allow creators to charge whatever they want for their intellectual property. By tilting the law against society in the favor of the creators, the government has forced society to disregard the law. 84. From what I got, a judge ruled that you do not have any rights, except to listen to that music/book, when you buy them. Therefor, I do not pay $18.00 or what ever, for something that I do not own. 85. Mark Twain and Charles Dickens have long been dead. Why and how would they fight for there right to create and thrive? RIAA is not creating anything from someone that has passed away but thriving on something that they themselves did not create. 86. Copyright is not a way for people to go on lawsuit rampages... 87. Once a work of art is in the public domain, the public owns it. 88. There are plenty of artists that release their music on small labels with very limited releases, or even free releases... Are you saying that these artists can't do all of these things? Of course not. 89. Not sure. 90. There exists a plethora of artists who are disgusted by the RIAA and their anti-capitalistic practices. Copyright is supposed to aid the artists, but the RIAA is using it to aid themselves and "the big guy", not the artists. How can an artist "hone their craft, experiment, create, and thrive" if rabid RIAA lawsuits are driving away their very sales that enable them to do so? 91. It means a chance to earn more money on a product. 92. Even those artists were inspired by other people. Dickens used ideas of his time and of people in the past to create his works. That is how creativity works. No one is truly unique. 93. So they think they're the almighty protector of the artist's rights? If so, they'd probably be giving more rights to the artists...and more money. They're full of shit. 94. I can go to the library and read works by all of these authors. Their estates make no money when I do this much like file sharing on the internet. The copyright simply prevents anyone else from taking credit for the work. 95. but that does not give the RIAA the right to sure countless ppl and pocket the proceeds 96. When they can afford to buy drugs, and fast cars etc., they are being paid too much. 97. Copyright law has been repeatedly bought by industry (Disney) and has lost its original goal of protecting the profit of the original creator for a while before that work goes into the public domain, to become the collective wealth of the people. Nothing has passed into the public domain in something like 70 years. 98. Copyright offers the creators a chance to profit off of their work already created (as they should) so the thrive part is probably right, but it does not allow for innovation, nor does it follow that copyright allows artists to hone their craft or experiment. 99. I will not respect copyright if the cost of a cd is too high 100. They are right, that it gives them a chance to "hone their craft, experiment, create and thrive." However, no one is taking their material and claiming it as their own. They aren't making any money off of it. So, how am I hampering creation, craft, thrive or experiment given that pretense. I'm not. 101. To artists, "copyright" means being able to prove that they created the work and preventing other artists from plagiarizing it. It doesn't mean preventing the audience from enjoying the work without first paying outrageous fees to people who have nothing to do with the artist. 102. artists create with or without copyright, why because they want to. same reason i creat art, not becuase i want money, because i choose to. 103. By restricting how a culture work can be used by others you are hampering creativity and in the long run growth of all culture expression. The original should be protected but copies should be used freely. 104. musicians will still experiment and create... i just dont want to have to pay big bucks for something i might not like. and in any case file sharing sites can showcase genuine talent much faster than the advertisers 105. HAHAHA, more like copyright means the chance to make a buck off of your/other people's hard work, and preventing people from making a better product. 106. copyright did not exist when the classical composers were around did it?? and we still listen to bach, Mozart, Beethove, etc etc, and their dead, so who gets those royalties for people long since dead and gone, and which corporation that has been created since then to represent them... thats the sham right there.. 107. Along with copyright, intellectual property has become an issue already turned into a perversion of what it originally was intended to be. After all, it's not the artists' interest that is protected, since the rights to the copyrighted works belong to the record company, not the individual artist. For the few self-marketed artists the abovementioned statement may be true. For most, it simply isn't. 108. copyright goes on too long - other people dont have the right to rely on a single act of good work to last for years 109. Without copyrights, creating music for financial gain is pointless. With piracy...or without copyrights...there is no financial incentive to create music. So far fewer people will create music. In fact, all the music pirates like was created by a system with copyrights. Those criminals will find that after they've destroyed the viability of music and copyrights, noone will be creating music they like. 110. See Cory Doctorow's excellent history and explanation of copyright for details. 111. Artists were successful LONG before the RIAA 112. Horse feathers 113. What people can hear and see and be aware of should not be limited by their income. Our culture is stagnating because people are so protective of their creations, I can understand wanting to have credit where credit is due, but this is really all about making money. 114. You copyright to make money. If you love your craft, you want it shared. 115. I agree with it in theory, but in reality, artists are encouraged to sell their rights to corporations (note the latest tax laws re:publishing). Also, limits (or lack of them) for expiration have gotten out of hand. 116. Most artists are happy when many people see or hear their work. File sharing means more people are exposed to their work and more people will become fans and followers of their work. They would not support a restrictive copyright structure which prevents their work from being widely distributed as it would plainly mean less support and revenue from tours, performances etc. 117. Hone their craft? A copyright (for the most part) is just an excuse for the artist/record company to sue people for no reason. Greedy, greedy, greedy... 118. Copyright protects another artist ripping off songs etc. 119. copyright is different than sharing or file sharing, again no one is saying that they put it together in the end, this is just all lies to control and make people into their slaves, if they all agree with themselves then america should SUE THEM, because then when they ask you to BUY their music, it is a lie and it really means to license and not share or let anyone hear it but you. 120. while i do agree that people should be payed for their effort , creating one song and then making money on millions of copies just doesn't seem right . the copying of information should be free . 121. Copyright as it stands now is way for rich to oppress poor those with power to oppress those without. Copyright needs a complete rethinking in multicultural global society. 122. Copyright is a means of controlling one's "product" whether it be a record, film or drawing 123. Copyright has an altogether more legal meaning. 124. This is not true - patents/copyright has been modified and extended so many times that it is a caricature of what it originally meant to do - ensure reward for innovation. 125. copyright, in theory is fine... but the world of music is changing so RIAA needs to change with it. 126. None of those people lived in an area of copyright law. They fought plagirism, but freedom of thought and freedom of information was more important to them than copyrights. 127. The author or creator of the work has to be acknowledged, this is indisputable. 128. True talent cannot be compromised. It's a straw man argument. 129. i totally agree with copyright laws and realize that when i illegally download i infringe on copyright laws, but once again? release quality music on cd's, charge a reasonable price for cd's and give artists a reasonable royalty rate then maybe i'd considering spending money on retail cd's again 130. Copyright is only a way to increase profits whilst doing nothing (in its current sense) 131. copyright is about someone stealing your ideas/creations and making money off them as if they are their own. 132. I do not believe modern copyright law existed in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. The internet certainly did not. 133. If that was the only use for copyright in these times, then it might not be an issue. Copyright now can be distorted for other means - to silence anti-government speech, for example. Would Twain have agreed with that? 134. The music industry should try hard to make people purchase products legally. Instead they overprice, bring out reissues with a single additional track and refuse to release rare tracks from singles or pre-cd eras. This forces people into other channels. Dickens didn't price his novels at a fortune! Nor did he release reprints with a single additional chapter. 135. If people don't have a chance to actually experience their music, and if people are turning away from the industry who do stuff legally because its just too tough and expensive, then meh, those artists will never get the money to do all those things. What you just said were lies, idiotic stupid lies. Lay off allofpm3.com while you are at it. The site is legal, stop being bitter sods, you have no right to hassle them like it, screw you. 136. Thousands of talents waiting for their hour who will never break the establishment barrier - they are not concerned about free music. They want to be heard. 137. Although the statement is true. Today the record company's contracts are not in the best interest of the artist. I implore all artists to NOT sign over rights to a record label. 138. copyright is nothing more than a title of ownership and has little to do with creativity. 139. Copyright just means protected from copying. 140. I think they have the meaning of copyright skewed. It means that no one can take it and use it as their own, in other words it is digital plagiarism. 141. I was under the impression that copyright laws were only broken if someone *charged* for distribution when they didn't have the rights. Just giving it away for no profit seems fine. 142. The big labels and the RIAA are dinosaurs, music is changing in how its produced and distributed, artists are going to have work hard, tour, sell merchandise that supplements their music. Essentially the music is like an advertisement for the live shows and a chance to sell additional products. 143. Artists create to create. 144. Modern artists make music to entertain and inspire.. as EMINEM says, let them [the fans] share! 145. to name drop dead authors that have absolutely nothing to do with music is totally anachronistic and meaningless 146. If everyone could write music, then everyone WOULD write music. It's SO very easy to copy someone's style, after all. Wait...whatever happened to covers? 147. Fuck the RIAA 148. Copyright is important on many levels, but the copyright law today is very different from the law called by the same name in say Mark Twain's time. It was shorter and had a much narrower scope. Today it gives an overbroad monopoly by robbing the public commons; filesharing is our way of trying to push back. 149. Copyright, before a lot of changes to adapt to the industry interests, based on avoiding plagiarism. For example, if John Milton originally wrote and played a song, William Hogarth couldn't just claim the song as his own. John Milton wouldn't be very happy to not receive credit. Now, if William Hogarth played his song because he liked it a lot, and credited John, it would be a different matter. Finally, John should be happy if people listen to what he plays, because music is not a way of making money, it is a way of expressing feelings. So if someone downloaded something I created, and used it/listened to it, I would be like "Cool bro!". 150. This has some merit. But it is also true that the more something is quoted or copied, the more famous it gets. This should render higher status for the creator, and thus more success and work. The whole rap/hip-hop industry is an example of how this can work in a creative an innovative way, and I see little similarities between Dickens rights to his work and the way CDs are being distributed. 151. Copyright is simply a way of protecting rights to an artists work 152. Copyright protects blatant theft of the fruits of your idea. Copyright prevents someone else from MAKING MONEY on your art. Copyright theoretically protects the artist from the predatory company In practice, however, the artist is still a slave to the corporate record labels, and copyright only protects their massive profits and ability to become rich on someone else's labor and talent. 153. A 5, 10, 15 year copyright is a temporary monopoly to encourage the publisher (not the artist) to release works. It's the 70-90-120 year monopoly that is absurd. 154. The one who gets the least share of record sales is the artist. There's other ways of making money for artists. Records are a means of promotion for them, though. 155. I don't even like those artists. I wish more bands were like Machinae Supremacy, who actually encourage people to share their music, saying that 'they care more about their music getting heard than it getting bought'. Everything but their latest album is legally put up for download by themselves on their own website and Last.fm respectively. That makes me want to buy an album. Shitty copyright protection makes me want to crack it and put it online so everyone else doesn't have to deal with that. 156. they did not care about "cp" 157. Copyright means that music companies get rich. Artists get virtually nothing. 158. That used to be true, but no longer. "Copyright" is now the means for megalithic corporations to extract as many payments from customers as they can. 159. IDK 160. "Copyright" is for one person to prevent others from reading, listening, or watching something created. It should never stifle creativity, but it currently does. 161. It's also stilted creativity 162. copyright is a) the artist trying to preserve their work as being their own, and b) the various organisations' respective efforts in the production process to preserve income 163. copyright was relevant in previous centuries but now is an impediment to creativity and artistic experimentation. it no longer servers the purpose it was intended for and should be changed to meet the new needs of the digital age. 164. Artist should find better distribution channels and models using available technologies.... 165. Copyright is abused to earn income on works the RIAA has no right to own, and this abuse encourages users to download music without paying the RIAA. 166. No one is copying the work of any artists. Artists are free to create what they want and are still being recognized for their work. While protecting intellectual and artistic property is important, it has little to do with file sharing. File sharing is simply a reaction to the oprressively high price of records. 167. I'm a pirate. arg! 168. riaa chance to control prices 169. The RIAA is abusing copyright laws and returning no value to the artists. 170. However the RIAA does not represent the artists, but a select few monopolies that are attempting to use copyright law to stifle the innovation the industry needs to grow. 171. copyright doesn't have anything to do with creativity, it is all about control. 172. dont understand question 173. That is brazen misrepresentation of the truth. Copyright is about depriving rights and about 'owning' . Large reord companies have allways ripped off musicians and are olnly usually interested in the lowest common denominator. 174. we all stand on the shoulders of giants. were it not for others, we'd be utterly useless organisms that could muster no more organization than a pod of killer whales hunting. to claim that everyone's work is truly unique and theirs alone is a horrific narcissistic lie. 175. You can still hone one's craft without Copyright. The modern Copyright laws stiffle innovation and creativity. Copyright is a balance between privaye commercial interests and the public's interests. Today it is slanted too much in favour of the Record companies. It will get worse if the Record companies are successful in their lobbying efforts to eliminate "Fair Use" rights. 176. The real money stays in the hand of the industry; again if they disappear the artist will reap benefits and that in turn will allow to buy music at lover rates.After all if you don't need print and distribution, but just keeping your music on a server, what expenses you have, apart buying instruments and keep a good living? 177. I believe in copyrighting, but it is simply no longer possible in the music industry. Eventually books will all be on-line and traded in the same manner. Instead of fighting the marketplace they should happily jump on board because they could still foster a first-mover advantage. 178. The Open Source movement in software is a fine demonstration that innovation, experimentation, creation, and even becoming filthy rich, are more than feasible in a copyright-free environment. 179. This is the heart of the problem, RIAA and music companies should be looking to the future not their outdated buisness models of the past 180. Umm, what? 181. They (if not already, they will) say that, but no. I've never heared of any artist working in any similar job to me (except this ONE time, with some hasbeen who partied a bit too much). When I see stuff like that, then I'll start paying up. 182. copyright means the right to charge for your creation, not make record companies rich. 183. Copyright law has been modified many times since to encompass new technologies such as music recording, to extend the duration of protection, and to make other changes. U.S. courts have interpreted this clause of the Constitution to say that the ultimate purpose of copyrights is to encourage the production of creative works for the public benefit, and that therefore the interests of the public are primary over the interests of the author when the two conflict. These rulings have since been formalized into fair use laws and decisions. Certain attempts by copyright owners to restrict uses beyond the rights provided for by copyright law may also subject them to the copyright misuse doctrine, preventing enforcement against infringers 184. Of questionable structure & relevance. 185. They're full of shit. 186. Copyright is important to the big execs making millions doing nothing. True artists want as many people as possible to experience and enjoy their work. 187. copyright means to claim the work as belonging to you.So why then are the labels taking most of the profits,which belong to the artist. 188. I would agree if the RIAA were truly concerned with the artist. 189. Musicians don't own their music....the music companies do! 190. ? 191. It should be that way, but has become more a system for the corporate overlords to have sole possession of the creations of those they control. This does not encourage people to innovate as much as they otherwise would. 192. Copyright means somebody can't take that artistic work and and pass it off as their own ework. Duh. 193. They would have found a way to sue even those writers as how, if not would only done cover versions of their books anyway and claimed "new".. 194. Copyright has been twisted just like the Patent laws. They serve only the holder, not everyone else. Information and culture thrives when it is let loose. The only beneficiary of todays draconic copyright\patent laws is multi billion dollar corporations. 195. copyright preserves the intelectual rights of the creater but stiffles creativity because copyright now lasts life of the artists plus 75 years or something obscene. 196. not everyone is Charles DICKENS 197. I think those artist would probably share files as well. 198. Copyright is fair as long as the writers live. When they have died their work should be public domain. 199. They could have rights to their works but that should fade out after a few years. What is the point of making money with old things you are not doing anything for that anymore 200. means a chance to charge people over and over for something that's already been done. 201. To artists such as Mark Twain and Charles Dickens, perhaps they did fight to preserve that right. But they can actually be considered artists. They also had the freedom of artists and not the leviathan known as the RIAA demanding they change the way they write. Musicians today, do not have freedom. Copyright does not exist for the musician, because when they sign with a label, they loose all rights to their own music. They also loose any creativity they might have had, as they must now write music that the label wants, not music the band wants. 202. That is the RIAA's definition. Not the majority. 203. copyright is designed to protect the individual from larger organizations who have the means to implement their ideas. 204. Copyright means someone can't take your music and say its there's. If they want to take your music and share it with people, it's spreading your name, making you more popular. You'll see those numbers at the concerts. 205. Grow with the times 206. Then the RIAA should stop ripping off the aritists (CCR anyone?) 207. But paying thre same artist 3 or 4 times (78 rpms, 45 rpms eps, LPS, cassettes and now CDs, like I have done is VERY far outside of that kind of argument) 208. "Copyright" should mean the right to not have work reproduced for profit by another party. Patents should cover the rest from a technology point of view. 209. Copyright is the right to restrict others from claiming the work as their own. While this has been variously interpreted over the years, this is the foundation of the law. Original judicial intent was not to allow a company to file civil action against those who share the product without personal financial gain. 210. Artists that are in in for the money don't generally produce worthwhile songs anyway 211. copyright laws have changed over the years - they're not the same, and laws don't give creativity a chance to prosper, only to keep the creativity to a precious few 212. they are dead 213. I answered true, as I feel that atists do have a right to be recognised as the creator of a work. However how is an artists rights protected when the label will take possesion of the rights to their recordings (that the act has paid for) for 75 years after they die? 214. Once they've put it on some form of media, it's been done .. period. They can still improve it. Besides, if it wasn't about the money, why do you insist on charging everyone a fee for using that one cool chord you came up with? 215. "Copyright" is the way companies make money on someone elses work or ideas in return for "helping" market the item. 216. Spin 217. If anything, sharing music online can make an artist more well-known. To the RIAA, "copyright" means the chance to milk people for their money. 218. While copyright is an important idea of the twentieth century, it is also outdated and abused by all industries. To the RIAA, copyright is merely an easily abusable procedure to sue and complain about their inability to adapt to ever evolving technology. 219. Music lovers feel loyal towards the artists, NOT towards the recording industry. IP is a means for recording industry to keep their income IN SPITE of the artists. I'd prefer to give my money directly to the artists I like. When I hear an artist who defends the point of view of the recording industry, I think he/she is required to do it from his/her "employers". I don't like it at all. 220. Get with the times, RIAA wants to profit off dinosaur authors. 221. Copyright has been abused by the RIAA, it was never meant to curb fair use. Consumers put the RIAA in power and are contining to do so. In the end just as DRM fell so will the RIAA lawsuits which is known in the art as "external DRM". 222. if you change just 0.2% of an object, it's a new object and so is not covered by said copyright 223. Copyright is a tool for the renumeration of artists, not the alpha and the omega of their renumeration. Copyright can only exists when it is expensive to copy a product, and that was the case for centuries. With digital low costs copies, this tool is perhaps outfashioned and other solutions must be envisaged. 224. I got free text and audio books by John Milton, Mark Twain, and Charles Dickens from Project Gutenberg. 225. As above but there is a great differance between books and records I do not know of a single artist who ever recieves a cheke from RIAA and i know a few. 226. Copyright have existed for about 100 years, and now everyone is suing everyone, and holding each other back. Before copyright the civilization have thrived for thousands of years. How can anyone say copyright is anything more then a historical mistake that has to go for the inventions to kick in again on broad front. "If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of giants" said Isaac Newton, today he would have been sued. 227. I see copyright as valuable, just not 200 years of copyright.. A sensible amount of time is 15-20 years. 228. Copyright exists as a protection for artists to keep free market from reselling their creations as their own. As an artist, I understand this. It in no way is intended to protect digital copies, backups, etc. from distribution. 229. Does that mean I can't read Huck Finn to my kids? Do they have to pay a royalty to listen? 230. it's just bullshit 231. An artist's craft won't make him any money unless it gets into the hands of the public. 232. Copyright is a stick it to everyone that did not come up with the idea first. 233. Copyright is a government-granted monopoly, provided explicitly as an incentive for a creator to continue creating works, which can potentially benefit the community. Copyright is important for advancement of "the arts" but perversion of this into some sort of eternal right goes against the purpose of granting a time-limited monopoly on the works in the first place, because a practically eternal copyright term prevents works from returning to possession by the public domain where it can be used to the benefit of all, rather than those who will pay the holder or the estate thereof. Why the hell do "estates" own copyrights, anyway?! 234. All the Authors they quote have no copyright whatsoever, their works and books can be printed by anyone with no purchase being required. 235. Though copyright protects intellectual property, and rightly so, it certainly does not have anything to do with honing one's craft. 236. Too much focus on copyright will kill creativity. It should prevent others from outright stealing stuff, not have artists work with their hands tied. 237. art is a product like anything else, why is it awarded so much more than everything else? 238. The artist mentioned above lived in another century.The world is very different now. Evolve or die. 239. Copyright is actually a right for your stuff not to be pirated into another work and be claimed as someone else authorship, thus profiting upon something that isn't his. 240. As a musician, copyright means a chance for the record label to make a big profit and pay me a pittance. 241. RIAA is theavery and extortionshit 242. then do away with sampling. there is no craft in that. it's basically copying another artist in one way or another 243. Artists should be able to proffit off their work, but not forever and ever and ever. Artists themselves should, if they choose, be able to distribute their own works online without the RIAA telling them they can't. My god it is their work after all is it not? I know I'd be pretty mad if I wanted to distribute my own works online and my trade organization forced me not to. 244. I thought a copyright was to prevent copying and distributing a product for a certain time frame allowing the artist and the others in the middle to recoup their expenses and make a profit? 245. Copyright is ownership pure and simple. I agree that the artist owns the copyright to their work and should get paid for it. But to call it "a chance to hone their craft..." No. Its an ownership thing, thats all. 246. To newer artists it means give me money so I can live a rich lifestyle. 247. It's not reasonable to induce that copyright is the main factor in this. Ultimately it comes down to making sales and receiving money for those sales. Where copyright is used in a way that harms the general economics of an artist selling his/her work then it has the opposite effect. References to the views of well-known artists from years gone by are not relevant to the matter - the world changes! Thus the assertion that copyright is a "vital right" in that sentence is made completely without any supporting rationale - it's just meaningless spin and marketing and I don't know who they think they're fooling! 248. Screwed 249. Sharing files is not the same as a patent. 250. Copyright was not meant to be forever, and none of those gentlemen would have agreed to forever. They put explicit timelines around copyright for good reason, and the greed of corporations trumped the greater good by making it permanent (Thanks Sonny Bono!) 251. As a musician and media professional, it's my duty as an artist to make my art regardless of copyright laws. No one can be me or sing my songs. If my craft isn't already 'honed' then I have no business stepping on a stage or in a studio. To say otherwise is just a flat out lie. 252. Copyright is only about money - when it should be about recognition. 253. Copyright IS vital. But it is being perverted and extended beyond reason by money-grubbing corporations - NOT individuals - who are more concerned with profiting off of work they have bought from an artist. THEY are not creating, experimenting, etc. - but they definitely are thriving. And their endless extension of copyright laws are part and parcel of their scheme to disallow ANY property from falling into the public domain. 254. Nowhere in the definition of copyright does it say anything about thriving. Plenty of copyright owners have and do toil in obscurity. If the RIAA is so worried about their artists, how come an act like TLC can release a CD that sells millions of copies, make millions of dollars for the label, yet they themselves are broke? 255. Mark Twain himself sought to evade copyright law on his autobiography and saw it as a thing that did NOT serve public interest. And, I quote, "Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet. " 256. The "copyright" protects the companies as they own the right of the music not the artist how created it. So without record companies, the artist would actually make more money 257. To the RIAA copyright=excuse to charge extortionate prices. 258. Copyright helps to protect artists from having songs stolen and whatnot. But it does little in the way of promoting creativity. 259. Many artists have honed theirr craft without copyright or restrictions. Ever heard of GPLed music or artists like Trent Reznor releasing his tracks to fans to remix and remaster them? HE IS STILL MAKING excellent music, even after doing so. 260. Copyright used to mean the things that the RIAA states but now together with the DMRA it is just an excuse for the RIAA to harass and/or victimize participants in a victimless "crime". 261. Copyright is the ownership of the results of their craft. These rights should belong 100% to the artists... as do the rights to receive fair royalties for public usage. File sharing should not fall under the umbrella of "public usage." 262. I've said false as it should be noted that copyright runs out in different countries at different times. 263. They can "hone their craft, experiment, create, and thrive" without ironclad copyright monopoly. 264. Yes and no, It also allows for fair use. If the RIAA had it's way you couldn't even listne to the music without paying them something. 265. Copyright is protection from bootlegs and commercially available copies -- not from fans sharring and mixing, which ultimatly grows artits' publicity and overall cash revenue. 266. Why are these people any different from anyone else? It costs everyone else to thrive. 267. An artist creates something, because it's his vocation. It's nice to make money with your creativity but granting even heirs who have done nothing at all the rights to leech off of the creativity of one of their ancestors is ridiculous. If you can live your whole life from the sales of the one successful book you have written, you don't have any monetary incentive to write another. From an economical perspective this would seem rather hurtful to creativity. 268. I was inclined to answer yes to this, but decided not to only because the record companies could not conceivably care less about artistic craft and creativity - they're only interested in what sells the most. For them to hide behind this shield is the most cowardly dishonest bullshit imaginable. 269. It is true in a sense but the copyright management systems being used by the companies are too restrictive for consumers. They have to work with consumers not against them. 270. Then how come the labels "own" most of the "artists" work? How come artists with million selling albums are still in debt with their labels? How come creativity and experimentation are sidelined by a huge body of mainstream manufactured pop fronted by people picked for their sex appeal, who in no way deserve to be called artists. 271. Copyright is what the American founding fathers said it is. It's an incentive for people to create art by giving them exclusive rights to their works for a short period of time. After which, their works go into the public domain, which will inspire other people to create art. It will also inspire the original artist to continue working, creating art. What the RIAA thinks copyright is for does not promote creativity - it stifles it. 272. Artists just don't think that way. To real artists money is not the primary concern. The one that really worry about money are the one that are not very talented in the first place. 273. . 274. This is the recording industry. An industry that has not been around for 'that long'. To bring up 'precedence' in the form of Dickens and Twain (authors - NOT musicians) illustrates their ignorance all the more clearly. 275. The statement is true, but please don't accept this as a vindication of what the record labels and the RIAA (and indirectly, companies like VISA and MasterCard are doing). Milton, Twain and Dickens would never have turned 'copyrighting' into the industry it has become today. 276. Is this what it means? I thought it just meant they owned the tune and got paid when tv or movies used their music. 277. Its about money. 278. I have bought MORE CDs from shops than I EVER used to buy soince I started sharing and downloading . 279. In that case if you create one song that uses 1 note in theory that note can never be used again without the persons say so. 280. don't play your music on the airways for free then complain about no one buying it 281. copyright is the chance for large conglommerates to fleece both artists and public 282. i don't think thats what copyright means at all 283. The record companies keep more of the monies made from copyrighted songs then what the artists get, isn't that theft too? 284. SORRY, THE STATEMENT IS TRUE BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY CAN CHARGE WHATEVER THEY WANT FOR BOOKS OR MUSIC. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CULTURE, FOR GOD SHAKE, THIS IS NOT ABOUT DIAMONDS OR RACE CARS. 285. Protectionism/milking 286. This right was designed to support the artist for an adequate time, 40 years originally. After that the works were to be public domain. copyright has been corrupted big time by lobbyists. 287. In some ways this is true, but one thing that most people know is that a band's first album is often their best and most creative. Therefore this argument must be false. 288. Since artists have historically benefited little from copyright, they have not historically fought hard for that right. The concept of making filthy lucre from a copyright of music is a relatively recent invention and has no historical basis, especially for the artists quoted. 289. Given that the artists get around 1% of the sale of their albums I would say copyright has degraded into music companies screwing us and the artists. 290. Its simply about money 291. How does copyright allow artists to be more creative? You're either talented or not. The RIAA say that to make it sound like they're actually doing a good job. 292. Not anymore. Today "copyright" means restriction of creativity and lost of revenues because of limiting of public exposure of their works. 293. Copyrighting means that the artist should be paid by their respective record company and publisher, not screwed out of royalties like most record companies do to their artists. 294. Since 1974, copyright has been used to aggregate control over the distribution and sales of music into the hands of a few corporations. The artist is paid a proportionately small amount for their work, while the 295. When has big business ever given the slightest thought to an individual. What about Filo T Farnsworth who had his cathode tube idea stolen by EMI. Where was there "copyright" principal then 296. The statement is true as far as it goes but stops short of the whole truth. Copyright means a chance to hone.experiment.etc. but for a limited time. Anything over 7 years is excessive. That excess in turn renders all copyright meaningless and the entire world now takes advantage of that excess. 297. Thats fine but not at my expense. My company does not pay me for honing my skills. So with that said I don't care. 298. They still have the chance to thrive. But by trying to monopolize music and charge extraordinary prices, RIAA is not allowing the artists to thrive. 299. The publishers of the works made money like the authors. In music the publisher ie: CD maker is cut out and won't make money but the artist still could. 300. Copyright does not equal DRM 301. Copyright means that the artist is stuck with a greedy record company that puts profits ahead of the artist's freedom to thrive. 302. Books and records are different, and hello you can go to a library and read a book, why can't you download a song that you want to hear for a small fee. 303. Copyright doesn't help the creators become better at their talents. Instead it helps protect their works from being manipulated for the personal gain of others. And it's not a right, it's a privlage. 304. Copyright exists to help provide incentive for innovation. If an innovation becomes obsolete or does not make any money, I believe that it should go into public domain. 305. If you have talent than continue to prove it and you will be rewarded. 306. if "hone their craft, experiment, create, and thrive' means getting rich, aren't they doing that anyway? 307. Only for a SHORT time 308. Labels are trying to make the definition of "copyright" so broad that impinges on consumers' FAIR USE of tracks they have purchased. Also, the RIAA is not defending the artists (the majority of whom make their money thru merchandise & ticket sales), it's using that as a smokescreen to defend the practices of the music industry. 309. Artists can hone their craft, experiment, create, and thrive without copyrights in many ways. Such as live performances. 310. Copyright is good. Copyright in perpituity is not. 311. The right relates to not having other people steal your idea. Using ideas and coming up with new combinations or angles is how music or an art progresses. If a blatant copy of another artists' music is released by a label then that label will be sued to hell... so this right is still preserved. 312. Copyright is a vital right in some cases. That doesn't mean it should last for all of eternity. That doesn't mean sampling should be illegal. 313. Copyright is not used as it was intended when created. Today copyright is a fascist tool in the hands of a mafia cartel. 314. Just another excuse to justify their financial position. 315. pay artist one flat fee for recording. then it becomes public domain 316. to the RIAA, copyright means an income copyright theft means an additional income 317. The works of the authors mentioned above are in the Public Domain. Global copyrights expire in 50 years, except in the U.S., where they can be renewed ad infinitum. Fuck U.S. copyrights! Glenn Miller and Bing Crosby ain't never gonna be in the P.D. in the U.S.A., because the industry has lobbied Congress in its favor. Fuckin' Republicans! 318. Copyright just means you must be acknowledge for your work, others cannot use what you have done to profit for themselves with either proper acknowledgement or agreements to such use. 319. It sounds as if they are trying to evoke an emotional rather than logical response in the RIAA's definition of copyright. A copyright is something that gives the artist money for something he or she makes. 320. Actually, to artists copyright means: "Hey look what I did, isn't it neat, copy me and I'll make money by suing you!" 321. Copyright is there to make sure that the original creator has the opportunity to profit from their work during their lifetime. 322. labels hold copyright 323. Copyright may well have meant this to those people but to the RIAA members it is just another way to increase their revenue stream, and to hell with the artists 324. If Mark Twain were publishing now, he would be delirous over the possibility of his writing reaching the volume of end users that file sharing provides. 325. The fashion industry does not have IP or copyrights, and they have a plethora of new products come out constantly. It forces them to be innovative as opposed to artists that gets paid for what seems forever for the same songs. do you still get paid for the job you did 5 or 10 years ago? Then why should the artists? 326. there are countless occasions in wich musicians could not release sideprojects because the partisipants were signed to different labels. then there are those articficial pop-musicicians, who have their debut going platinum without one single live performance. i pay 15 bucks for an album and $40 - $60 plus travel cost for a concert. go figure. record = promotion, live performance = work, wich earns the money. 327. It's an /idea/, a sound. I think I'll go patent the sound of the wind blowing in the leaves, and have people pay me a penny every time they hear it. 328. There is a difference between copyright and enforcement of copyright. Any song written by an artist is AUTOMATICALLY copyright even if the RIAA did not exist. The truth is that most artists have to sign over the rights to their music to the record companies so I don't see how copyright enforcement protects the artists. The other issue is that there is a huge difference between the practicalities of copyright on a written work and a performed work. Even the RIAA recognize this, when someone does a cover of a song the owner of the copyright on the lyrics receives "mechanical" royalties. 329. gold rush 330. copyright as it was then maybe. now... 331. The artists rarely keep there copyrights so it is only a tool to allow the record Co. to control the market for there own gain ie market control / expiring albums from stores as thay se fit NOT where the band WOULD gain 332. Copyright laws are designed to protect the creator of a work. Sony is not the creator. Copyright laws need certain limits, or the public is denied access to these works. 333. dead relics didnt know about digital copyrights 334. The artist has the right to earn a living by plying their craft, but the major labels are trying to bludgeon us into buying. If I like it I will buy it, but I will find a way to support the artist without giving as much to a major label if possible. 335. For centuries those same people fought with the RIAA likes to preserve those rights too, so look who's talking? 336. I'd say look up copyright in the dictionary and tell me where it says anything about honing their craft. I do believe that it should be a right for an artist to have some sort of control over their works for a certain amount of time so they can make a living. However a copyright has never been a requirement for an artist to "hone their craft, experiment, create, and thrive." In fact there are far more starving artists than wealthy ones. 337. Van Gogh sold one painting in his whole life, yet somehow he honed his craft. It's all about money for the RIAA. Money has nothing to do with improving your art. 338. Within reason,. 339. copyright is just to keep things theirs. 340. Copyrights are most often a title to allow control. 341. artists have nothing, no rights - if RIAA does not want to print a CD - artist has nothing to say. I think the system is crazy - the last person to make money is the artist. And I'm not willing to pay to ppl, who are trying to sue me using my money. 342. They need a live 343. Copyright never has had anything to do with creative freedom. Never will. 344. I think artists should get paid for their work, but I think the way intellectual property law is being used by the labels is in no one's interest but the labels' own. I also believe that musicians - and all artists - do what they love because it's what they love. If people enjoy it, and want to see them continue, those people should support the artists. But, anyone who's making art for a reason other than a desire to make art is in the wrong business. It's nice to get paid for your work, it's nice to be appreciated. But no one is owed a living for their art. 345. You can hone your craft, experiment, and create in practice. That is all done before the CD goes on sale. No one is plagiarizing their work by sharing it. There is no better publicity then word of mouth. I would be happy to have the most downloaded song of all time. Hell it is a huge compliment. 346. Copyrights are meant to protect artist work so others cannot misrepresent them or steal artist work for their own use. 347. Yes the definition is true. But again, RIAA/America is using "copyright" solely for the insidious purpose of creating revenue - not for encouraging creativity or art/Art per se. What is not commercially viable is not created. 348. keep the law away from this transaction 349. It would be true if the Record Companies would not take the copyright for the Artist's work away from them. When I buy a book, the copyright still belongs to the author. The publisher may have distribution rights, but the author still owns his book. The recording industry takes the copyright away from the recording artist as part of the "deal." The industry even went as far as to try to make the artist an "employee" (actually more like an indentured servant -- at least an employee can quit) with the label owning the copyright outright. The recording industry needs add value to the music making process instead of being a burden if the industry wants to survive. 350. Copyright, as it exists, stifles culture. It turns ideas into real estate, and creates a new feudal system of 'intellectual property.' 351. Artists will create. The goal of copyright law is to incentivize the creative arts by giving artists a monopoly of limited time over there exploitation, such that they can eventually enter the public domain for all to appreciate. However, the current pricing structure of the record industry incentivizes p2p. CD prices have long been inflated. Buying an album online at .99 cents per song is essentially the same price, yet the consumer gets no tangible product, and the digital product is limited in its usefulness. These facts make p2p an attractive option- lower price for more use. While copyright serves an important purpose that should not be ignored, the record industry's stance on the issue is likewise harmful to copyright owners. There is a price at which consumers will pay for digital music rather than download it illegally, but the industry has not let the market figure strike such a balance. 352. copyright should have limit 353. I do definitely see what you guys are getting at with freely copying music and distributing it, etc, but I believe there is a fine line between living off of your music career and robbing the public of their money and gaining millions of dollars for a shitty song. It's bad enough that our society is so vulnerable to being controlled by music and what they "should" listen to, but its even worse that the music industry takes advantage of that and loves it. 354. copyright these days, just gives the right to sue over stolen content, it has nothing to due with increasing creativity, which was its initial purpose 355. Folk music survived hundreds of years without any type of copyright laws. Infact it needed people to copy each other to be able to progress. Same with sampling and loops, just now its the modern era and people are obsessed with putting a price on everything 356. "Copyright" has two purposes. One is certainly to ensure that an artist can earn his/her due compensation from his/her artistic work. The other is to ensure that creativity as a whole is allowed to grow and thrive through "fair use." 357. copyright is being badly used in this argument for capital gain. 358. Does copyright bestow chances? No. Does not having a copyright remove chances? No. 359. That statement is ironic coming from the RIAA. They do not represent artists; they represent record labels. It is a conflict of interest for a lawyer to represent both an artist and their label. At the very least, it is disingenuous for the RIAA to claim that they do what they do on the behalf of artists. 360. How much $ does the "artist" really get after administrative fees are implemented. 361. Well, sure, everyone should have the right to the stuff they create. Seeing as the only thing the RIAA have "made" is a lot of trouble for people who enjoy music, well, to hell with them. 362. Because of the RIAA, "copyright" means to the artist, a chance to produce the same garbage that fills the top 40: formulaic pablum. The companies that make up RIAA systematically destroy the opportunity to create and experiment through the economics of oligarchy. Which should be illegal under U.S. law! 363. Copyright was granted by us the public and was supposed to be limited. It is not to be controlled by the companies and distorted into their cash cows. 364. Copyright only partly helps the already well established artists. I know of several lesser known artists that actively use filesharing to get noticed. Copyright like the RIAA sees it helps noone but the RIAA. I would much rather buy an album that doesn't have one cent of the profits going to the RIAA. 365. copyright means 'owning' someone's creation and basically big trusts have to be dismanteled into smaller labels closer to the public 366. Music artists generally do not own the copyright to their own work; the record companies do. 367. They fight cause no one listens to them anymore and they need every penny they can get. 368. drac0nian copyright law does not apply to the digital age. Once you sign with publisher/label/etc. you lose ALL RIGHTS & royalties essentially >URGENT READING> http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/04/dick_dale_warns.html 369. tickly my funny bone again... never heard of mark twain suing dead grandma's, 11 year kids or harassing single mom's with threats to sue her kids. The only merit #14 uplifts is not creativity but to see how long the publisher can make $ off the artist even if they've been dead for decades. 370. Copyright is to ensure artist get credit for their work and other's should be allowed to help them hone and experiment, not just the original artist especially when the record company buys them out. 371. They seem to confuse "artists" with "authors". 372. Copyright means that the artist retains the right to reproduction, etc. But -- as an artist myself, I would be pretty chuffed if someone felt it was good enough to share with the world. Sharing also means more exposure for the artist 373. :P 374. Absolute hypocritical bullshit. Read some literary history and learn how even those authors were screwed over by the media companies of their day! 375. WTF? 376. One thing is to give the right credits to the creator of something. Another thing is to artificially restrict the use and copying of a non-scarce good. 377. It merely means that the original work belongs to the artist that created it. It is not an automatic atm machine because it is copyrighted. 378. more money 379. copyright allows them to get richer 380. Idea's will always be copied, even if you have a copyright, E.G. Microsoft vs. apple. they do every year. but they each have different sales tactics and continue to make money because of them. if you were to get rid of copyrights everyone would be copying each other for the good of the public, and the best product would win in the end. It's quite simple really. but big companies wouldn't go for it because they would lose market hold on their product because other people are doing the same thing but better and cheaper. 381. "Copyright" has nothing to do with honing a craft, etc. It has all to do with right of ownership. 382. Not enough information for me to answer #14 383. wrong context 384. Stop making me type in this box. For your stupidity for making these litlle text boxes, I am now forced to c&p this response in all the boxes. Bad poll making guy, BAD! 385. copyright, means don't copy this song or I can sue you. If artists wanted to "Craft, experiment, create, and thrive" they would release their music as Creative Commons... 386. Copyright is important--it was originally granted as a Royal perogrative so that artists could profit from their labours. The problem with copyright today is that it has been extended and transformed beyond all recognition of what it was originally. For example, when Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse, copyright at the time was for a term of 28 years, renewable once, for a total of 56 years. It has been repeatedly extended, and is now to the point that things are not in the public domain unless they are so very old that they were current when my mother was a toddler in the 1920s. 387. It may have been that way at one time. Now it means the record corporations get most of the $. The artists get little. 388. Artists don't need to make money from their art to hone it - if anything it lessens the true value of their gift. If money is so important to 'the artist' he shouldn't be a artist. 389. yeah right 390. Copyright is a system that allows the owner of the copyright to profit for a prescribed period of time. Very often this is not the artist. 391. Copyright terms are too long. Non-commercial private sharing should be decriminalized. 392. copyright (to the **AA) means reaping all profit for every instance a performance is heard or viewed, while compensating the creator as little as is legally possible, and maintaining this monopoly on the copyrighted work in all perpetuity until the end of recorded time. 393. I didn't answer false, but a copyright shows ownership. I do not dispute ownership but overpricing will lead the public to find what they want elsewhere. Its the market. 394. Copyrights were a privilege granted to the artist for the above stated reasons. Copyrights have become a "right" for the large recording industry at the expense of the consumer and, some would say, the artist. 395. John Milton, William Hogarth, Mark Twain, and Charles Dickens would be shiting in their coffins if they knew how the RIAA distorted the real purpose of copyright. 396. copyright should allow an artist to profit and live off their work in their lifetime. 397. While that may have been what copyright used to be, IP laws are now just a structure by which large corporations can aggregate wealth. 398. I believe copyright is necessary, but the current model is no longer relevant. The law needs to be amended or re-written to allow for fair use by individual consumers while still protecting the work from being misused and profited from by corporate entities. 399. the copyright is a fairly modern creation. i do not believe that in the past, writers such as milton and dickens and possibly twain even thought about something like that 400. Jazz did not thrive by copyright. Instead, it strangles innovation. For years, we couldn't even legally buy the Real Book. 401. copyright has stifled innovation and bred a vast population of lawyers who harass us and eat out our substance. 402. It's a way to protect an artist's creation while in use. Now it's being used as a way to lock usage from the public from fair use. 403. Copyright surely then should also stop some no talent rap star from ruining another artist work without asking them permission. But their record company writes in the contract that that is their decision and never turn down a chance to see a classic song ruined. 404. I would say true, but consider the industry's attempts to keep orphaned works out of the public domain, or the fact they have gotten copyright terms to what, life plus 95 years? A dead artist cannot be influenced by success to create new original art. The opposition to orphaned works smacks of admitting that free alternatives from the past might be better than what they're producing now... 405. See: http://www.baen.com/library/palaver11.htm 406. Copyright within reason is a great idea, but copyright that extends for many decades beyond the life of the creator of the art, or worse, which is not directly owned by the creator at any point, is pretty much about as far from the intent of the concept as we can go. 407. Copyright is a vital right? NOT! 408. Books in the XIX century certainly ain´t music on the XXI. 409. Artists and their families have fought to extend copyrights to an absurd length. I think we need copyrights, but not to the length that they exist now. 410. Art should not be restricted. 411. I think the RIAA is actually twisting in the worst manner what Milton, Hogarth, Twain and Dickens have fought for. 412. the above are in the public domain- copyright in this sense is a corporate invention to scam a percentage FROM the artists not give money to them 413. first part false. 414. Copyrights are designed to protect those that would loose the chance to experiment and thrive. This applies to rival companies or artists blatantly copying creations, not individuals sharing. 415. every book by all of the above authors has been freely available from PUBLIC LIBRARIES 416. I think someone should be able to copyright their property, so that the corporations can't rape them, but I'm still going to copy what I think should be free. Sorry. 417. Copyright was originally intended to give artists a limited monopoly on their work in order to do just those things. Unfortunately, the balance has gotten out of whack due to big players such as the RIAA and Disney, et. al. and now people are practically being forced to beg copyright holders in order to simply be inspired by their work. That's not the original intent of copyright. Also, copyright has been extended to a ridiculous length, also for the benefit of corporate holders, such that works don't enter the public domain in a timely fashion. 418. To an extent, they are right. Can't speak for the famous names, though. 419. Artists can make money in many other ways other than stealing 20 fucking dollars per CD in which there are 2 or 3 song over 10-15 that are worth of buy. 420. Mark Twain and Dickens would rather their works be free (especially in todays illiterate society) than see the downfall of literature. 421. I say True, but the definition of what a copyright should be and how to implement it must change. We no longer live in the era of Mark Twain. New technologies open up new ways to look at things. In the long run the artist must always get paid, other wise there will be much less art. But there is less and less of a need for a middleman (big record companies) to take a very large chunk of that money that should go to the artist. 422. Copyright protects a content creator from having someone else make profit from their works. Protects them from theft of intellectual ideas, not recorded works. If I can hear it, or I can play it, then it is already free to the air/airwaves. 423. As stated before, copyright is to allow the creator to protect his/her work after it's created, thereby giving them the incentive to create the work in the first place. Once the work is created, there is little additional "incentive" needed to release it. If the artists really like making music, then they don't need any more incentive than that. Still, copyrights are needed to prevent anarchy... but not to litigate a storm for monetary reasons alone. How many artists are actually against sharing? Very few... the business machine is the only interested party for these monies (not that the artist ever sees any of that money anyway! Talk about hypocracy!) 424. It is true to an extent but the RIAA is out of control and the laws regarding copyright are out of line. 425. Copywrong has gotten carried away and need to be reformed. 426. They misrepresent themselves with singles as being great. I wouldn't pay top dollar for a plastic surgeon who's still honing their craft. 427. We get the same music that is trying to be choked into our throats and ears by the RIAA and the record companies, no innovation, the same repetitive beat always. It becomes boring and tiring. No innovation at all. 428. I believe in a fair defense of copyright rules. What the content cartel is propagating is completely outside the realm of fairness. 429. www.creativecommons.com 430. There may be some truth to this, but since artists were creating art before the concept of copyright, I think they'll continue to do so in a post-copyright world. This statement makes another unsupported assumption -- that people only create art for the money. That is demonstrably false. 431. Copyright is to prevent others from making profit from or taking credit for a creator's work. I don't know what those other artists thought about it, but as far as I'm concerned, I don't care if people distribute my work, as long as I get credit and recognition, and I only deserve money if money's involved in the first place. 432. Its all about money to them, if there was no such thing as money and greed this wouldnt even be an issue. 433. Copyright is bullshit, all it is, is a way to milk the customer for as much money as possible 434. For LIMITED time only! Say: 5 years, so they don't sit on their asses and do nothing for next 50 or 90 years. By perpetually extending copyright terms - RIAA and it's members are engaging in the wholesale theft of public domain. 435. Copyright lasts too long. Patents only last 17 years. Copyright now lasts, after the Disney suit, over 100 years. After time, a "timeless" work should become public domain. "Art" is the artist's gift to the world. An artist should be able to "exploit" a given work for a set period of time, then it shall fall to the public domain. An artist can very easily make money on his "works" by working--hitting the road and doing shows. 436. Copyright is the protection that a works receives that protects artists and songwriters from unscrupulous industry practices. 437. their rich 438. These people were creators and artists, and were less motivated by sheer profit than by the expression of their art, and recognition for their talents. To compare them to most modern recording artists is ridiculous. To compare them to the RIAA - a parasitic group not unlike the modern incarnation of labor unions/mafias - is insulting. 439. When I buy something, it's mine, and I do not wish to be restricted in any form. "Copyright" is a lame capitalistic excuse to ensure low-quality products to be sold. 440. Things were a lot different in those days. 441. Yes, a hundred years ago, stronger copyright laws allowed artists to earn a living from their work. But today copyright law has a stranglehold on creativity, and exists merely to keep companies in business long after the artists that created the companies are dead, and eradicated the whole concept of public domain. The scales have unfairly tipped the other way, and that's the fault of our politicians. 442. All propaganda. 443. $$$$$$$$? 444. If they are artists then the very fact that they are artists means that they will continue to hone their craft, experiment, create, and thrive regardless of copyright. 445. When artists 'mix' music, these copyrights are walked upon (the original artist). It's a bit rich then to expect others to abide by theirs. 446. What the hell was that gibberish supposed to mean? 447. copyright is only a way to protect one's song from being copied artisticaly speaking and to get money from it. But it mainly profit to record company and various intermediar company wich have nothing to do with the artistical process. 448. Copyright was invented to protect artist from greedy publishers, who would just take their work and make lots of money from it. But copyright should be limited in time and the work become public domain. Nowadays as soon as copyrights are about to expire the industry lobbies for longer terms. 449. Copyright doesn't means chance to hone their craft, experiment, create, and thrive, it's a method of getting payed for work they already done. They made their first works without any copyrights already owned and that didn't limit their creativity. 450. I believe the current copyright laws hinder newer artists in their attempts to be heard by a larger audience. 451. sort of"true, but lets have alimit on copy right time, rather than the present attempts at extension of time, as is happening now! 452. really? Mark Twain has fought to preserve his copyrights? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I strongly believe he fought editors(read companies) who were trying to MAKE MONEY SELLING his books without paying him for his rights. I don't really think any of the authors above meant to not being read at all as opposed to, e.g. lending one of his books to the kid next door, who happens to be a fan. 453. essentially, yes, this is true, but there are other means artists can make money - even if they publish their works under a public licence 454. Charles dickens wasn't protected by the riaa.... As an genius hew would have despised the capitalism the riaa stands for... "http://www.jannes.nu/" 455. Copyright loses validity in my mind once the ownership has been extorted away from the creators of the work in the manner it's being done today. Those writers are irrelevant to what's happening now. 456. (Copyright != DRM) 457. imitation is the greatest complement 458. My unofficial definition: Copyright - The right for the RIAA to sue your ass 459. if thats true then why is this all about money, why not spend less time and effort to show people how it effects music makers, go to the schools, show us numbers, stop hiding behind stupid remarks about poor poor RIAA. 460. Artists will create even if there is no copyright. Artists create to express, not to make money, although they won't deny they wanted to make some money. 461. what bs 462. copyright means you can't plagiarise someone's work, i'm in no way saying the work is mine and by dl'ing I can get a feel for the artist, if i can't download, then i won't buy the cd cause i don't wanna pay for crap 463. I see a desperate, fat, lazy and bloated monstrosity refusing to change with modern trends and technology, instead throwing vast amounts of money into pure FUD and lies to convince a public who doesnt want or care to be convinced by them or their business model any longer. I also see the "starving artists" being completely ripped off, manipulated and stolen from by an evil monopoly that fixes prices and controls a market for its own benefit, not theirs, far more than i do from people sharing their songs. So you potentially lost 1-2 cents the RIAA let you have from the 15 bucks they sell your album for to filesharers? Time to look at who the REAL crooks are... And that monopoly is the RIAA, and they take more of the "starving artists" money than any filesharer did (and they were doing it BEFORE filesharing, before they try and claim they need more resources now to combat copyright infringement) 464. 'Copyright' is a term falsely used - it's for those who aren't creative enough with their work..so they feel its originality can be easily taken. Go figure. 465. BS 466. Isn't Marcel Duchamp an artist? 467. This crap is getting out of hand when you can be sued for using an excerpt from a book or article. What happens to free speech when you can be sued for copyright violations because you quoted someone? 468. Having a lock on intellectual property actually hinders the ability for some artists to develop their craft. Because often times they may have an idea for a song only to find out it is very similar to someones prior work and cannot be done under law. Also someones interpretations of another's work in itself could be considered art but because of copyright it is considered infringing. This is demonstrated in the work of remixers who have recently had their work confiscated because of copyright infringement even tho the work is very different after the remixing. The other argument against it is simply that many artist can still thrive through live performances, merchandise or simply being more skilled then those performing their original song. 469. no 470. The RIAA wants to expand copyright to mean no rights are afforded to the consumer. 471. Those names all benifitted greatly by filesharing. Many times I have had someone read Dickens or Twain out loud to me. That would be illegal according to the RIAA who want me to buy my own book and then not talk about it. The above artists came from a different time where they weren't dreaming about some virtual IP. Those attists probably wouldn't even take the RIAA sereiously. The RIAA hates kids, they wouldn't want a parent to read to their kids. 472. copyright = less people see their work : ( 473. Artists are using samples or whatever inspiration to make songs. Thus copyright is not a chance but a limitation to creativity. 474. I see copyright now as an abused symbol for greed. Yes, it does preserve people's ideas, however in a rapidly growing society there will always be someone that has similar ideals. More and more copyright is becoming a means for monopolization. (Which in the US, is obviously illegal) 475. WTF!? Copyright in that sense is about not being able to plagerise another's work and call it your own. Certainly for one to download a song, doesn't mean you had any part in it's creation or inception. It's about the same as going to the library copying out a poem you like with the photocopier. Bothering to have that copy made honours the creator of the poem respectively. Most people I know don't go around reauthoring tunes with their own name in the credits list, when they have done nothing to desserve it. 476. At one time, that's what "copyright" meant. Now it means a chance for untalented executives and lawyers to make obscene salaries from the efforts of others. 477. bah 478. copyright is a way to keep royalties comming in... those people would have done it regardless 479. Copyrights (and patents) create inefficiencies from an economics standpoint. You slow down progress because no one else can improve upon your invention, craft, etc. More importantly in this case however, no one "owns" music. 480. Actually, I agree to the statement. However, what I disagree with is the PERPETUAL nature of copyrights and patents these days. 481. Honing their craft is why so many people P2P.It's not worth 15 bucks a pop. 482. copyright is tantamount to stopping evolution. 483. Copyrights run too long now. 484. In Canada there is already a tax credit for copyright holders. Canada Still gives this chance, dunno about the USA. Copyright or not, It doesn't mean I would have paid for it to begin with. 485. Copyright is a means to control the actions of the end-user, at least that is what copyright holders think copyright is today. Back during Twain and Dickens' times, copyright was simply a means to give credit where credit was due and have legal protections to protect them. 486. copyright is so that some unknown can't remake a song and call it thier own 487. Well true and false. There are more open forms of copyright that artists can promote and still leave room for others to build on ideas. 488. your question are too sat-ish....my understanding of copyright was to protect the artist work from being exploited for monetary gain other than their own.....ie I couldn't sell their art from my own financial gain... 489. if i lend you something 'I' own too bad..... 490. Copyright means a permit to manufacture money. Artist use to make money through performance... in the early days you got something manufacture in return for your money. Now a quick copy and a fancy box empties your pocket......... 491. Look Into Their Past. 492. Artists made money off their work, but also thrived on the popularity generated from that work. 493. To artists, copyright is what the greedy middlemen steal from them for a fraction of its value. 494. double speak. Copyright is a way to make money, the artists didnt care about anything but money, they werent in the music for any other reason by the time they were trying to preserve that right. profit. profit.profit. 495. copyright usually belongs to the record companies and not the individual artists. 496. Copyright is an artificial monopoly to encourage authorship - not oligopolies. 497. It stops you listening to your own bought music on players of your choice. 498. Artists don't need copyright to hone their craft, experiment, create or thrive. 499. It's a chance for the music cartels, for X number of years, to gouge the public into paying outrageous prices for items that cost pennies to make. 500. We should make libraries and the radio illegal as they offer a service to for you to ether hear or borrow copyrighted work w/o compensating the artist. 501. wtf are they smoking copyright is for tards. DRM solves nothing. It only encourages people to share 502. Copyright means you cannot resell it as your own. 503. not when they have money up their asses 504. Why are artists paid for evermore for each piece of work, while a house painter, for example is paid only once and not every time someone looks at his work? 505. Quite the contrary: all artists build upon previous artists' work. Copyright is the criminalization of experimenting with their craft, that is, experimenting with existing works to find new ways of expression. 506. "copyright" means the chance to secure the rights to distribution, not the ability to produce. 507. "Copyright" is an amorphous and convoluted term to begin with. I would take it as far as recognition of authorship. For ideas are a lot like currency: many people work for hard them, and they frequently change hands. 508. Art is to be shared, not used for monetary gains. 509. Copyright preserves creativity? There isn't even a logical argument to support that claim. Copyright does not mean the right to make money on creative works. 510. Kopyright holds up the current system of capitalism and serves the interests of the rich. 511. Copyright was designed for small-time inventors, not lawyer-toting corporations. In my opinion, we must do away with copyright all together, because it stifles creativity. When a copyright holder doesn't do anything productive with their property, some one else could improve their idea, allowing for a faster growth in technology. 512. Artists create because the want to, if they are in it for the money, it shows 513. Most artists have sign their copyright away to a label as a condition of getting a contract. That statement might be true for independent artist, but it's certainly not true for the majority of major label artists. 514. I would argue that to an artist "copyright" would mean that another artist would not be aloud to copy some or all of their song and use it to their advantage. 515. this is how the public see the issues because of the modern state of things. a musician should make music because that's their calling, they can still "hone their craft, experiment, create, and thrive" whilst getting money from live performance (music is about live performance, not making money from sold tracks) the record companies turned music into a business, like everything corporate America does, turn everything, even war into a business 516. Copyright means that only a select few can make money off of the material, even those that contribute nothing to the actual creation of the material such as the RIAA. 517. A copyright protects the true author in the sense from theft in the form of plagerism or counterfitting a media for profit...Sharing a song file is the equal to making a photo copy of a newspaper or magazine article to spread the information to wider audience, 518. copyright is a corporation led law and evolves as the corporations want it to not by the people who buy the music this is wrong 519. say what?, jus by a few thousand downloading u destroy the dream of an artist common people.... 520. but that right shouldn't mean "forever" 521. WTF stop asking for details im tired. 522. They must of been smoki 523. True, when one adds 'estate' after each name mentioned. During times of those mentioned above, copyright laws were much, much saner. 524. if the artist owned their music, then maybe the statement would have some meaning 525. "hone their craft, experiment, create, and thrive" just because of a copyright is hogwash. There are thousands of Public Domain songs that have survied for years and some for centuries even. If Beethoven's songs were copyrighted like in todays world. his songs would have been lost. plus the names that they are listed are Authors of Books and painters not musicians. That is because music is to be shared and passed down. That is how music survies. 526. Copyright is irrelevant to artists, because they have signed the rights to their songs over to the record companies. The only ones who benefit from copyright are the corporations that own the music. 527. Thanks God we all are not Western Civilization's slaves even if we are hold hostages by these fruitcakes. 528. Copyright in their point of view has been manipulated into stifling innovation, competition and limiting listeners choice of how they can listen to music and what they can do with music they purchased. 529. How can the indie artist do that when all the market is contained and closed off to them? It's like demanding experience to hire for the job and the job is a totally new field. (even though in this case it isn't) They can't get heard on the radio, they can't get exposure because payolls, they can't break into public consciousness without signing in blood to the vampires bent on killing the music if it doesn't line their pockets to the exclusion of everyone else. 530. Authors just like true musicians would want as many people as possible to read or hear their work. 531. getting your music out into the world is key to sales....not copyright 532. While there is some validity to this statement, it should be noted that the length of a copyright during the times of these authors was significantly shorter than it is today, yet this hardly prevented them from producing creative works. Indeed, it could be argued that the lack of a significantly long copyright term could have been a motivator for these authors to continue creating new works, so as to not risk relying on previous works that have moved into the public domain. 533. The RIAA just want to rip you off. 534. copyright is fixed to my knowledge it cant be honed or improved upon. a copyright is to prevent others from passing your work off as there not a item to control how your product is used. 535. "Copyright" is a term heavily abused. Nowadays, it is used to lock the product in a cage (i.e. DRM) where the consumer can not exercise his fair use rights. It is also used to impose measures that render the product available only to a few (i.e. high prices). 536. NO to artist copyright means nothing because the artists dont have the copyright .. the company does .. ``Night_raid 537. Copyright is no longer viewed this way, it is now viewed as a cashcow for artists wish to profit on what they did 20 years ago while not making any new recordings/song/music. 538. What? By my downloading an album or song, the artist loses their chance to experiment, create or thrive? If I like the group, I might buy their album or see them live, if I don't, then they are no worse off then they were before. 539. The RIAA have proved themselves to be a bunch of lying assholes. If they said the above quote, I automatically assume it is a flat out lie. 540. It is true, but the RIAA is using the term in the wrong way. Copyright protects artists from pirates who make profit off their work, not from people freely sharing and helping the artist get known. 541. Not sure. 542. make money for ever even when dead 543. People can create and experiment without copyright. 544. That's completely untrue. Copyright started out as a censorship law. There's a good site at http://questioncopyright.org/ addressing the lies about copyright spread by the RIAA and others. Later on, copyright became an artificial privilege used to benefit the public, not the publishers or authors. We trade certain freedoms to use the work, for a limited time, in order to have more works made available, as publishers can make more money from them. There's a good article about this at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html , though it only discusses copyright in the US. 545. It is not a vital right. Shakespeare did not work with copyright. He based his material on the culture of his time, and took ideas from others. 546. Hone their craft?! Wow, so that means if you paid me thousands of dollars, I would become a better singer? Yeah I can see it, the amount of cash in your pocket is directly perportional to the quality of your singing voice. It's all so clear! Oh, and as far as experiment, create, and thrive?.. When they actually do some original work and not just lacing their washed up lyrics over an already invented beat or singing style.. THEN that will apply.. NOT before. 547. Only the publishers and distributors have fought to preserve it. Goes back to my previous comment, "They are just greedy pigs" 548. "copyright" means that you did something. No pirate is claiming that he or she created the works that the advertise. Oh, wait, you'd rather use the term "steal", my mistake. 549. could be, but the most dedicated of artists i know, almost like to spread their music more than earning money on it 550. jsut because someone downlaods a copyrighted song it doesnt mean they dont respect that persons work. 551. The world is rapidly out-distancing copyright. Something much more equitable is required. 552. Then the RIAA should let the artists own there songs, not blackmail artists by destroying them for wanting to own what they themselves create 553. copyright is fine as a concept but not when they want to extend it forever. that,s when it goes from a short term protection of a persons ideas so they can make a profit on that idea to outright greed and a stifling of innovation and change 554. perhaps true in the past, today copyright has grown so bloated and restrictive it suffocates creativity. 555. Ask Mozart, Bach, Dostoievsky or so many others that never saw a cent from copyright. Moreover, we all know who pockets 90% of the monies, and it is not the artists. They stills fool some people with this fallacy, but the word is spreading. 556. copyright is owned by cartel, not artists, so only protects their cash cow. 557. There is a difference between downloading files and selling pirated copies of Mark Twain's books. Or pirated CD's or DVD's, even if the RIAA can't tell the difference. 558. The more legitimate ways to engage online with product the more sales. If the RIAA gave their customers what they wanted then there would only be a very small problem. Trying to tell consumers what we can do with what we have bought IS what has caused the growth in file sharing. 559. Once you've created a public act of art, you can't expect to maintain complete control over that product. The law doesn't have anything to do with it. As long as copyright has been around there have always been people willing to exploit the loopholes. 560. I doubt most artists even fully understand copyright. If they did, they certainly wouldn't be signing deals where they hand the copyrights to their songs over to a record label with the promise of making it big. A beginning artist will do almost anything to make their big break with a big label. That generally means giving up everything, and then still having to pay it all back. 561. I don't now if that statement is true or false, but as the saying goes, "originality is just plagiarism that hasn't been pointed out yet." 562. A copyright is not essential for creative experimentation or success. 563. it is a vital right, the riaa are exploiting that right however for their own gain and not the artists. 564. Copyright only means that the artist need not fear others profiting from their works. Everything else (profit, etc.) is gained via public exposure which internet filesharing greatly helps. 565. Not when copyright is controled by the riaa 566. Copyright is the temporary exclusive privalege to use one product or discovery in order to make back the investment+ some profit and to guard against plagarism. Most all who are complaining have already made back they're investment+profit already. File sharing is a completly seperate issue from plagarism. 567. those people probably didn`t know any thing about copy wright 568. Nothing is more wrong than that. 569. Copyright protects intellectual property by protecting it from plagiarism. 570. It was not meant to kill inovation,but RIAA is trying to do that... 571. Everything the RIAA says is false. 572. Current worldwide copyright law is antiquated and cannot effectively manage the application of digital technology in a modern age. It is also a product of nearly 75 years of manipulation by corporations to maximize return, not to artists, but to the corporations themselves. Modern copyright law in no way truly and effectively represents the rights and needs of modern artists. 573. Spin. just more spin. 574. after 5 years the copyright should fall 575. The record companies add NOTHING to the music that is worthy of the monetary penalty they heap on consumers. I believe, and the facts DO appear to bear this out, that artists themselves would be MUCH BETTER served financially by marketing directly to consumers over the web. The Record Companies are simply middle-men who act to PREVENT the free and easy exchange of artistic product. The RIAA is a dinosaur who apparently didn't receive his own copy of the memo -- the dinosaurs died out 65 Million years ago when an asteroid or comet struck what is now part of the Gulf of Mexico. WAKE UP -- YOU'RE DEAD ALREADY! 576. Copyrights as "works for hire" that are held by the RIAA do the exact opposite depriving the artist of that opportunity. If the artist held the copyright the above statement might be true. 577. Copyright has exceeded the lifespan of the artists it is supposed to protec and instead protects the large industries leaching off of the artist's talents.

Says the RIAA: Everything that the RIAA is active on - fostering a viable music marketplace online, preventing piracy, fighting censorship - is based on one premise: It all starts with the music and the music starts with the artist."

Total Responses: 1,046 True   16.5%  (173) False   83.5%  (873)

If you've answered False to the question above, how do you see things?

Total Responses: 728 1. It all starts with business, using the artist to defend their actions is pure bigottry 2. It all starts with the lawyers prodding the artists who are getting pennies on the cd due to the contracts they have signed to get their music to the people. It all ends with the lawyers.. rhetoric will not blind me. 3. That's a great premise, but it isn't the RIAA's. Maybe, "it all starts with the money, and the money starts with people illegally leeching off the artist so we can sue the person." 4. It starts and ends with lining their pockets with the profits from somebody else's work. 5. It starts with trying to sustain corporate profits in a business that is undergoing major change. Old English legend of King Canute applies. 6. If that were true, my favourite band 'Thursday' (signed to EMI by the way) wouldn't be telling me to download songs at their concerts, bands like this know that music isn't about money. RIAA just want money. 7. the first independent clause is likely true. so is the second independent clause. however, there is *NO* causality whatsoever between the two. 8. They aren't fighting censorship, they are ENCOURAGING censorship. By preventing the age old method of peer-2-peer (which has existed before computers were ever even invented, as well as before trades and crafts were establish, who do you think got fire to be such a big thing? That person didn't put a note down next to the flame on a rock saying don't remake this, that person shared that discovery, not invention, invention is a creation of an idea, discovery is the realization of an existence, which brings up another point for a later date.), they are preventing the expansion of their fan base as well as their buyers in general. 9. It starts with greed and the artist be damned. If a band I liked offered to sell their music on their own website for a fair price, I would jump all over that. I'm not giving a bunch of corrupt businessmen anymore of my money. 10. The RIAA are all about making money, the artist is all about making music. These two ideals collide! 11. Its more about money, the RIAA sees itself loosing control of the artist in the near future, and they do not want that. If the RIAA looses control, artists will still make money, but the RIAA will stop making money. 12. False 13. They why have they restricted their own artists from publishing their works under the creative commons license? Artists do NOT own their music, they give up the copyright to the record label in exchange for millions and millions of dollars. The record companies themselves own the license. 14. the music industry cares much more about earning money than the artist, that is why we are seeing a growing indie scene. 15. It all starts with profit and the profit starts with absolute control. 16. The Majority of these things that the RIAA fight for such as specifically preventing piracy is not the direct result of a artists desire. In fact many RIAA artists have been extremely angered at the RIAA's inclusion of DRM in their cds and attempts to sue their fans. 17. The RIAA doesn't care about ANYTHING but increasing profits at the record companies. 18. You don't care about your artists. You censor artists all the time. Even your parental advisory system is a form of censorship because some stores won't carry albums that have that warning. If it's really about the artist why don't you pay them accordingly and treat them like other businesses have to treat their employees? 19. the riaa is with the major labels and interested only in getting rich - when they sue 10 year olds do the artists see the money? 20. The RIAA doesn't care about music, it cares about record sales. The record companies homogenize music so it all sounds the same and is easy to sell to the masses. They only care about the bottom line. 21. It's all about stopping innovation, new markets, and giving more power to the artists. 22. All I want to know is how much money the RIAA is getting from each sale as compared to the actual artists. I bet it is a lot more than they pay their artists. 23. It's all about the all.mighty.dollar. Everything-else is just smoke and mirrors. 24. The RIAA is "fostering a viable music marketplace online?" AHAHAHA.... Yeah, and Bill Gates really will send you $1,000 for every person you forward that email to. Everything the RIAA is active on - destroying the online music marketplace, terrorizing individuals, manipulating government - is based on one premise: maximize the bottom line. 25. They wouldnt know a good piece of music if they heard one - look at the the charts they are producing. 26. The RIAA is only interested in the profits of the labels - that is clear. 27. No.....the Riaa is about preserving a monopoly position in onder to attain monoply profits- 28. They dont give any of the money they get from extortion to the artist... 29. Truth: it all starts with the record companies, and ends with profits (artists be damned). 30. The marketplace for music has substantially changed in the past decade. It is incredibly inexpensive to create and distribute music and the RIAA needs to develop newer business models to save their industry because most people illegally sharing are doing so based on costs and availability. Improve those two situations and less people will infringe. 31. RIAA is full of crap, all they care about is making money (like any business, of course.) Likewise, all consumers want is to save money (i.e. get a product for the lowest and most reasonable price.) When the RIAA set a ridiculous price for a product not worth it ($20 for an album with two good songs on it and the rest is crap), people understandably figured out a way to fight back (P2P services). This made the RIAA angry. The obvious thing to do would be to lower the prices of music and win back your customers' loyalties. However, the RIAA is too greedy, and would rather attribute the piracy not to their own shady business practices, but to the attitude of Americans and to college students (who, notably, are very poor) who are just trying to enjoy music without selling their kidneys. Instead of lowering prices, the RIAA decided to treat their customers like criminals, illegally threatening them with blackmail and extortion. So to answer the question, no, i don't think that the quality of music is the first thing on the RIAA's mind. 32. But none of what RIAA is doing works towards that aim. 33. The RIAA sees artist as cash cows, and doesn't give a hoot about their well being as long as they're sitting pretty. The RIAA was necessary when the standardization of physical medium was necessary. It's not anymore, so they're not anymore. 34. They are only using the image of the starving artist to justify their actions. 35. money 36. Nine Inch Nails - YearZero 37. A technology innovation has occurred that increases the accessibility of music to a larger audience. Whenever similar shifts have occurred in the past, the overall market size increases. This is about control, not innovation or protection of the artists. 38. I am a musician myself, and the RIAA doesn't care much about the artist. If they cared so much, I would like to know how many artists are seeing any money from RIAA lawsuits. 39. RIAA work for record labels and record labels only 40. Artists can sell music directly to consumers, bypassing the middlemen. The RIAA needs a new source of revenue by lobbying congress and redefining "piracy" to encompass more fans. 41. If this was true why are artists speaking out and showing proof of just how little money they are getting from the labels. 42. its all based on their greed. 43. The RIAA has no interest in music or musicians. It is purely profit-driven. And the music industry has grown accustomed to a market in which they can promote untalented, unoriginal performers and expect them to sell. This market is disappearing. 44. digging you own hole 45. price fixing is not helping. 46. It's unfortunate that it isn't all about the artist, but what can you do. These greesemonkies are in it to win it. Why is it that we have corporate lawyers suing 12 year olds? Sue my 12 year old and I'll probably slice your neck from ear to ear, than fully decapitate you and walk into your home with your head in my hand just to frighten your family before I shoot every one of them. Yeah, looks like you picked the wrong kid to go after. 47. and the RIAA is doing everything to make music without the artist. 48. While I agree with they're premise, I believe the artists are not suffering so heavily from piracy that they are suffering financially and will not be able to pay for their basic wants and needs. 49. I agree, but sadly the RIAA track record shows their hipocracy. How much have they paid out to artists from their "copyright infringement" mafioso tactics? Oh yeah... 50. lawsuits dont stop it, they dont scare use, and we still support the bands. just not riaa. 51. The RIAA is censorship at it's peak. They censor people from discovering new music which in turn actually hurts the artist community. The artists aren't the ones out there that are actively pursuing the prosecution of their fans, it's the record companies, who get the biggest chunk of album sales, that are fueling and partnering with the RIAA. It all starts with money, money starts with the artist and ends up in the pockets of the record company CEO. 52. The music starts with the fans, without them, its just people playing their music in their basements for themselves. 53. "It all starts with the money and the money starts with us treating you like a hardened criminal." These people don't foster anything online. They push DRM, which works for them because it has nothing to do with piracy - and everything to do with you re-buying the same music/movie/whatever over and over again to play it on different devices, or for longer. They love DRM because they can say "We're so innocent we only want to use it to stop copyright infringement!" 54. The RIAA is not active on fostering a music marketplace online, and if they were, it wouldn't be a viable one. 55. The RIAA does not have the interest of the artist at heart. If they did, they would pay the artists larger royalties for their songs and spend time making quality releases rather than stamping out cheap junk no one wants to buy. Instead, the RIAA robs artists, steals their craft, produces crap and attempts to illegally frighten everyone into buying it. 56. The RIAA doesn't care about the artists, because they are corporations, and corporations don't care about anything but profit. They can't. If they were to put something ahead of that golden goal, they would be fired and someone better at getting the $ would come on the scene. 57. Its all about being a total DICK of an organisation 58. RIAA is not assisting in fostering an online marketplace. 59. Musicians can do well just performing and using CD's as a marketing tool, not a true, dependent revenue stream 60. If the RIAA was trying to protect the artist then why did they try to lobby to lower the amount artists make from royalties? They are working for the labels and the deep pockets of the executives. 61. the RIAA is not active on that. It is active only for making money for the shareholders and managers of the music companies. Apple does more than they do. 62. all they care about is sueing people 63. It starts with the money 64. they just care about filling their pocket they could care less about the artist, they could always change them. 65. With Music Piracy/Sharing, music has a greater audience that ever before. 10 years ago, I never heard of half of these musicians, only those in "main stream", now I have music from all over the world as it is available. 66. That music is wayyyy too much 67. Music is pointless without anyone to listen to it. And if consumers aren't willing to continue paying the price that those who represent the artists demand, then it's the artists and their representatives who ought to be listening to demands, not making them. 68. Such a small amount of the money generated from RIAA sale of CDs actually goes to artists, I think that statement couldn't be any further from the truth. 69. Music is a service. Music starts with the audience. 70. follow the money 71. Take the money out of your ass, cause your forgetting about it being there. 72. It all started with money, if they weren't so greedy, they'd make more money 73. RIAA = Whores 74. They want to keep milking the cash cow as they have done in the past and dont want ot change business model to fit the modern digital realities. 75. lies 76. RIAA, even if it is supporting these ideals, certainly doesn't seem to be. The RIAA seems to be purely interested in protecting their own monetary interests in any way possible. 77. For the RIAA it starts with the checks coming in and ends with depositing the money in the bank 78. The best interest for them is more money and less competition not the artist and money. the model needs to be reworked so that the music is what they strive for and get paid because of that. 79. It takes two to Tango.....the greatest in the world means nothing if there is no audience 80. The people at the RIAA work for themselves. They're greedy, like anyone who works at a job that does any more than put food on the table. This is to be expected, however, we cannot allow them to fool us with their pretty lies about good intentions. 81. it all starts with MONEY. The labels want it, and they want as much of it as possible... so they keep album/song prices artificially high while payouts to the real artists are minimal. Everything else is secondary to that goal. If the RIAA *really* put the artist first, they would give the artists at least 50% of all revenues, and split the rest among all other parties. 82. Riaa are liars who cant even keep a site running. So meh! 83. Without an audience where is that big fat paycheck coming from? 84. It's only the RIAA money the RIAA is concerned about. They pay artists a measly pittance. 85. I think the premise is true. But I don't think that the Record companies or the RIAA really care about the artists. They are concerned with protecting their business models. If they are concerned with the artist, then why are they killing webcasts and why aren't they supporting alternate forms of distrubution. 86. For RIAA it starts with the bottom line and ends in court. They don't give a f*k about music or artists. 87. It's about the money. 88. I never heard the RIAA giving money back to the artists after suing someone into oblivion. 89. It starts and ends with the desire for monopoly control by the middlemen, not the creators. 90. the RIAA forces the same crap down our throats over and over. if they cared about music they would work with music, not just to make a buck 91. I do not believe the RIAA is about artists in any way. They are an entity solely devoted to money. 92. The RIAA is literally comprised of a laundry list of labels (found here: http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp). These labels are looking out for their own interests, just as any one person or organization will. They have an agenda, and will stick to it. Their agenda is clearly money, and not some sort of flourishing environment of creativity. 93. The RIAA would have us believe that they are protecting the interests of the artists. In fact, they are protecting their special monopoly to profit from artists that they seek to exploit. 94. The fans are the reason the artists have a job. 95. It all starts and ends with money Musicians have spent years getting rich along with record companies so now that we get the same product for cheaper their screaming poverty. And by the way allofmp3 is not piracy I pays for the music I download. 96. If it was really about the music they wouldn't give a crap about how consumers access it. 97. they dont care about the artist 98. Fighting censorship, yeah right. Lets not be naive here - it starts with the money and ends with the shareholders. Thats all there is to it. There would be no RIAA if there were no money. While they may stand for these things - its been an overused excuse to persecute and maliciously attack people other than those running massive underground ops. 99. it starts and ends with the almighty dollar 100. Follow the money, not the bull. 101. If the RIAA really cared about the artists, they would reform the way that the record labels do business with their artists and not try and close internet radio stations. 102. The music industry does not need the MAFIAA to survive. They are adding an exorbitant overhead cost to the music industry. Without copy protection the MAFIAA can not survive but the music industry can. 103. SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!!!! That's what it's about. 104. same as 31 105. they only represent the lables not the artists 106. Since when have they cared about the artist? News to me. 107. yeah, more like it all starts with the corporates and ends with the artist. 108. For RIAA, in starts with money, greed and corruption. Music is an afterthought. 109. Hypocrites. The RIAA is not fostering a variable music marketplace online -- they are driving more angry customers away from purchasing music at all and then saying it's caused by big bad file sharing, and encouraging the purchase of overpriced cd's. For chrissake, cd's costs 15-20 dollars and I can buy a NEW DVD for 10, and older DVD's for 5-8. They don't prevent piracy, either, it just happens in a different way or prevent their own sales from driving away someone who might have been interested. Fighting censorship? I've not read up on them doing anything to change the minds of any stores that censor all of their material, so long as the cash flow is going. 110. Ask the artist what do they need, If some are doing it for money then they should look for investing or real estate business. 111. More BS. If the RIAA spent all the money they've been spending trying to sue people on actually coming up with a business plan and vision that implements the new technologies out there, they'd probably be making more money than they ever have. Instead, they're pissing away money on meaningless lawsuits while rejecting new technologies and services that are attempting to proliferate music. Basically, if they put the same kind of time, effort, and money into a creative solution that gives people what they want, they could be making money instead of pissing it away. And these are supposed to be businessmen? 112. I don't think the RIAA acctualy cares about the artist as such, more about the big record labels whom are making a lot more money than individual artists. 113. There is plenty of money to be made online for the artists but other groups create too much overhead for the artists to cover before they can make money. 114. lmao - is this statement for real or made up? The RIAA is not actively fostering a viable online marketplace for music!!! If they were then we would have the option to d/l high-quality music which is DRM-free 115. It may start with the music, but ends with PROFIT 116. Obviously money is also a factor, not that that is a bad thing. 117. We don't hear much from the artists about this "problem". 118. The RIAA is out to make the music industry richer not the artists. The artists never really benefit. 119. RIAA is about money.. sucks kind of 120. It's all about RIAA. If RIAA were for the artists then they would not be going to court attempting to reduce the amount of money artists get - as they recently have been. 121. The RIAA practially forces artists to join their organization. And how much of the money they make in lawsuits, like, the 1.65 TRILLION dollar one against allofmp3.com is going to make it back to the artists. They are using artists as a scapegoat for their own purposes, and the artists are to afraid of being blackballed to speak out about it. 122. Everything the RIAA is active on is based on one premise: sucking the money out of everyone's wallets, including the artist's, so the RIAA executives can buy big fat cars and houses for themselves. 123. Music is a visceral experience. 124. The RIAA os ONLY out to line their own wallets and have not a single care for any of the artists in their fold. They operate as a cartel, complete with strongarm tactics to prevent indy's from gaining a foothold. 125. Soory no. For RIAA it is all about the money. Period! 126. Hahah. The RIAA doesn't care about music or the artist. They should take some tips from the independent labels that have embraced the internet for exposing music and artists of actual quality. The RIAA cares about money, not artistry. 127. so music buying punters don't matter to them and even if i do buy a CD they want it so that i can't copy it to my MP3 player! right... 128. more like, preventing piracy to get more money, fighting censorship to get their own through, and stealing the artist's creations from the artist. IT R MAEK ME SAED :'( 129. the artist is a pawn, not many of them even write their own music... look at that movie that thing you do... you can do your side of the 45 and you play a song WE choose from our album... its the same thing today. 130. I think they say that, but to them, the real most important thing is the consumer. Record companies, retailers, and the RIAA are all only interested in one thing: more money. 131. I can't really see how the RIAA ever fought censorship. After all, it's quite on the contrary, that the record companies decide which artists get a chance and which don't. One could consider this a kind of censorship. The RIAA, based on their actions, has little interest in the music beyond its potential commercial value. It's not about the art, or the artists, which are likely to be hardly more to the RIAA than a milk cow is to the farmer. 132. money money money -change your business model and after all, it is only music, get a real job 133. DRM and copyright litigation is about just two things - music industry fear and greed. It has absolutely no relevance for the modern business model and is absolutely unsustainable. 134. Music starts with big company's pumping money into electronical-crap-bands you dont want to listen to. 135. RIAA is a self serving industry, a Cancer so to speak. 136. it all starts with the dollar 137. When it is as cheao as allofmp3.com then I'll buy it in the US>.. 138. $$$ 139. Don't they sound loving and nurturing? They are there to make money ... the end! 140. Music inevitably starts with the artist, however most people only know the RIAA for one thing and one thing only, creating frivolous law suits. The RIAA should stop the lawsuits and demonstrate that they truly are doing what they claim in a positive manner. 141. It starts with accounting and ends with accounting. 142. Music is irrelevant to the RIAA. They do what they do for money. 143. The RIAA is bullshitting their way out of this one. It SHOULD start with the music, and it SHOULD start with the artist. But if the RIAA is so artist-friendly, then why were the artists forced in 1999 to create the RAC? The RIAA has been trying their entire lifetime, to remove more and more rights from the artists, and give more and more rights to the recording labels instead. 144. It all starts with greed 145. it does start with the artist, however I don't hear many or if any artists cry over this sharing, it is the record labels that are. 146. for the RIAA , it starts end ends with only one thing : money 147. Answered true, still: As long as I have the impression that the RIAA only thinks of itself and some major music companies instead of the artists, I can't take the RIAA and its claims seriously. 148. The RIAA fights for their interests and that's it. Take file sharing for instance they came out strongly against it but as soon as they control it and make laws to protect themselves it will be ok again under what they deem to be just and fair which of course will be that which enriches them and makes the rest of us slaves. 149. The RIAA are only interested in making money for their members... remember the artists are NOT their members 150. Everything the RIAA is active on is based upon the outdated idea of music distribution. The world has changed and the music industry has not. 151. they're for the profits of 4 multinational corporations, they've been screwing artists more for a very long time 152. They have never adequately represented any artist after they secure the rights to his or her work - and worse - they have failed to pay them what they are owed in royalties. Double breach. 153. From every artist that I've met or read about I've never gotten the impression that the RIAA cares about their needs and they've always been happier making their music under their own power . 154. the RIAA began with and is all about human greed. what's in it for me. 155. people write music for people to listen to and enjoy. if they arn't doing that they arn't there for the music just the profits 156. Please. If it wasn't a major business, why does the RIAA exist. They don't actually make any music, they exploit the artists anyways so lets not start lying. 157. The RIAA spends most of it's money on litigation instead of returning funds to strugglign artists. 158. It is true that music starts with the artist. Unfortunately the RIAA are only concerned with the recording industry, that is the very large recording companies, and ways and means to preserve and grow their large profits and control of the recording industry and artists. With the online marketplace RIAA are just playing catch up with what the public wants and have achieved. Unfortunately the RIAA did not think of or do it first and so do not have control of this market. That is why they have been so fiercely against it. Indeed, they have been the ones doing the censoring, dictating what music can be sold in which country. 159. Real motto: "It all starts with the money we can sponge off the creative souls we take advantage of." 160. It starts with money 161. false, labels do not care about musicians or artistic merit, only about their profit 162. I think RIAA's main interest is in preserving profit structures. Preserving ideals is secondary but a more palatable way of presenting the former. 163. RIAA is money biased 164. bollocks. how come bargain bin type cds go for one price, online shops a different, mp3 shops another. there is no continuity. 165. They are only interested in making money, the music is secondary. They will not meet their objectives by declaring war on their customers. They should embrace the internet, offer a lot of free samples and live concerts, and people will but the albims and singles if they are a reasonable price. 166. The RIAA starts with their profits. It's a business, and businesses stay in profit by watching their bottom line. 167. LIES! LOOK WHAT YOU DID TO ALLOFMP3.COM? YOU WANT TO FOSTER VIABLE MUSIC ONLINE? THEN LEAVE THEM ALONE, THEY ARE LEGAL! Why do you think you lost the law suits? Because you pigheads are wrong and the site is LEGAL (For most countries) FOR GOOD REASONS. YOU JUST WANT MONEY. WHY SHOULD WE CARE IF THE ARTIST DOESN'T GET PAID? No, the artist shouldn't get paid. Why? Because who said they should? No one. There are no morals as we are not a religious society, you have no right to push your morals on everyone else and try to change laws just to suit yourselves. People will listen to music and then support the artists in other ways anyway. 168. They need to think about the customer and how to give a good experience that will make the customer want to pay. 169. It all starts and ends with one thing - greed. Real artists need to be heard, and RIAA won't help them. Free music on the internet will. 170. Ok...the pile is starting to smell here. If they really care about the artist, how about mandating minimum contract payments to artists? 171. commerce has little to so with an artist's creative output, or more precisely, it shouldn't have anything to do with commerce. 172. The RIAA cares about itself. 173. Well, this is true but how the hell does this have to do with the argument against illegal downloading. 174. The RIAA obviously doesn't give a crap about the music- just the money. 175. It starts with the dollar and ends with the dollar would be more appropriate, let's face the RIAA don't represent the artist they represent the labels. It's about squeezing every ounce of money possible out the consumer. 176. The Music Industry is a profit machine -it really has nothing to do with the "artist". 177. RIAA are out to protect their own asses, the artists will find much better ways to make money... like playing live! If an artist is liked and they play live, people WILL pay money to see that person. 178. Music starts with the fans, there would ne no artist without their support 179. it starts and ends with big wads of money being stuffed into the pockets of the RIAA 180. There has been no evidence to date that any artists have gotten a penny from the RIAAs illegal lawsuits. 181. They missed their selfish making tons and tons of money in the process. 182. Fuck the RIAA 183. The RIAA Is Bullshit. Period. 184. They represent record companies 185. Their premise sounds great, but I don't see how their actions uphold it -- quite the opposite. They are trying to maintain control over the artists and the market that they lost a long time ago. 186. as every organization money is behind everything i think 187. The music marketplace way of seeing things only benefits the record company. 188. RIAA is also protecting an aging and conservative music industry that prevents all evolution. 189. money money money for a market to be viable it has to be competitive. allofmp3 offer a reasonably priced service that has drawn people away from free sharing arrangements. make it legitimate and it will thrive every download from allofmo3 isn't a lost customer, it's a potential customer that RIAA failed to impress 190. Fighting censorship (????) The RIAA seemed to be based on one other premise: Sue our own consumers when there is a mass "misuse" of our product rather than altering the product 191. The RIAA is interested only in its own funding, which is dependent on record company profits. The RIAA is based on one premise: maximizing profits for the record companies by minimizing consumer choice and what he can do with the product. 192. Sophistry. The RIAA starts with protecting the publisher's rights. The artists rights are incidental to that. 193. The RIAA was created by the record labels to lobby and protect the interests of the record labels. It doesn't protect the artists. 194. That makes no sense at all. 195. The RIAA hurts the music industry. 196. the consumer is the larger part of the equation 197. The RIAA's actions are based on maintaining a profit margin, not protecting artists. If they were protecting artists, they would tote the financial impact piracy has on emerging/struggling artists. They don't, and instead focus on "CD sales," because it doesn't. CD sales matter to executives, exposure matters to artists. 198. The RIAA doesn't care one lick about the artist. Artists are just numbers on a register to them. 199. they are not stopping shit 200. Copy Protection anyone? 201. RIAA is only involved in protecting the corporations' pockets. 202. If that were true the musicians would have a say in whether to sue 13 year old etc. They don't. 203. but they're not doing a very good job of it - fostering a viable market place by penalising people for using sites that enable the spreading of music? 204. RIAA represents labels not artists. labels are only interested in their own survival and maximising income for their own purposes. artists are merely another set of victims by which they achieve this purpose. 205. It all starts and stops with money 206. The RIAA represents an industry, and the industries goal is to make money. I don't believe they care what kind of music it is as long as people will buy it up. 207. The labels have primarily been a "big bank" needed to finance the histocially expensive process of recording and distributing music. As technology changed these expensive, the relevance of labels on the music industry has been largely erradicated. 208. How many MAKE UP ARTIST have been created by the record industry.....there is a lot more diverse and better material out there..... 209. The RIAA appears to primarily attempt to earn money for non-artist staff, otherwise album purchases would go straight to the artist! 210. The RIAA actions are based on the premise of protecting the recording industries excessive profits, not on respect for music, 211. They just want my hard earned money from pirating DVD's. 212. The RIAA is concerned with controlling the marketplace and increasing profits, nothing more. 213. who pays ther wages? doh! 214. corporate profits 215. To quote Sean Combs "It's all about the Benjamins baby!" 216. You are fighting the right to sell music once and let me pay at least twice 217. the music doesn't need the recording companies to come out, several independant artists have made good or better livings than artists that sigh up witha recording company. 218. Sueing those who listen and enjoy the music is hardly fighting for the music. It shouldn't be about the artist, but the consumer and the RIAA has been putting pressure on Webradios in the US by increasing the music prices to absolutely absurd pricing. 219. Not sure i understand this question either 220. They don't care about artists. 221. the RIAA is a greedy, power-hungry, pack of lawyers. "Laissez-faire!" 222. Its about money for the RIAA. There is no other premise. 223. the artists are narcissists if they believe this... 224. They are living with an out of date business model. 225. It all starts with their power and lobby. They are not usefull anymore. Just talk to some small artist and hear how the are treated from the industry and the sort of contract they have to sign! I've done it, hear it yourself. 226. It is on money. Anybody who says otherwise has blatantly lied in a propaganda war that will never see a victory either way. 227. 'fighting censorship'? Let's stay on topic: the RIAA seems to care about one things only: their profits. 228. well that is just bollocks, it's all about company profits man 229. That's hypocrisy. See above. 230. But if the artist can't freely distribute their own music, who's going to hear it? 231. If they cared so much about the artist's, why not set up online account's directly to the artists, so that if I like what I hear, I can send a little donation? 232. It is all based on MONEY for the record companies. 233. RIAA only cares about the riaa 234. Everything the RIAA is active on is based on the premise of greed/money 235. RIAA would sell music without artists if it was possible. THEY want the money and they certainly don't give it to the artists - or respect them. 236. It all starts with the record companies' profits. 237. The RIAA is all about the money and the money trail goes straight to the top. 238. The RIAA is only looking to make money for themselves.The care nothing about the artists. 239. It all starts with the money and the money starts when the labels can influence the radio play of what they are selling through payola. 240. Sorta....but not that dogmatic....since when did the music companies become the spokesperson for musicians...they are out for themselves. 241. ? 242. Without consumers to listen to the music, the music is meaningless. The music is created by the artist, yes, but consumers decide what music to listen to and HOW to listen to it. However, the RIAA wants complete control over what you listen to and especially how you are able to listen to your own purchased music. 243. It sounds like corporate bullshit to me. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. 244. The RIAA is about reducing competition, protecting the crappy music at the big labels from better, independent music. 245. Show me one artist who never ever did anything "illegal" in regards to music. 246. They are protecting only their financial interests. The artists are just the means to the end. 247. Viable music marketsplace online? Good one.. after battling MP3's for a decade... Where's my FLAC files? Preventing piracy? You mean preventing people from discovering artists and supporting them, not you? Fighting cencorship? Thats why you pressure foreign governments to arrest innocent people and party members of your dislike? Keywords, "Sweden", "The pirate party" and The Pirate Bay. "It all starts with the music and the music starts with the artist". Your real premise is, it's all about the money. Most "pirates" are regular music lovers who can't afford you overpriced product. You are sueing your best customers. 248. They are notorious liars who happily take a large percentage of the money the artists earn, 249. RIAA is fight for the right of record executives, not artists 250. The music, in most cases, starts with the record label. 251. The RIAA is obviously more concerned with lining there own pockets then helping the artists make a profit. In fact the recording companies often complain that the artists are making to much of the profit and more of the money should go to them. 252. It's all about the record companies making their money first. 253. riaa detroy freedom and what music is 254. It's money that counts for the RIAA, not culture. 255. the riaa has NONE of the artists interests at hand, only the music execs who profit off of their backs. 256. I believe in the statement, but I do not believe that the RIAA does. 257. the music starts with the dialogue between listener and producer (artist) - you see that if no one listens to the music there can not be a vivid music 258. sounds cool but what's the real meaning? does the motto even have a meaning ? :-) 259. RIAA bothers little children who doesn't know anything about piratism and takes their money! 260. they just want money 261. If music started with the artist, then record companies would allow all profits to go to the artist. If music started with music, then artists would be allowed to have creative freedom and not be forced into making music that A&R believes will sell well. 262. Come on. Who really needs the RIAA now. Like I said above, with the internet let the artist market their songs themselves...even through online services like AllofMp3.com 263. most pop music is manufactured and tacked onto a pretty face. 264. The artists makes more money selling direct to its fans for a fraction of the cost of a cd 265. The music starts with a contract which screws the artist. 266. Everything that the RIAA is active on is based on one premise: Keeping the value of music as artificially inflated as possible, whilst prosecuting minor players in piracy to deter others. 267. there are many artists not affiliated with the riaa. start with some of their music! 268. it does but it is too expensive to legally download 269. The RIAA works for the labels... end of story 270. Sounds more like it starts w/ money & we gotta get more anyway possible. Don't they remember when they would hand out "free shit" just so someone would listen?? The RADIO still gets free shit to get them out there. 271. The record companies are trying to maintain their proffet is the face of changing music distruibution. Why pay $20 for a CD when it only has one song you want when you can buy the one song for $1 or download it for free. 272. Spin 273. Bahahahaha, no. The RIAA probably doesn't give a damn about the artists, they just want money from all the people they're suing. 274. Everything the RIAA is active on is one way or another something designed to screw both the customer and the musicians over. They don't care about music and they sure as hell don't care about the musicians; it's all about the money, especially the kind that comes from suing grandmothers and kids. 275. Yeah right. It all ends in the RIAA's corporate pockets. 276. I already answered above. the recording industry only thought is: I want my money, and I want it all. Affection to music and art is not part of the equation. 277. Yes they want a viable marketplace online, there is no doubt - they also want to continue charging $25 a CD - which people just don't justify anymore - new technology demands a premium, society appears to accept that, however its been 15 years since the CD, and were still paying $20 a disc for music? It's no wonder people are 278. RIAA needs to die. Give the marketplace to the artist. Let the artist decide what is censorship 279. Lies. Damn lies. The RIAA is a tool of the industry, funded by them, it's only reason for existence is to be their hitman. It is active on naught but the 'right' of these companies to turn a blind eye to their artists and their companies and the ideals of *true* copyright, citizenship and music. 280. The RIAA has misunderstood the digital market from day 1 and will continue to do so. The only thing the RIAA seems to care about is piracy and they don't understand what it is. 281. I do not believe that the RIAA is doing it because it is truely evil. I believe they "believe" they are doing it for the "artist". It's just not true. Well, okay it's about 35% true. 282. Although this is in essence correct. It is not the only premise. The RIAA represents companies who's sole aim is to generate revenue for their shareholders (this is acceptable and the founding ground of western economy). Therefore, generating a viable marketplace, etc. is done with that in mind. It may also help artists, as long as helping artists will enable them to generate more income. However the issue is that they are more willing in investing in countering change and retaining the status quo than they are in offering a product which people would be willing to pay for rather than download. 283. It is all about money, and the RIAA knows it. 284. it is all about money to them 285. It's all about the Benjamins (money). 286. ... but they're not doing a very good job, or I wouldn't be answering this questionairre 287. the distribution model is the only reason for riaa/mpaa dominance. 288. It all starts with marketing, marketing budgets, and projected profits. 289. I do not understand a world. This is poetry, not thinking. 290. Not true, bc its only a tactic to scare folks - their potential customers. And the customer should be king, and not scared. 291. The RIAA doesn't care about the artist, they care about profit. High profile artists such as Madonna and Radiohead liken file sharing to radio play. 292. The music starts with the record company making money artists have to compromise their beliefs to get on a lable 293. I agree with the premise, but not how they choose to read into it, and take it from there. 294. Its all about money and control, as with every other industry. Corporations exist ONLY to make money and further their success. 295. The RIAA doesn't care about art or music, all they want are profits. But that's not necessarily a bad thing; good music sells well. 296. The closest thing to viable they have is iTunes Music Store, and it is only stocked with some labels, poorly encoded and incapable of decent backups for personal protection. 297. The RIAA serves the big music industry. music is only a profitable commodity, and the artist is only important as long as his music sells. 298. more in support of it self and outmoded practices 299. The RIAA's focus is greed. 300. The RIAA doesn't care about the artist at all, it's just a business to them. 301. Hands down, artists make their money on tour and performing live. This is something that can not be pirated. Before recorded music, this is how musicians made their money. now with the internet, there lies a potential for a far larger audience. give us live shows, spread the word over the internet. use the vehicle, don't scourge it. 302. Profit for the companies, and sod the artists, thats an excuse. 303. Music Starts with People wanting to listen to music. All else is bull. 304. The RIAA wants to protect their pocket book. 305. This is a loaded statement, and even on technicality alone, I must answer false. This is not everything the RIAA is "active on". Not to mention this is an extremely subjective statement. 306. Would that it was! However it looks entirely too much like sneaking in Adolf Hitler v 2.0 through the gaping holes in people's knowledge of the Net. 307. no the RIAA just wants to find an excuse to do something to the people. the artists should just be happy their music is being listened to as it can increase their popularity and get them more sales in the long run. 308. monopoly 309. The RIAA is active only in preserving their right to suck blood 310. The artist may start the music, but it isn't the only thing that he starts. 311. They do not act according to their statement,where they give artists less say on their product because they feel they "own" them.Not a great way to create creativity. 312. They're motivated by self-interest. 313. they rip off musicians every day. 314. Maybe, but the marketplace ultimately controls the music. If the RIAA truly believed they would go with the marketplace and reap the reward of an open market. Again, if they care so much about the artist, why do they want to take more and give less to her? 315. I don't think everything the RIAA is active on is about the artist .. its about money. 316. The RIAA is focused on making money, not on helping discover and breed new talent or helping to craft a viable music product. 317. May be true, may not be; who can really know. Doesn't mean their actions are right/correct/well-reasoned - the premise for their actions is irrelevant if they look at everything from the wrong perspective and make bad decisions. I think the vast majority of consumers would agree that their actions are ultimately harming artists and the industry as a whole whether they mean to or not. This also doesn't justify their prioritisation of copyright over personal freedoms and other more fundamental property rights of the consumer. 318. Screwed 319. the majority of people still pay for their music. 320. It's all about money for the RIAA, not the artist! 321. The RIAA is a criminal enterprise designed to force consumers into making poor choices..the best of the evils at hand if you will. If they were really serious about making a 'viable music marketplace on-line' then we wouldn't be having this conversation today. Why don't they just wrap themselves in a flag and spray us all with mace if they're so righteous. 322. Too bad the RIAA doesn't actually BELIEVE that! 323. For the RIAA and the record companies, it all starts - and ends - with MONEY. 324. The RIAA is the mouthpiece for the major labels. Everything the RIAA does is based on protecting the existence of same. There have always been and will always be artists, which has nothing to do with the RIAA. 325. By not adapting their business strategy to technological changes, the recording industry is not fostering a viable music marketplace online. By sueing individuals, they are not acting in good faith with their customer base. I believe that "It all starts with the music and the music starts with the artist," but, on a whole, This is not an ideal shared with the recording industry. Artists seldom are equitably compensated for their album sales and mark-ups on recorded music is too steap. A CD cannot cost more the 50 cents to make, yet it costs $15. The recording industry gives vey little, if any, to the artist. The production costs for the content is reletively inexpensive. CD sales are almost pure profit. Greed is the primary motivation for the RIAA. 326. general - RIAA makes profits from said artists; first - fosting viable music online means cooperating with the online community and lowering prices to make it viable rather then raising them in lower price market; second - fighting piracy starts with the music not after (i.e. the medium), RIAA had the chance to fix it long ago; RIAA actually can increase censorship in somecases. 327. The record company defined their way of making money, that's all. 328. If so how come the artist gets so little of the purchase price of the music? 329. The RIAA has little interest in anything other than money. 330. Artists should ignore the RIAA and sell their music to their fans directly through internet. The RIAA is only an extra layer inbetween that asks inflated prices and pays the artists too little for their work. 331. As far as the RIAA is concerned it's evident that the music starts with their wallets and having a diverse set of talented artists is the last thing they seem to care about. Compared to what they pay themselves, the artists on average get nothing and often lose money. 332. Music DOES start with the artist - to an extent. If the fans don't hear them, who cares? How can the artist get more fans without people hearing them? I've added several artists to my 'list' because people shared their music with me. As a result, I've gone out and BOUGHT the CD of the artist. 333. It all begins and ends with one thing...MONEY for the RIAA. 334. a viable music marketplace shouldn't be controlled by one person or group but allow artists the freedom to promote.sell themselves as they see fit. 335. see #11 - the RIAA is all about making $$$ for the RIAA. 336. They have done everthing in there power to kill digital music. They are just trying to control it now that they relized they can't stop it. 337. RIAA is only interested in CONTROL of both the music and the artists... If anything, they're like the MAFIA, reeping "protection" money. 338. Then they should change their artists because many people apparently don't want to support these artists by buying their stuff. 339. no - their one premise is that they are entitled to exploit the consumers and the artists to the greatest degree possible in the name of the corporate bottomline. 340. Yes the artist creats the music, but the record companies pull the strings. the artists have little power to resist. 341. The RIAA is dedicated to controlling the market place online, fixing prices at a similar level to the old physical model, despite hugely lower costs from which the marketplace demands lower prices. Piracy is in part a reaction to high prices and the profit motive of the RIAA. It all starts with the money and that's sadly where it ends, too. 342. I agree with all but their position on piracy. I don't think that has anything to do with the artist. I think that's all about the labels, and their control of the music industry. 343. Bottom line, that's what they are worried about. 344. . 345. They are trying to manipulate the market place in their favour and has little to do with the artist. 346. I fail to see how the two relate in that light. Sure we need the music first in order to have a marketplace - but what does the artist have to do with piracy and censorship? Censorship guarantees are already provided for in the U.S. Constitution - so stop trying to look proactive when reinventing the wheel. A good backbone is already in place for a viable music market online - but $1/song is way too overpriced. Lower the price and watch piracy dwindle. When the benefits no longer outweigh the consequences - desired results happen. 347. The RIAA is the lapdog of the five major music publishing labels, and it's interests reside solely in their profit margins. It is not a moral organisation, and it has no moral agenda, only a monetary one. Those same labels that RIAA protects continue to campaign for smaller percentages for artists, trying to capitalise on their own profit margins whilst using up and discarding the very artists they claim to protect. The existance of the RIAA is nothing more than a smoke-screen to disguise the activities of the major music industry corporations. 348. Money and profits enter the equation somewhere... 349. Again, its all about money. Good artists are dropped if they dont make money, yet bad ones are kept due to their appeal with the majority of pre-teen morons with far too much time and money to spend. 350. It's all about money 351. They are misled about the implications of file sharing.. I have bought MORE CDs from shops than I EVER used to buy soince I started sharing and downloading . 352. If it was based on the artist they wouldn't be forced to seek permission to use samples etc which is what some artists use. 353. it starts with the listener 354. everything the RIAA is active on is intended to generate income for shareholders of RIA sponsoring 355. "fostering a viable music marketplace online" and "fighting censorship"- no real evidence of 356. If its all about the music, then can anyone explain Britney Spears? 357. IT ALL STARTS WITH PEOPLE LIKE US WANTING TO LISTEN TO GOOD ARTISTS. WE CAN SURVIVE WITHOUT MUSICIANS BUT THEY CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT US. WE DON'T NEED THEM BECAUSE WE CAM ALWAYS FIND A NEW ARTIST BUT THEY NEED US BECAUSE WITHOUT US THEY ARE NOTHING. 358. It all starts with money. 359. RIAA has reportedly and proven ripped off artists by millions of dollars - lying deceiving organization similar to organized crime. 360. The RIAA is about money. 361. The RIAA has cheated musicians for years, and now they feel threatened because that could come to an end. 362. The RIAA exists to make profits. They don't care about artists, music, or creativity. If they could make money selling dog poo, they'd sue people who owned dogs. Artists don't need the RIAA for a viable music marketplace. The digital era has enabled them to seek alternative means of recording, distribution, marketing and payment with a minimum of middlemen and the RIAA fears this. They would do anything in their power to prevent this from happening. 363. Sounds like it starts with record companies with deep pockets? So then can we blame the RIAA for the tons of crap found on the radio and tv now? Whay am I a supposed to be paying for this again? 364. How does that apply when the bands are all manufactured? The 'artist' then becomes the whole industry including the puppets who perform 365. If that's true, why don't you hear about artists getting their lost revenue back? 366. They're greedy bastards. They don't represent artists. They represent record labels. Artists might make more money selling their music on their own. 367. the actual premise of all those activities is preserving RIAA profits and old business model as long as possible. 368. The RIAA is actively suppressing the online music marketplace 369. money-greed 370. The RIAA and record companies have shunned new technologies for far too long. If, at the advent of Napster, the record companies would've scratched their collective heads and said, "hmm, we can sell songs for 35 cents apiece...no pressing costs, no record sleeves, CD cases, printing costs, rack jobber costs, promotional costs," they would've set the world on fire. Nothing they can say now will turn the tides on the negative publicity the RIAA is getting and so richly deserves. 371. The purpose of the RIAA is to preserve monopolistic control on the supply and distribution of music by the big 3 music companies. (Sony, Bertlemen, EMI) 372. Most of the money is made by the distributors not by the artists. 373. How about this version "THE MONEY starts with the music and the music starts with the artist" ? 374. The only premise it is based on is making as much money as possible for themselves and screw everyone else, including artists 375. It is based on their ability to keep driving porsches and owning million dollar homes 376. I can't imagine the actions of the RIAA to have anything to do with the artists. It has all to do with record label control. 377. It all starts with the money and the money starts with the artist. 378. But it ends with us, the consumer. We control what the market bears. 379. BS, its about the industries profit and existance. 380. If the RIIA was really about fostering a viable music marketplace they would make a USA website EXACTLY like allofmp3.com. I would BUY every song in my library if I could purchase a song for less than $.30. 381. bullshit 382. It all starts with the companies that control the music industry that force artists to put out cd's that have only a few good songs, therefore causing the people who pay to get pissed off. 383. It all starts with the music, and the profits end up with the lawyers, producers, etc. But the artist recieves the least of the profits. 384. As I have stated, I feel that the RIAA only exists to make money. They don't care about artists, regardless of how they pretend to do so. 385. They take more than necessary. the artist makes the music and they steal from them. 386. Than why do the musicians get screwed economically compared to the suits selling their music? 387. No RIAA at all -- the "Labels" should sue/imprision those who sale CD copys of Music where a REAL dollar is exchanged 388. The RIAA is the paid representative of the music industry, and is attempting to prolong the life of a dying market paradigm. Digitization has effectively removed the industry's control over its product, and the industry is trying legislatively to get that control back. 389. I think the RIAA just wants to make as much money as possible off an artists. 390. Many artists sell their wares many times over - "greatest hits", "best of" compliations, etc. Why should they be paid many times over for a single piece of work? 391. And not making lots of money off of them? 392. DRM does not foster a viable music marketplace. Suing consumers of music does not help anybody but the RIAA. Since when does the RIAA fight censorship? 393. it's all about money, and music would not be where it is without money 394. The RIAA is more concerned about producers' and promoters' profits -- certainly not the artists. I know too many artists and have seen first hand how callous and fickle this industry really is. 395. There in it for the money, just like anyone else. 396. They only care about the money filling up their pockets, not the musicians and specially not the music. 397. Fostering online music??? Controlling online music! 398. the riaa does not care about artist. it cares about its personal profits. the amount the artist receives compared to the amount of money the riaa keeps is obscene. the riaa is the one that screws over the artist, not the ones who download. 399. It starts with greed from the music industry and ends with money (mostly) in the pockets of the executives, not the artists. 400. to the RIAA, it all starts with the RIAA, then the artist, then the music. do the RIAA care about the music or the people? hell no, they care about their profits and nothing else, why else would they take kids to court 401. In reality it all starts with the money and ends with the money. Very few majors now truly nurture a band/artist. 402. The RIAA is going to go the way of the dinosaur soon. As recording techniques get better and cheaper, artists will be able to use the internet to distribute their art without giving the VAST majority of the profits to the RIAA. The RIAA is trying to fight this kicking and screaming, but it won't work. 403. The recording industry isn't interested in protecting artistry, just it's own financial interests. We know it and they know we know it. 404. Music Starts with the muscian, the artist does art, and lately, I haven't heard crap from music that i would consider art. 405. The RIAA just pushes its own personal agenda. Attempting to make money by controlling the the music industry, so that companies can market a select amount of cheaply produced music soley for a large profit. 406. They could care less about the artist, they just want to make money, although then again, maybe thats all the artist wants, so yeah... 407. the RIAA is the Mob. 408. i don't hear artists bitching more then usual. the labels do all the talking. artist that are popular are still getting as rich as they want. just the execs are having a hard time 409. The RIAA is interested in money - period. It doesn't give a damn about artist creativity or exposure beyond what cash it can bring in to them. That's all well and good - people go into business to make money. However, the way to make money in the music business has changed. It's time for the RIAA to get with the times. 410. suesuesue! lol 411. RIAA is enforcing agency for the labels 412. it starts with record companies and ends with profit for record companies 413. Money 414. The RIAA is about preserving the status quo 415. All they want is money 416. Protectionism, not innovatism, see 15 above. 417. the RIAA is not based around the artist, it's based on the tremendous cashflow of the music labels. they and their middlemen earn the lions share out of the record sales, not the artists. this worked just great in the past, but those times are over now. nothing wrong with that. 418. Pfft, bullshit. You're just trying to earn more money. 419. They coerce the artists to sign away their rights. It is a protection racket. Music would survive without the RIAA. Most artists make their living by performing live at the local pub. Instead of artists having to pay radio stations for air time it should be the other way around. 420. riaa cares zip for artist, the contracts prove that 421. to do that it would need to be proactive. it's not 422. a: riaa is a front of a record industry trying to keep a indangered buisness system alive for there / there stock holders only the music is second (if that) B: the internet / E sales threatens there market control / there REQUIREMENT by the talent 423. The RIAA exists to protect the record companies profits, exploit the artists, and produce aural pablum for the public. 424. its about control of music 425. "fighting censorship" is also attacking a p2p network 426. They are trying to protect huge profits; not the artist. If they care so much about the artists they can pay a larger amount to the artists. 427. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL............ 428. True artists care more for their art than for cash rewards. 429. I agree with the statement.."It all starts with the music and the music starts with the artist." However, I had to chuckle at the idea that the RIAA is actively trying to foster a viable music marketplace online, or fighting censorship. 430. Hardly 431. It is for money. 432. music is every where no one can say they own music for it's all ready in this world. 433. The RIAA does not support a viable music marketplace online, or fighting censorship. 434. Yeah, right. Give me what I want - $10\months for a right to download whatever I like - keep all these stories for yourself. 435. They are sad because they are wankers 436. Bullshit 437. They are opportunists who made plastic discs and their day is done. I believe we have had no good music for decades because they get their royalties in all the old stuff so they just keepo replaying it over and over and over. I actually used to LIKE classic rock - now I have had enough and want new music only. Same as TV shows. As long as they can make a buck off the old stuff they have no motivation to pump money into new artists. Wonder why there is nothing on TV these days? Wonder why broadcast radio is awful? 438. Your kidding right? The RIAA has always been about the business, never the artistic side of things or the artist. I am a musician. I make most of my income from live performance. Although I have been a professional for more than 25 years now, I have never seen any contribution to myself personally or for any of the other performers/groups I have performed with from the RIAA. Some have been fleeced/sold up the river by the labels they represent, but the RIAA has never in the slightest contributed to anyone's artistic endeavor that I am aware of. 439. The RIAA could not be less focused on artists. The RIAA is a coalition of middle managers and bureaucrats. Most artists benefit from file sharing - from the increased exposure, for one thing. The ones who do not are the ones who have been created as commodities by the label system and are overexposed by its grotesque marketing schemes. 440. The RIAA is out to protect itself. The money they collect does not make it back to the artist. THe recording industry is dying because of the way technology is changing, and the recording industry is trying to keep business as usual. 441. Refer to Qn 15 for my opinion. 442. the way you worded these questions is confusing. Are you saying the RIAA is speaking about themselves in the third person? 443. The RIAA is about one thing -- making the maximum short term profit for the shareholders in 4 major music labels. However, if I was a shareholder of one of these companies I would be pissed -- I have never seen a group of "industry experts" make more bad decisions and lose more value than the RIAA has done over the last 10 years. I take that back -- I forgot about Enron, but the RIAA is doing the best it can to beat Enron -- and take four companies with it. 444. It all starts with money and ends with money. Record companies are the typewriter manufacturers of our day. 445. FIRST !!!!! They scary I going for free ,new, not nown musician and artists.They like controll whot I gona be liked. 446. The industry's stance does not further the interests of artists, which is the proliferation of a system in which there creative interests are protected and compensated. By not allowing the market for digital music operate to find an appropriate price for music in a non-tangible form of limited use, artists are denied the legitimate income that could come from the sales of copyright protected music files. Rather, the industry pushes the average consumer toward p2p answers with its pricing structure. 447. diagree 448. more than proveen by the RIAA's mafia like tactics 449. However, they're a bunch of hypocrites, as they never really cared about the artists. All they care is making more money. 450. the riaa fights the rights of the artist, recently they even brought a lawsuit against Nine Inch Nails for their marketing campaign since it gave away music for free. 451. I see a big difference between art and business. Throughout history different organisations have been trying to use art to their own needs. Whether it be religious paintings or government propaganda. Now its the the corporations turn to take their slice 452. The RIAA is motivated solely by preserving the profits of record companies. This claim is disingenuous. 453. absolute rubbish. how insulting to even think about saying such a thing. 454. DRM doesn't foster a viable music marketplace, suing the pants off kids doesn't prevent piracy, attempting to silence the free distribution of information isn't fighting censorship. 455. With the advent of online distribution channels, the big four record labels (who merely sell and profit from music--they have no involvement in actually creating it) are becoming an increasingly irrelevant force in the process of artist development. The RIAA is working to prevent this from happening, regardless of whether their member companies continue to serve a legitimate need in the marketplace. 456. The music belongs to the artists not the riaa. The artists should have the say so. The riaa is self representing. 457. Nope, the music starts with the audience. See what happens when you fuck with us? You get your teeth handed to you in a paper bag. 458. The RIAA is only interested in making profits for the big companies, it's interest in the wellbeing of the artist is secondary. 459. Stop trying to blame the artists for stupid anti-piracy measures and crazy lawsuits. 460. Everything the RIAA is active on: condemning music users to drudgery and non working digital music through means of Denial-of-Rights-to-Musiclovers and ripping off the average consumer with bullshit lawsuits that have no basis in fact or reality 461. It all starts with the dollars ... and ends there too. Music is not about money though they can certainly exploit music and musicians to make money. I believe in music, I don't believe the rights of oligarchies. 462. I see no evidence that it is all about the music. I see evidence that it is all about the money. 463. The RIAA doesn't care about the music nor the artist. They care about their profits going into their pockets. 464. DRM is exactly the opposite (and vista won't do any good), it prevents users from using music files 465. They RIAA is just cashing in on the whole ordeal. 466. All the RIAA wants to do is make the execs rich, they don't give a rat's butt, about music, or they would be giving out contracts to anyone that could sing well, and had a different sound. 467. Cant explain 468. They're just full of shit. They don't care about music, they care about money. 469. 14 crap songs and one good song for the price of my left foot... $14 bucks for one song I want... forget it. 470. How much did the artists get from the Kazaa settlement? Zero. How much do the artists get from the proceeds of the extortion campaign? Zero. The RIAA works for the record labels, not the artists. 471. If the marketplace were truly viable, then there would be a universal format for downloads and REASONABLE pricing in place. And why can't the RIAA actually release work by artists specifically for sharing? "piracy" has been around as long as the recording industry. Maybe if the RIAA weren't so greedy, then the so-called piracy would crawl to a very slow trickle 472. If it starts with the Artist, what are they here for? 473. :P 474. Hello? Hey, morons, we live in a CAPITALIST society. It's all about the MONEY. To say otherwise is to lie. It's all based on one premise: SHOW ME THE MONEY! 475. It all starts with the society. If the society needs art and entertainment, there will be place to artists. 476. RIAA is a conglomerate of music LABELS looking out for their interest first, artist interest second. If they were interested in the artist, I would be signed for my sure fire pan flute playing. 477. no roylies 478. RIAA is all about control, pure & simple, controlling how I listen, what format I listen to, etc 479. The RIAA cares about tis profits more than the interests of the artists. 480. they could'nt care less about the artist 481. The RIAA are there to look out for the supposed "rights" of artist, when really they have fallen into a fear mongering group, the can now only threaten the public into submision instead of positively help artist in ways to protect their content, if they wanted to help they would stop all lawsuits and put their money into setting up a group that provides data to torrent indexing sites and file sharing software that prevent copyrghted files from being shared, but they refuse to do that, and say it's the sites/software makers responsibility to do so, when it is not. 482. Music and artists were around long before the RIAA. The sole purpose of the RIAA is make money for the people directly employed by the RIAA and that does not include the artist. 483. True...but that statement is too loaded and closed-ended to mean much of anything without taking into account the bigger picture. 484. starts with $$$$$$$ 485. Stop making me type in this box. For your stupidity for making these litlle text boxes, I am now forced to c&p this response in all the boxes. Bad poll making guy, BAD! 486. The RIAA are protecting nothing but their obsolete distribution business model. They care nothing for the artists and only abou their own fat wallets. 487. Greedy RIAA 488. If the RIAA really gave a damn about the artists, it would never have had them enter into such one-sided contracts, leaving the record labels to skim off almost all of the money, leaving the artists little or nothing. The fact of the matter is, once an artist signs with a record label, he loses control of his music, and the record companies pay them only a pittance. 489. Says the RIAA: Everything that the RIAA is active on - fostering a viable music marketplace online, preventing piracy, fighting censorship - is based on one premise. That is: RIAA members make as much money as possible, charging $18.00 for a CD that costs $0.35 to make. 490. As previously, my opinion is that artists who need money for their art to mean something has no creative ambition. 491. it starts with money and ends with we want more money. 492. music is a cash cow 493. The RIAA is an organization where what starts and stops everything is profit. Not the artist or music. If the artist or the music were important then maybe they wouldn't get the smallest piece of the music dollar. 494. Artists no longer need big labels. Go Indie! 495. The RIAA is interested in protecting the profits of its member labes. 496. I'll believe when I see it. Make the labels' financial records public. Show me where each dime goes, to the artist or to some waste of oxygen on a label's board. 497. Their sole existence is for the purpose of perpetuating it's financially draining and industry destroying existence. 498. They are not in this for the artist. The two or three big recording companies want complete control of their profits and they can't stand to see a small amount of money slipping though the cracks. 499. The RIAA is supported by and represents the record labels, not the artists. They have one mission and one mission only - to make sure the labels are profitable. If the artists benefit, it's strictly collaterally. 500. blah blah blah 501. they don't seam to give a crap about the wishes or welfare of the artist, they seam to be more interested in the profits of their companies. 502. For the record companies the premise is obvious: it's all about the bottom line. 503. Many artists who produce music because that's what they love to do are primarily concerned with getting their music out to as many people as possible. I am not talking about the Mickey Mouse Club pop stars or corporately-formed, for-profit only bands, I am talking about the guys (and gals) who started making music with their friends in a garage or basement, the people who make music because it is their passion and not so they can see another zero on their paycheck. I can name several bands who support sharing their music with people who may not have heard them or cannot afford to buy their CD. 504. The RIAA exists to maintain outdated business models for the major record companies, who are merely distributors for artists. The RIAA does not support artists, as evidenced by the recent take down notices against sites hosting Nine Inch Nails tracks for free that Nine Inch Nails had deliberately (and publicly) released for that purpose. 505. it may have started that way, but like so many things, over the years, it has worked it's way to being a way for people to raise the price of something and remain in control of a situation. 506. It all starts with $$$, it all ends with $$$ 507. copyright IS censorship monopolies do not produce - they crush competition. 508. It's a cartel devoted to making money from publishing. The only thing that is ever negotiable is what the artist can keep. 509. I would buy more music if i could buy it straight from the artist. that is why when i go to a small gig and hear an unknown band that i like i'll buy their EP off them. Usually they are £3-£4 for 6-7 tracks. So that would make an album £5 ish instead of £10 - £15. Where does that money go. To the executives with no skill, no artistry, just financial muscle. 510. They make it painfully clear that it's not about the artists, its about legislating a revenue stream. 511. It all starts with making money in the most shortsighted way possible. 512. Piracy is a great way to get to learn music. It's really what artists should like. Or, actually, what less known artists should like. The ones already famous lose sales due to people developing their taste. Poor rich artists. :( 513. NOT! 514. It's not all the music, it's also about whether the people who produce, write and perform the music actually get to eat like the rest of us. But I hardly think it's wrong to say so, and I'm quite sure I've heard RIAA say it too. 515. it all starts and ends with the $ 516. That means nothing. 517. Spin doctor talk. 518. And it ends with the listener. The industry can't survive trying to block the listener. 519. If true, the artist should retain the rights to their music and get better compensation. 520. lame... 521. B/S, the RIAA is as big of a racket as La Cosa Nostra, they hide behind the music, to keep themselves in the black. 522. The RIAA disrespects its artists, and it's quite hypocritical to speak about the interests of the artists. 523. The RIAA is pro-censorship. 524. Ha! Yes. Very convincing. In fact, once an artist begins to think of him/herself as an "employee", then it all starts with the money and ends with the money. It's natural law. They're simply trying to force music as a commercial good into a capitalist world. 525. The RIAA makes more money than the artists anyway. And it prevents them from making money themselves by locking them into restrictive, exclusive contracts that favour an increasingly outmoded business model and discourage or prevent the artists from beibg creative in their marketing and leveraging new business models to their best advantage. 526. The executives would like to continue buying Mercedes 527. everything the RIAA is active on is profitability replacement for the corps- have the RIAA given one penny of the revenues garnered to artists? 528. where is the fan in the equation? the riaa fights for control of the industry 529. Its about money, not a philosophical premise. 530. They prevented piracy?! The pirate bay will never die as the RIAA has learned not to force its jurisdiction beyond US borders. After their disaster in Sweden the pirate bay has only grown stronger. 531. MUSIC is only a commercial quanitity if people listen to it 532. More BS, RIAA is interested only in the bottom line, MONEY. 533. If the RIAA really believes this, then why don't artists make the lion's share of the money? I do believe that music starts with the artist, but it's the rest of the music business that stands to gain the most from the other stuff the RIAA is active on. 534. All about the money! 535. Yes, it all starts and end with the artist, not with the RIAA. 536. It all starts with profit. Packaged artists, the hit single. It amazes me when these artists dont pan out, there is any surprise. Allow a good artists to make a great album, you will see decades of sales. 537. The RIAA doesn't care about the artists! They just want to promote that guise to ensure their profits. 538. it's all about the money. 539. I see it that the Music industry is is focused on the corporation, not the artist 540. answered true... fostering a viable marketplace, preventing (real) piracy, fighting censorship - they do these things, but they also fight a misguided war against customers they don't understand 541. And the shareholders. The music industry is doing this to make itself rich, not anyone else. To pretend otherwise is to lie. 542. The RIAA is about making money for the big companies. It has nothing to do with the artists or their work. Why else do the artists get such a small cut from the income? 543. They are not creating an online marketplace, they are stunting it's growth to prop up a failing business model that is outmoded. 544. Whatever - the RIAA/record labels are all about $$...they are some of the most greedy corporations in the US (an outside). It all starts with the music and the music starts with the artist. This is true but they are missing this part - and all that matters is how much the artist can make me. 545. Unfortunately, they just don't get it. People have been trained to think of most anything the purchase as theirs to do with as the want. Until they give the people music with out restrictions, they will be fighting a loosing battle just like the war on drugs. They will fight and fight but make no headway. 546. I dont buy it. They are big complainers and scammers trying to find ways to steal more money since they have failed to put out decent quality albums and groups lately. They also are to blame for any losses, because they increased their CD prices so much that even though i own 1000+ original CDs from them, I have boycotted purchasing a single Disc more, until 1) they lower their prices by at least half, or 2) they cease 100% of all hostilities against the the downloading public. They have started a war that they will lose. But its not too late for them to apologize and save their reputation. But time is nearly out for that now. 547. more cash for the greedy fat cats not the artists 548. This day in age there is nothing original, music is now all sampled edited remixed. So where does it start again. 549. I've never heard artists say "YAY! I got money from that settlement!" 550. I was lucky enough to meet one of my favorite bands who was recently signed by Warner Music. They were busy hocking their own merchandise after a show at a small night club in Champaign, IL. I asked when they were planning to release their next record and they told me they had plenty of material for several records, but unfortunately Warner didn't see them as a priority, and so they've not been given any opportunities to get back in the studio. 551. Protecting their jobs. 552. I don't think anyone seriously believes the RIAA cares about artists. As for the viable marketplace online, that's code for "our cut of booty for not doing anything." The market was already providing a thriving online music scene before these pricks disrupted it. 553. ROFL, I can't believe they think anybody's stupid enough to swallow that. It's about money money money. All money all the time. "It all starts with the music..." ROFLMAO! Hahahahaha! The entire stated purpose of the RIAA is to preserve profit, or perceived profit. Those people believe that they are entitled to as much money as they can lay hands on, they don't know any other belief or creed. 554. Corporate America theres litterally thousands of unsigned bands, singers, artist who give away there music. 555. the fact that the fact that they even SAID "fighting censorship" is ironic, because what they are doing is one of the biggest most abusive forms of censorship in the digital era. 556. Music may start with the artists, but it is the RIAA goal to make sure artists don't keep it for long. 557. The RIAA is active on things that are good for the corporation and the endless line of coked up suits standing between the artist and I. If I see an artist in a club, and I like their show, I buy their CD for $20 on the spot. The RIAA probably doesn't like that much either. Where was the RIAA when Peter Frampton (or the Dead in the early 70's or any number of Black artists in the 50's and 60's or anybody that got near Alan Klein? ) was getting fucked by management? 558. The record companies are primary interested in profits for the record companies. 559. their rich 560. Hardly. It starts with the dollar and ends with the dollar. 561. RIAA only represent a very few of the thousands labels and millions of artists around. Loads of them say "Fuck RIAA" even. The only labels/artists that are represented by the RIAA are the ones that are not interested in music, but in money only. 562. True music starts with the artist yet the RIAA actions are only about control. 563. If that were true, the artists would reap most of the financial benefit of their work, but most of the money an artists makes goes to the people who get the music from the artist to the public - a service industry that relies on an increasingly dated mode of business. 564. RIAA is only interested in making money any way it can since the sales of CD-based music is falling, RIAA-membership roles may be in danger of collapsing. 565. All Propaganda. 566. They are here to make as much money as possible. 567. Disband the RIAA and see if the artists continue to thrive. They will. 568. How about "It all starts with the money, and the money starts with the customer?" 569. The RIAA dosent care about black people. I mean artists. 570. Huh? 571. money start with the music and they want money. they get an insane percentage on each piece of song they sell and want to keep it that way. They fear to disapper because of not needed anymore . Artist will always be needed and paid for their creations one way or another. 572. The record companies don't care about the artists, they just care about their own money. The main share of music sold as hard copy or digitally online goes to the record company. 573. Money 574. It all starts with the money now days and is based around money. Btw. how much of profit goes to these artists where everything starts? 575. I believe the RIAA is simply protecting an outdated business model-- one that protects music labels and established artists at the expense of the consumer and new artists. 576. it starts with, and ends with -their salaries--they are natural liars-its what they do, and what they get paid to do-- 577. yeah, right, as if anyone with a fourth of a brain would believe RIAA do it all for the artists and with the full approval of said artists(okay, we can argue about Metallica and the like, but I believe there's good in them, or used to be). Anyway, I wouldn't buy any artist who does it for the money. 578. what has music to do with suing customers? 579. They only care about money, no more no less.. Therefore they should cease to exist... If you were a true artist you would make music no matter what... the money would start pooring in on it's own ... you cannot force this. 580. Sorry, I didn't make it to the end of the statement. I was laughing too hard. 581. Everything they do is based on the fact that alternatives have actually threatened their revenue. They fear that which they do not understand and they strive to destroy those alternatives by limiting the artists' rights to decide how their works should be distributed. 582. RIAA doesnt really care about the artist, RIAA cares about money 583. Both artist and consumers are interested in the music, but the labels are interested in profit. 584. RIAA is a law abiding terrorist orginasation 585. viable? When did DRM become viable? 586. To the people who listen to music, its all about the artist PERIOD......... ART. the record label is merely a brand that is usualy unnoticed. 587. The RIAA doesn't care about the artist nor the music 588. These people who run the RIAA are businessmen who only know, and are only concerned with, making money. They use the artists to make music to make money. 589. hahahhahaha, they dont care about music 590. it starts with customer satisfaction 591. Total bullshit. It starts and ends with the RIAA and their billions, if they gave a crap about music they wouldnt flood the market with so much generic plastic crap that cant even sing while real talent remains unsigned. They dont give a crap about artists other than "how much money can they make me". Their wallets. Story. End of. 592. they want $$ 593. Bullshit. The RIAA is all about the money - the artist is just their means of getting it. 594. BS 595. They sell stuff. Period. 596. Its all about them controlling content. They want to continue to resell the same material to you every time the format changes. 597. The artists themselves aren't deciding if they want their music shared or not. Many artists disagree with punishing people for sharing their music, such as The (International) Noise Conspiracy. Their label put the anti-piracy sticker on their CD and they strongly fought to remove it, but did not succeed. On their website, it is stated, ''we are an anti-capitalist rock group that very much supports the idea of filesharing as a viable way of spreading ideas and entertainment outside of the reaches of our current economy.'' (http://www.internationalnoise.com/related.asp) 598. It's not about the artist anymore, because the industry strangles innovation and suppresses change. It's not about the music anymore, it's about turning the music into a commercial product that makes money. 599. They are simply protecting the interest of their investors, the artists just so happen to be a domain in which they will garner more support. Just look at the recent development in Canada, big Canadian artist such as Avril Lavigne, Bare Naked Ladies, etc. are opposing the position of the RIAA and the RIAA are ignoring their pleas. If it was about the artist they would listen to that groups concerns. 600. no 601. The RIAA does not care about the artists, it cares about having control. 602. The so called artists they are talking about are creating derivative work. That is the nature of popular works. The artists who's works we rely on are long dead. They are not going to get anything out of this any more than the mathematicians of the 19th century get royalties from Microsoft. It's too late. The RIAA and friends are going to get the money. What they are selling is a business model, not art. There will always be a fight between "business" and the people. That is what art is about. Choose a side! 603. file sharing spreads the music : ) 604. Music shoudlnt seen as "marketable" but as enjoyable. Internet gives the possibility to reach very little fan communities and thus create money. (concerts, cds) 605. The artist doesn't have to play, They do so because they choose to. Therefore, they become an entertainer. Should all entertainment have a price? Remember the renaissance? free music for all to enjoy. The musicians just got paid by the people who felt the need to show support. 606. LMAO, not to mention fighting piracy IS actually a method of censorship. The RIAA will only respect the music world, scene, artists, as long as they are in agreement with the goals of their respective companies. When something challenges their goals, everything in the world is at fault in their eyes... but themselves of course. Bastards. 607. Just replace "music" with "money". 608. The music starts with whoever wrote it for the artist 609. The RIAA does not care about the artist.... thousands of artists get shortchanged on their royalties every year.... Artists do not get enough form their contracts but are forced to sign them becuase thats the only way to make it into the mainstream 610. That's a load of bs. The RIAA is not interested in the music, they are interested in profits - why else would they give $1 out of a $16 CD to the artist? And the costs are definitely not near $15 per. If it was about the music, they would charge only the cost of the individual CD, something like a couple dollars. They can make money other ways 611. It doesn't start with the music, because unless you want to make less than the instruments to make the record, you have to sell out to a label associated with the RIAA, meaning that it really all starts with the RIAA, and no one should have that control. 612. "... fostering viable music marketplace online ..." - REALLY ??? 613. The RIAA is just trying to preserve a failing business model. 614. The RIAA are fascists that single out web users and attack them with ridiculous lawsuits. There are as bad as PETA and the ACLU in terms of doing what they are supposed to do. 615. You give people a good service, a good product, at a fair price, then you will have a market place. Get rid of DRM and allow people to play their files anywhere and you will see far more people buying online. You will always have piracy, the way to protect your business is to focus on those willing to pay rather than those who are not. 616. it all starts with money...plane and simple. 617. yeah and who makes the most money... haha i though so RIAA 618. The music companies and the RIAA have robbed the artists for decades. 619. thats both true and false. Normal propaganda... half-truths. It all starts with the music and the music starts with the artist." This is true. Everything that the RIAA is active on - fostering a viable music marketplace online, preventing piracy, fighting censorship. They want censorship, the market place exists and works well in canada, with Canada being a leader. So that is false. Its regular 1/2-truths to disguise truth.. IE. propaganda. Its like what the USA call operation "shock and awe". When in reality is was a passified term for we're dumping white-phosphorous on inocent people and burning them to death..... all in the wording. 620. If they really cared about the artists, then the first thing they needed to do was to cut royality checks and hand deliver them themselves. 621. They fight only for the artists they sign. But it is true that it should all begin with the artist. To many times it begins with what the record companies think they will make the most $$ on, not what we really consider art. 622. lets face...what professional organization supporting an industry is out to make a profit for themsevles...this is the only organization that I know is out for financial gain.... 623. the riaa is a crooked org 624. The RIAA is concerned with filling it's own pockets!!! The artist has never come first...ever. 625. The RIAA is promoting its own pocketbook, not the IP of the artist. 626. Maybe they said it, but a more accurate reflection of the RIAA attitude would add a few words: "It all starts with profiting from the music and profiting from the music starts with cheating and exploiting the artist." 627. the riaa is active only on making money 628. money 629. That statement must be false considering that riaa cares not for the artist or the music only their precious money. 630. Nothing about the RIAA starts with the music or the artist--it starts with whatever way the RIAA can make the most money. 631. It is into securing profits for the members of the RIAA. 632. They have destroyed the music market place. Record stores are going out of business at a record pace. Is this due to copyright infringement ? I think not. People do not like supporting enterprises that criminalize their patrons. The RIAA has cast a very bleak view of the music industry as a whole. 633. They were suing people long before a online marketplace was available. Now the forfront music stone is selling a inferior product with unacceptable restrictions at a unreasonable price. It may start with the artist but it ends with the costumer and the RIAA should listen to what the costumer wants that that's choice. 634. It all starts with the moeny and the money starts with the music and the music starts with the artist. 635. I fully agree with that statement, but I don't think the RIAA fully agrees with it - or at least they don't act like it. 636. God you encourage me to share stuff. 637. It is all about the dollar. 638. RIAA is just trying to leech money 639. Their one premise has a lot more to do with money than with music. Plenty of independent label continue to thrive without participating in sueing their customers to generate new revenue. Maybe they don't have shareholders who are hungry for dividends? 640. So, suing 10 year old girls is for the music? And if someone downloads one song worth 99 cents, trying to get thousands of dollars from them is fair? 641. don't know (neither true or false to this question) 642. The RIAA is only about punishing individual users and making money. 643. RIAA is for censorship! They seems more like they are trying to grab everything they can before they die than trying to protect artists from something they dont want to have anything to do with, the RIAA. 644. It's clever bullshit to cover the theft from the artists by the record companys 645. If this is true, why do a vast majority of major artists these days not even write their own music or lyrics? 646. I wouldn't say its everything. Corporate domination would enter in there, too. The RIAA is not going into the fray because they're fartless altruists. 647. It's all about the money to them. 648. Haha! Again, statistics. Look at what the labels actually pay artists per sale of an album. 649. This is a social revolution. This is our society not the RIAAs. Not to put too finne a point on it - screw them! 650. It starts with money, and ends with money. 651. it all starts with the money and... nope thats it its all about the money 652. They're looking out for their own interests, which aren't necessarily the same as the artists. 653. RIAA only wants money. 654. If it all starts with the music, why are the riaa spending all the money on expensive lawyers for high profile court cases, in my view, if the riaa spent less on lawyers and focused on putting some of that money back to the artists then the artists and the general public would probably have a little more respect for the riaa 655. who cares about the artist. i just like the song 656. refer to 15. my previous answer applies 657. RIAA has set themselves up arbitrarily as middlemen to capitalize on someone else's creation and making it nigh impossible for someone to thrive and grow without the RIAA's "support". 658. I see it as an organization that has discovered that it has lost control of certain elements and uses the legal system in a vindictive and punitive fashion for revenge and profit. 659. everything they do is based on MONEY simple and plain 660. It starts with the money and ends when the artist is no longer able to cover their recording bills. 661. i see things like this, by file sharing no one but the artist and the producer is thriving than those who download. 662. the'd have you think it all starts with them...there a millions of viatal Indie bands out there that do just fine without the riaa 663. They are control freaks who do not like rival business to take any of there action. 664. It all starts with forcing _consumer_ to pay more for less. 665. it all starts and ends with their attorneys 666. "fostering a viable music marketplace online" The RIAA only wants to make a market place to get not only there U.S. cut they want a cut from the worlds market. "preventing piracy" No matter how high or how strong your castle walls get someone will find a way to break through or climb over them. in other words it's hopeless. "fighting censorship" one thing that truly fights that is THE 1ST ADMENDMENT. 2nd thing is this only works in the USA the 1st and the RIAA can not help the artist outside the USA. Once again the RIAA have no merit in that arguement. 667. The RIAA is focused only on maintaining control of the industry. Their business model is irrelevant in the modern music world, because artists can bypass the RIAA and reach fans directly without signing a recording contract. 668. money. they corrupt whatever and whomever they can buy. 669. It all starts with the money and how they can get it without getting into trouble with the law. Artists and consumers are basically ignored. 670. Many artists call themselves musicians. If they have no connection to the fan, then there is no fan. Look at the 60s and 70s, the big happening time for the music and the artist. That's when the fan felt the connection to the artist and what they were trying to say in music. That's gone. So is the loyality to the artist with it. Its now about money and nothing else. I don't make a connection with how little or how much money an artist has or how they display that. It's ideas I connect with and that's missing. 671. If it starts and ends with the music and the artist why do they still need the RIAA 672. bs 673. The RIAA is the Recording INDUSTRY Association of America. They are first and foremost concerned with the recording industry, and that translates to the recording companies and their concerns. 674. They screw the artist AND the customer. 675. yes as music = profit. 676. everything they do starts with profit and ends with profit. the RIAA is a music label group, not an artists' group. Artists want their art to be enjoyed, and then be compensated enough to survive. Record labels want to make profit off of popular artists. 677. It starts with the artist, then it goes to the music, and finally to the consumer. When the last chain is broken, then nothing works. 678. LOL the riaa is only active on trying to make money for themselves .... ``Night_raid 679. It all starts with the money, since God is money. 680. While I agree that music starts with the atists, I disagree that fighting piracy is helping anyone. They are concerned more with their loss of revenue than their artists. 681. They are only trying to preserve the old ways of selling music AND controlling it. The artist does play a minor role in the interests of the Big Four and the RIAA. There are too many examples of artists, getting ROBBED from their labels. 682. See answer 15. They are lying assholes and I don't believe anything they say. Their "premise" is to get more money for nothing. 683. RIAA's modus operandi shows that their real premise is "It all starts with the money, and money starts with the lawsuits". 684. driven totally by money 685. They don't really care about the artist. 686. All the RIAA cares about is money. Plain and simple. 687. Execs have to have more - greed is the motivation 688. they dont know what they are talking about 689. They hardly do anything to fight censorship or we'd see them more active in oppressed places in the world (such as where I currently live). 690. For the RIAA, it all starts with screwing over both the artist and the public. 691. Fencing off musical expression like the RIAA does, does not help music thrive. 692. Viable music marketplace online?.. seriously.. do I really have to comment further? Preventing piracy? Pfft, I'm downloading more cd's right now just because they had the gal to say that. Fighting censorship.. more like fighting FOR censorship, hence why some cases that were on the verge of being won against the RIAA when they decided to sue someone, they settled out of court and offered lump sums with a gag clause. 693. The censors fighting censorship?! 694. The RIAA only makes a hell lot of money :P He's not doing any good. 695. See comment on # 15 696. Piracy is free advertising, which leads to more merchandise and concert sales and *gasp* record sales. The RIAA is based on one premise: to control every corner of the music industry under the same stranglehold of fascism that was evident in Nazi Germany. 697. RIAA doesn't care about the artists. The artists would make a lot more by selling their copies online without needed a record label to suck on their sales. RIAA doesn't level the field for all artists only a few make it big, p2p helps indie artists get out there 698. as i see it riaa is using most of the profits for themselves, not much of the money generated from sales go to the artist 699. RIAA is all about money they dont care about artists. 700. All I see is frantic money grubbing. 701. The RIAA does should not control the arts though they are trying. 702. wrong ! it starts and ends with the customer if you do not give them what they want they will not buy under any circumstance 703. It all starts with the money and the money stays with the record company. 704. All those lies are orwellian prop. Straight from the Ministery of Truth. 705. starts & ends with the dollar bill 706. Huh? 707. The RIAA is about the means of distribution not about the music. They are only interested in making money for their member companies not the artists. 708. What else can i say other than this is the finest piece of BULLSHIT I have ever read. 709. Everything that the RIAA is active on - fostering a viable music marketplace online, preventing piracy, fighting censorship - is based on one premise: Lining their pockets with as much money as humanly possible. There are few philanthropists in this world. 99.9% of all businesses are in the business of making money. The industry they're in is just the vehicle to making that money. 710. I see bands perform live all the time, and sometimes buy CDs sold right at their shows. I've heard bands (Fear Factory, Iron Maiden) encourage people to record songs at their shows and put the bootlegs online. Why is the RIAA contradicting the artist? 711. The RIAA simply selects which artists to sign based on profit potential. They will always be looking for that one band to sell enough records to turn a profit. Artists are a commodity to them. 712. everything the riaa is involved in starts with one thing and one thing only, $$$ 713. They actively "censor" their own material. Additionally they desire to enrich the labels, not the artists by controlling the online market like they control the conventional media outlets. (i.e. radio and television) 714. Patently false. For many years now most artists primary income has been gained through concerts and merchandise sales. 715. Having them fight piracy and people using others work, they seem to be endorcing censorship rather then fight it. Also the riaa seems more interested to deal with the musitians producers then the musicians themeselves. 716. the riaa just wants to control every thing 717. Some artrist yes but most no 718. Its about nothing but profits. 719. Only money,money and money...for companies. 720. Everything the RIAA says is false. 721. The RIAA is active to preserve the monopolistic profiteering practices of only 4 companies worldwide. Music does, indeed, start with the artist, and not with the RIAA. The artists can and will profit without the RIAA after their Cartel dies at some point in the future. In fact, the future for musicians and musical artists will be much more equitable when the RIAA cartel DOES finally disappear. 722. It's starts with the love of money and ends with a lawsuit. 723. The record companies add NOTHING to the music that is worthy of the monetary penalty they heap on consumers. I believe, and the facts DO appear to bear this out, that artists themselves would be MUCH BETTER served financially by marketing directly to consumers over the web. The Record Companies are simply middle-men who act to PREVENT the free and easy exchange of artistic product. The RIAA is a dinosaur who apparently didn't receive his own copy of the memo -- the dinosaurs died out 65 Million years ago when an asteroid or comet struck what is now part of the Gulf of Mexico. WAKE UP -- YOU'RE DEAD ALREADY! 724. The RIAA is all about the money and cares little about the artist. As far as the RIAA is concerned: It all starts with the marketing and the marketing starts with the label. 725. starts and ends with £$ 726. If the RIAA supported the artist, then they would be promoting better contracts for the artists and not the member companies.

The RIAA: Supports the First Amendment rights of artists.

Total Responses: 1,021 True   21.3%  (217) False   78.7%  (804)

If you've answered False to the question above, how do you see things?

Total Responses: 605 1. RIAA fights any distribution even sampling. F.A. is just used as justify their abuse. 2. What the hell does an amendment meant for Freedoms of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly have to do with copyright violation based lawsuits? and if I am misreading that question, so what..? even George Bush presumably "supports" the First Amendment.. 3. Artists have first amendment rights without the need of the RIAA, courtesy our lovely constitution. Looking for evidence of RIAA support for free speech is like looking for affirmation of scientific theory. 4. They don't care one way or the other about artists' rights, just so long as the RIAA gets paid. 5. The RIAA doesn't care about artists first-amendment rights one way or the other. Their only interest is corporate revenue and profit. 6. The RIAA supports the almighty dollar, nothing more. 7. the RIAA supports nothing other than its dues-paying members' business models 8. That's kind of a gray area, because the band blink-182 wanted their last album, before they went on hiatus, to be called "[untitled]". But the record company said no. So here is a prime example of their refusal of the bands ideas. 9. They support what makes them money. 10. What about first amendment rights of those they attack? 11. Supports making money off of the artists. 12. False 13. They can still get their ideas out there even if they aren't being promoted by a major label. The RIAA might even restrict free speech by only promoting certain types of music to the airwaves. 14. RIAA screws the artist at every turn. "Gee, we would love to pay the artists the royalties they're due, but we can't find them". Yeah, right. 15. The RIAA supports its own greedy label leaders need to coat their pocket with more money. Less than 25% of the money made on a cd sale goes to an artist. In fact the RIAA screws over million of artists a year. They destroy the artists first amendment rights. 16. If they did they would give more artists a voice. 17. They often censor their artists and only support what they think will make them money and not lower album sales. 18. The riaa stifles the ability of artists to give things away - witness the recent crap about nin and the releasing of material by non standard means. 19. By putting one's music under a label the RIAA 'owns', one loses the right to do what one wants with it. The artist cannot change the work, cannot basically do what they want at all with teh music; they're sacrificing freedom for "security". 20. Censorship is probably a norm in the RIAA. Not just language but idea's and even sounds. 21. There concern is to maximize profits no matter what. 22. The recording industry pressures artists into saying and doing what will make them money. Whether that be product placement, political correctness, or taking creative control out of the artists hands. 23. Why would british, french, german and japanese companies (EMI, Vivendi, Sony, BMG) defend an amendment of the USian constitution in more than 200 countries? 24. So why don't the member companies allow the artists to hold the copyrights of their music? 25. RIAA supports the First Amendment rights of major record compnies. 26. RIAA supports the rights of artists through the relevant copyright statutes. 27. Bullshit. And my hands are tired from typing the answer to the last question, so... next question. 28. They have nothing to do with it. The billof rights supports the first ammendmant rights. 29. The RIAA doesn't even want the artists to share their own creations with people the way they choose, as is shown by their action against Trent Reznor's viral marketing campaign. 30. RIAA supports "work for hire" actions that result in the music being the sole property o the record companies. The artist has no amendment rights. 31. money 32. If free speech was the issue, the record companies would allow artists to create albums with other labels if the music was not acceptable to the contracted company. The right of first refusal is not enabled within the artists contract... it is a case of complete control. 33. Im not american so i dunno 34. From what I understand, the artists sees very little of record sale money. 35. Restrictive contracts, debts and obligations hamper artists. This is a form of control over the artist. 36. They support whatever makes them money. 37. The RIAA is profit-driven. They are interested only in artists that can sell in volume, and this by definition means that they will not promote artists who are controversial in any meaningful way. 38. RIAA supports RIAA - bay city rollers STILL have not been paid. 39. They support themselves getting richer by taking advantage of the artist in any way possible. 40. The RIAA supports it's pocketbook. 41. freedom of speech? 42. The RIAA has nothing to do with the First Amendment rights. 43. The RIAA are greedy corporate bastards who will stop at nothing to keep CEO's pockets stuffed. 44. I'd imagine they do a lot of censoring. 45. What does the First Amendment have to do with anything? 46. RIAA is full of shit. 47. 1st ammendment is about Free Speech. The RIAA has no relationship with artists that support the 1st ammenment as the RIAA tramples over artists with censorship in mnay forms 48. They don't let them release music for free. 49. they want money 50. Sorry, guys, the gramophone record is dead! 51. they just care about filling their pocket they could care less about the artist, they could always change them. 52. RIAA companies have locked artists into unfair contracts "signing away their life". RIAA is only trying to protect is member companies greedy shareholder profits, and next to nothing goes to artists who generate music and creativity. 53. HA HA HA HA hang on I'm still laughing HA HA HA ohh, that was a good one. If suing dead people and 12 year olds is the First Amendment then I am horribly horribly confused. 54. they say the opposite of what they mean, 55. If the RIAA truly supported it, then the RIAA would allow an artist to choose to allow or disallow DRM on their music. 56. They suport the record companies. 57. RIAA = Whores 58. RIAA = bunch of theives and liers 59. they're clueless 60. The RIAA is not even interested in protecting the rights of anyone. Also, music piracy is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM infringing on anyone's first amendment rights. Such a claim does not even make sense. 61. The RIAA supports the 1st amendment for the RIAA 62. Monopoly 63. if a artist cannot openly pass out his OWN music then there is a problem there. 64. they are supporting commerce rights as they see them 65. The RIAA stifles artistic freedom. 66. Then why aren't artists free to record songs substantially different from previous hits? Or free to produce songs on THEIR schedule, not the label's? The fact is, most music is a work-for-hire, and if the employer (the label) wants all their pop artists to sound like Britney or Justin, then by God, that's what they'll get -- or they'll find NEW artists willing and able to suck up. 67. Taking 98% of profits. 68. Doesn't the RIAA keep most of the money from the lawsuits? 69. It's only the RIAA money the RIAA is concerned about. They pay artists a measly pittance. 70. .... 71. They are just about making money for themselves. 72. The RIAA would use the artists First Amendment rights, but that doesn't mean they support them. 73. If the artist speaks out against them they get in trouble 74. Pirated music does not prevent the right of artists to express themselves in any medium. If anything, it may limit the earning potential, but does not in itself stifle the artists. 75. No artists' free speech is being harmed by downloading, only their ability to make money from what they say. Read the first amendment, theres nothing in it about making profit or protecting what someone says. 76. Bullshit. The RIAA has nothing to do with First Amendment rights. It's about preserving their own monopoly over artists and their product. The RIAA wants to squash our First Amdmt. rights to copy and share material for our own personal use. 77. They support money and now that their losing a little they're crying. 78. yeah so what 79. The RIAA supports whatever it needs to in order to maximise profits for the companies it represents this year or in the near future. 80. Then why didn't it let The David Mathews Band continue to put MP3s of it's own material online a few years ago? Where was David's free speech in that? 81. They are enforcing a select few artist’s rights at the cost of many other artists and all of society’s rights. 82. The RIAA supports them owning the artists work. 83. HAHAHAHAHAHA you're a funny man. 84. The RIAA is twisting the 1st amendment to fit their needs. 85. RIAA chooses what songs to allow them to sell. 86. It doesn't seem to me that artists who are against their garbage have had their fair share of words against their business being driven away or their problems considered. 87. The RIAA wants more money because they are backstabbing idiots. 88. I have to read more about first Amendment right of artists to give you my point of view. 89. Pretty obvious they don't. 90. What about consumer rights? 91. Same answer as 17 92. I have no idea how anything RIAA does could be interpreted as protecting first amendment rights of anyone, artist or others. 93. RIAA are music pirates 94. The first amendment offers free speech, free press, right to assembly. How is file-sharing presenting any of those things? 95. The RIAA will only let artists speak out loud if they say things that don't harm their profits. 96. I'm English, god knows what the first amendment is... it's all aged democracy anyway. 97. By taking control af a work from an artist and saying how it can be used or distributed the artist lose control of there own work! 98. Knowing what the RIAA support has become quite gray, muddy, and confusing. 99. "stealing the artist's creations from the artist" 100. as I said many of the artists are puppets. 101. The RIAA has actually nothing to do with the First Amendment. And, as already mentioned, it does not even aim at protecting the rights of artists, but only its members' business interests. 102. copyright needs to change in a world of mass mass distribution 103. the music companies are making too much margin, are not prepared to adapt their business practices, and are trying to legislate to maintain the status quo. 104. irrelevant question 105. They're out for the Recording industry only 106. $$$ 107. Actually maybe, but who knows? 108. Don't know what this is. 109. How much money was budgeted to promote Neil Young's last album? 110. The RIAA has nothing to do with this whatsoever. This is blatant, ridiculous spin. 111. As not American don't know much about it 112. The RIAA supports hitler, dictatorship, faschism, all that is bad basically, hey next time take a look, read the fine print on the software you buy, IT SAYS TWO THINGS. 1. U cannot sue them no matter what and 2. when you buy this software you give up your constitutional rights. Again I don't hear the artists complain, its the music labels that are. 113. I doubt it , since they control what the artist creates , so the artists really have no rights in this . 114. The RIAA: Supports its greed for even more money. 115. If they supported first amendment rights there wouldn't be all this hoopla about file sharing. 116. No reply 117. More like the RIAA supports it's own right to the Pursuit of the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR. 118. they just want money - they are a cartel 119. RIAA's activities have nothing to do with the 1st Amendment - they are seeking to keep a 1950's radio play for royalties business model functioning in a digital, radioless world. 120. How can restricting publication support first amendment rights? 121. they are protecting their own investments, not the artists rights. For the most part, artists make their money from touring and having as many fans as possible sharing their music will work to their benefit as it will draw people to their performances. 122. money,money,money. 123. The support profits. Thats all. 124. The RIAA represent the recorded music industry, that is the very large companies. They have not and do not represent the interests of artists. 125. How long would they allow an artist to tell the truth about THEM? They do not support the First Amendment rights of artists. 126. Not sure, we don't have it in my country 127. When you sign 20 artists to your label, with the intent to really "push" 1-4 of them, the other 16 are simply stifled. The RIAA has silenced those 16 artists, effectively, as their works are not widely marketed or distributed. 128. They are not supporting Religion, Assembly, Petition, Press, or Speech. 129. Artists get almost nothing from record companies. 130. Allofmp3.com is all I need to say, you jerks. 131. I don't see any artists being handcuffed for their speech. I see regular people being suied by RIAA for their speech. 132. They do not care about the artists. Period, end of sentence. They are trying to get congress to allow the reduction of payments to the artists. 133. I am curious how the RIAA deals with dissenting views from the artists that fall under its purview. 134. The RIAA cares about itself. 135. Again, same as the question above. 136. No because they try to pressure artists into what they want them to be- ie: whatever will make the most money. Screw what the artists want- or even what people *really* want to hear (which is GOOD music)... 137. Rubbish, they support themselves and their corporate sponsors the music labels, they couldn't care less about any one particular artist. 138. The RIAA supports the protection of their income stream. 139. I'm not an American but the first and foremost right of anyone is Freedom.. and if people don't have Freedom to express and share their views in any form and share other people's views then it's TAKING AWAY a right, not defending it. 140. I'm not American, I don't know what that means 141. Why have we not heard from a single artist saying that they want people to stop sharing their music? Once I hear an artist make that claim, then perhaps I'll believe the RIAA serves a purpose. 142. Fuck the RIAA 143. What does free speech have to do with suing filesharers? 144. Once a contract is signed, the record company controls the artists. Rights? Where? 145. It also bribes, blackmails and murders (so i've heard) to prevent the first amendment rights of other artists. 146. The RIAA supports only profitability for the record companies. Everything else is irrelevant, as proven by their push to get legislation passed bypassing "due process" and allowing them to hack into suspected "pirates'" PCs with the purpose of deleting "illegal" music collections. 147. The RIAA is uninterested in 1st amendment rights of artists. 148. The RIAA hasn't acknowledged any of its artists rights. 149. Have no idea what the first amendment is. I'm not American. Ha-ha. 150. That is their aim, but they end up hurting the artists. 151. Only their own rights 152. they arnt going to get anywhere. one in 10 million are going to be found out and 98.9% of that 10 mill is downloading.. for free. so there is no point in tring to prevent it... 153. RIAA CDs in Wal*Mart are censored. I can't recall any government action attempting to censor music, which is the only time the 1st would apply. If anything, they do the opposite by engaging in self-censorship. 154. The RIAA supports nothing but itself. 155. Right to bear arms? 156. ... 157. They actually stifle artist's ability to sell or share their music the way they want to. 158. The words RIAA and rights don't go together, 159. eh? 160. utter BS - labels promote artists that are able to appeal to the lowest common denominator and which will sell the most music - rarely will this include an artists with a challenging perspective on the world - more often 15 yr old kids with the right image. 161. The RIAA represents record labels, not artist 162. The recording industry has never supported the rights of artists, just the legacy business models that the labels were based upon. 163. WTF is the First Amendement? 164. The RIAA just wants money. 165. If anything, the RIAA limits the First Amendment rights of artists. 166. Fuck 'em. 167. The RIAA is concerned with controlling the marketplace and increasing profits, nothing more. 168. its a specal interest group 169. forced into contracts riaa controls 170. The RIAA supports the greed fueld by an industry out of control. If there weren't money involved, they wouldn't help artists fight for anything. 171. I don't think downloading has anything to do with the first amendment 172. The RIAA only represents the companies, not the artists. 173. The RIAA acts to squelch competition and disagreement, so is actually in opposition to First amendment Rights for any entity that is not them. 174. I am not american, so I do not know whether you are tellig the truth, but you have proven to untrustworthy,so I do not believe you. 175. Not the artist, the RIAA is more concerned about making money off the artists than protecting them. Why else would the be going against pirates rather than promoting the artists. 176. Not sure??? 177. There ought to be a 'dont know' option 178. the artists can support their own first amendment right, if they choose to. 179. I am a musician. What are they doing for me? Again its about stiffing the artist and the public and making money. Lots of money 180. does this mean they support the right for their artists to make available their music to their listeners at no cost? if that were the case, they'd be in violation of their contractual rights, which directly violate the inalienable right granted by the constitution. 181. They do not 182. For Years, Music companies have dictated restrictive conditions in music contracts with artists. If an artist is not successful, often the music is tied up with the Music company for years. The artist must beg the music company for permission to perform or sell the music that the music company is no longer promoting. How can you call that "Freedom of Expression"? 183. It all starts with their power and lobby. 184. RIAA is fighting for a VERY small group of mainstream artists that are on major labels. I want music to be for the people, not for the major labels. I am sick of being told what to buy. I want access to it all so I can decide what to purchase. 185. Copyright law extends to artists as well as it extends to file-sharers: such parody artists as 'Weird Al' have been prohibited from exercising their "First Amendment rights" because certain record companies don't like parodies. 186. In any case first amendment only applies to USA, there is a big wide world out there with different views 187. No idea what's that First Amendment is. Tell me. 188. No, the RIAA restricts artists freedom to sell their music at a reasonable price. 189. Supports their own profits. 190. riaa punishes artists who speak out against their gestapo tactics 191. at one point they did, but that time is long gone. they only support the first amendment rights of those artists they find convineinet to their agenda 192. They want money. 193. The RIAA supports making money for themselves and ripping off consumers. 194. It isn't about the artist, the RIAA represents dying giants taking as many with it as possible in the death throes 195. If it makes them money 196. ? 197. Not to my knowledge....I never seen them in the media supporting their right to free speech. 198. The RIAA supports the wallets of the big labels. 199. Supports only in regards to easy profit. 200. I don't think they care. 201. So thats why certain artists who felt that their songs should be traded freely got a slap and was told to shut the fuck up? The best garantuee for free speech is the uncontrollable INTERNET. 202. They support their right to make more money. If their isn't money in it for them, you'll never hear about it through the RIAA. 203. I feel it thinks it does 204. In some cases, yes. But, overall, no. 205. I am in the UK - don't understand the question 206. The RIAA isn't concerned about the artists there concerned their profits. 207. who knows...crooks 208. They support their own greed. 209. the riaa doesnt care one way or the other about the first amendment rights of artists. 210. they support their own rights ... 211. All lies! They are just pretending to do that. 212. they don't support any rights 213. The RIAA wants to own the artist. They don't allow creative freedom (see above answers). They want music to sell, hence payola, price-fixing. They don't want the artist to evolve. 214. The RIAA is only interested in supporting itself. 215. they protect the First Amendment rights of artists as long as there is money to be made in doing so. 216. RIAA are thugs, employing mafia tactics. 217. Freedom of speech is being infringed by selective press reports. 218. I have no idea what this ammendment is. I am not American so I may not need to know. 219. The first amendment is not at issue here. 220. I think they're serving their own interests 221. artists have rights?? 222. Don't know what the 1st amendment is... I live in Europe 223. They don't support the first amendment right of anyone. 224. The record companies are trying to maintain their proffet is the face of changing music distruibution. 225. Spin 226. The RIAA would rather stifle the voices and opinions of their artists and use their talking points instead. Binding contracts and other legal issues keep artists at bay. 227. Abuses the legal system 228. If that statement is true, why can Wal-mart keep demanding that artists change lyrics to suit them? 229. RIAA is the invasion of music industry. RIAA thinks they are the first amendment. 230. Yeah right. 231. It doesn't particularly support those rights, but it doesn't actively go against them either. 232. Infringes on the first amendment rights of customers. 233. and money rights 234. Many artists agree with file sharing and the RIAA stifles that right because of the RIAA controlling the record companies which own the recordings. 235. THe riaa/mpaa supports the riaa/mpaa. 236. Not from USA. Don't know the meaning. 237. I know that many black rappers say derogatory things about other races (white, asian, middle-eastern) but I know for a FACT the RIAA would never support a white artist calling black people nasty names. 238. they just want to get richer 239. The RIAA is just a cooperation of record companies, they don't care about any individual artist, just how well they sell. 240. Hah. 241. supports itself 242. Recent a band used "pirated" music on a USB thumb drives that had been "lost" in the venue's restrooms. It was this band's decision to market their new album in this manner. The RIAA hauled out it's lawyers to tell this band they were breaking the law with this marketing tactic. So, no, the RIAA doesn't give a damn about the First Amendment. 243. I have yet to find an artist who says they appreciate all the work the RIAA has done for them. 244. RIAA supports the copyright only and heaven forbid if you get in their way of seeing things 245. Only when it suits them 246. The RIAA exercises de facto control over artists. 247. In what way ? 248. If you don't make what they want you don't receive a contract. 249. I see the RIAA as a corrupt cartel. Artists have been very successful selling their music under their own independent labels. Regardless, record sales have nothing to do with first amendment rights. If the RIAA supports anything, it supports making money off of the very artists it claims to protect. 250. RIAA is a maggot feeding on the rotting corpse of middlemen that are no longer needed. 251. Tipper Sticker, anyone? 252. The RIAA supports itself and its business model from pre internet centuries 253. It actually supports only Record Companies, it only cares about making a profit or not from record sales. 254. If they supported them as they claim, then they wouldn't be screwing them as much as possible. 255. I'm in Australia and have NFI what a "first amendment" is. 256. If they did they would sign every band that sent a demo tape. 257. If the RIAA supports first amendment rights of artists, why do they force artists who wish to distribute some of their works online to not post their own stuff? 258. I am not sure they support it for the artist, but they certainly support it for themselves. If it were free and factual it would really be a good thing. 259. I have not heard anything about the RIAA doing this. I have heard mostly about them going after money. 260. The RIAA: Supports screwing artists out of money. 261. I have no idea what the "First Amendment rights of artists" are but seeing how misguided the RIAA is on almost every other issue I'm going with "False". 262. Screwed 263. The RIAA has made it clear they support the First Amendment as long as it benefits them and supports their model. They do not support it when it does not suit them. 264. WHAT?!? 265. There are no business clauses in the constitution! If anything the RIAA should fear the power of redress actually. We the people have the right to seek help from the government to get rid of shysters like the RIAA. 266. They wouldn't be raiding homes of popular DJs if they supported such rights. 267. I have no evidence of this. 268. I don't get this one. First of all I don't know what rights are meant. Second, since the rights are already guarenteed to us by the Constitution, just what is it that the RIAA is doing? 269. I don't see how the first amendment is applicable to the RIAA. What do they do to foster this? 270. If artist could say as they wanted to they wouldn't even need the RIAA in the first place. RIAA restricts the policies of the artists expression and therefore cannot do so. 271. They don't. They supress it (see Nine Inch Nail incident, where NIN was not allowed to give away the music they made because the music belongs to a company)( 272. The first amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". It does not mention the RIAA 273. I see no indication of such acts. 274. Artists can do that for themselves. The RIAA is just there to make money. 275. They fight to protect themselves, if any artists (and usually only the major ones) benefit, then that's just their luck. 276. The RIAA is a business. Their only interest is the Bottom Line. Money. End of Story. 277. The RIAA supports the right of the RIAA to harass individuals and get RICH. 278. Typical of USA, ignore the rest of the world. 279. see above 280. Bull Sh**! 281. If an artist says something that RIAA does not approve of, let's see how much support RIAA will provide them! 282. They support what makes them the most money. Thats business. 283. No - why did the industry cave in to the labeling moms in the 80s? 284. I dont live in america so I ddont know, but probably not. 285. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Which of those rights is piracy infringing, and how is the RIAA fighting it? 286. I don't see how they are doing that. 287. . 288. The fight to maintain their excessive profit margins 289. They have no interest in protecting artists, only the publishers that benefit from their work. Those same artists could actually benefit from taking advantage of the interest revolution, making their music freely available, and earning far more by touring. With the increased coverage and wider fanbase afforded by the proliferation of their freely available music, and with the extra cash in pocket that their fans would have, concert sales would increase, and they would profit directly. It is the publishers who desperately need the money from CD sales, and who take a far bigger cut, and it is the publisher's interests that the RIAA protects. 290. Art is an expression of the heart, not a tradable products to be sold. No one person can make the world fair, but we all try and get what we can via the cheapest methods available. If any artist wants to trade his talent, then he must accept the thriftyness of any sensible customer. 291. They support themselves 292. Not an American so I don't know, what I do know is I don't believe much of what they say so this statement can't be true. 293. riaa supports it's pockets 294. RIAA supports the rights of the record manufacturers 295. The RIAA supports the rights of artists to make the RIAA money 296. The first amendment right of artists should be to reach as wide an audience as possible. Not get as much money as possible. 297. And the rights of the rest? 298. RIAA has reportedly and proven ripped off artists by millions of dollars. 299. As an internation reader, I do not know what the First Amendment is about. I would choose 'N/A' but this is not an option. 300. Ha! The recording industry only supports what they can sell. Never artistic expression. 301. The RIAA has condoned censorship of free speech in the past. 302. Not able to asnwer this one. 303. they cherry pick what they want, which equates to what they can sell. there is no commercial incentive to promoting 1st ammendment from their perspective 304. Makes them sound they believe what they're doing is good. 305. They support record labels, not artists. 306. The RIAA actively discourages the right of artists to make their performance available more widely. 307. Freedom of Speech? 'Don't think so! 308. The RIAA would and has gladly sued artists who reference other artists under the Fair Use and Parody doctrines. 309. Most of the money is made by the distributors not by the artists.Most of the money is made by the distributors not by the artists. 310. Direct-to-download distribution. Problem solved. Consumers get their music, artists get paid. Who suffers? Middlemen! (Why should I pay a $2 surcharge that goes to cover Tower Records' rent?) 311. See Q17 312. Canada has no equivalent to the First Amendment. But I don't understand how freedom of religion, or speech. or the press or peaceful assembly enters the picture. 313. what is this crap, its not the first amendment of our constitution. 314. the RIAA wants to make money. the rights and concerns of the actual artists are of secondary concern at best. 315. Rights such as these only pertain to the US. Not all music is sold in the US. 316. Only if it suits the bottom line. 317. The answer should probably be TRUE but I honestly believe that they support profits disguised as a fight for 1st amendment rights. 318. bullshit 319. The above question is true only if the artist doesn't screw up the bottom line. 320. RIAA is enguaged in extorsion 321. The RIAA supports the deceptive tactics of the music industry against consumers who are already wise to them. 322. No, the RIAA supports the First Amendment only of artists that they can make money from. 323. THis quiz is too US-biased. I'm not American nor am I in school! Are you only interested in AMerican points of view? If so, how do you differ from the RIAA? 324. The RIAA is for making money, as are the Big Four. They support the big pop groups far more than small artists. They don't care about the First Amendment rights unless they think it will make money. 325. the support their own self interest, $$$$. 326. The RIAA is trying to hide behind high sounding rhetoric simply to camouflage their real motives. This is the only industry I know of which penalizes its own consumers and doesn't care a whit about how its consumer base perceives it. 327. RIAA supports only their hip pockets. 328. the riaa supports making money off artist 329. How can they be fighting for the rights of the artist, when the record company owns the right to the song? They don't fight for the rights of the artist, only the company 330. As I said, I believe the RIAA is BAD for artist. They are reaping most of the profits off others hard work for doing something that will very soon become obsolete. They only support the first amendment rights of artists in the sense that if others break these rights, they will won't potentially be able to steal as much money from artists as they do now. 331. Does it matter? The First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the U.S. government, and only in the U.S. The RIAA has nothing to do with artists presenting their perspectives through their recordings. 332. The last thing they want is for them to speak. Only the money should be talking. 333. Then why when artist saythings for P2P do you try to descredit them? (Question to RIAA) 334. They attempt to remove first amendment rights of artists. Taking decisions away from the artist and allowing the RIAA to make the decisions. 335. The RIAA is greed. 336. parental advisory stickers 337. what's that?! 338. RIAA supports labels only and thier interests 339. A review of the majority of contracts which lower tier artists are forced into I do not think would represent a sincere support of the First Amendment 340. The RIAA is famous for squashing innovative artists. 341. they just want an excuse to sue people 342. They violate them by hindering fair-rights-use. 343. pretty much a combination of the above. 344. The RIAA terrorises The Average American (and well, citizen of the free world in general) 345. It is a protection racket where artists have to sign their rights away. Record companies and the media dictate to artists what to sing and censor what they don't like. 346. what sells, is not free speech, what sells is already mainstream 347. can't comment, they've prevented me from doing so 348. if RIAA does not make $ thay oppose any thing (how many artistes have come up against riaa / record labels etc) 349. The RIAA exists for the record companies. If they cared about artists rights, the member companies would boycot retailers like WalMart. 350. the riaa only allows music they sees fit to release not the artist 351. do thye know the amendments? 352. their looking out for pocket books not the artist 353. If an artist is under contract and they say something that goes against company policy do you really think they will stand behind them. They will use it as a reason to pay them less or somehow make a bigger profit off the artist. 354. They just suck on artists 355. Why not. But I don't see how the RIAA is going to influence a constitutional right of an artist. I mean this question and the next one are pretty much the same. The freedom of speech is contained in the first amendment. 356. Dont know what that is. 357. no comment 358. BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT! They don't. 359. same as 17 ;) 360. They try to earn money for them self 361. As long as they get their money they don't care 362. NA 363. Irrelevant. This is about art and commerce, not about free speech. 364. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish a state religion or prefer a certain religion (the "Establishment Clause"), prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 365. The RIAA is out to protect itself. The money they collect does not make it back to the artist. THe recording industry is dying because of the way technology is changing, and the recording industry is trying to keep business as usual. 366. Seriously I have no idea. You should have the option of "Neutral". This survey's results may be skewed. 367. The RIAA DID do this up until about 1995 or so. At one time the RIAA went out and pushed for the right of artists not to be censored, but those days are long gone. All the RIAA is about now is keeping a dead business model alive as long as it can, no matter who is hurt in the process (includes Artists, Customers, Shareholders, and even the Recording Companies themselves). 368. The RIAA works to support the first amendment rights of the artists they own, and works against the first amendment rights of artists they don't own. 369. I don't see 1st amendment rights at issue in the record industry in regard to p2p. Censorship at the state level is the major concern, and there are interest groups much better positioned than the RIAA to police artists' 1st amendment rights. 370. RIAA Protects the music industry that feeds off artists 371. Artists' rights to their creations are secondary to the rights of the record companies that control these artists (which the RIAA is primarily concerned with supporting). 372. RIAA: ReWriting the First Amendment rights. 373. An innocuous claim, if ever there was one. 374. Apparently you can invoke the First Amendment to support any claim. Or so I've learned from watching American movies. Thank god I'm not American. 375. They take advantage of a cartelised industry to avoid giving artists their due. The intermediary gets a much bigger slice of the pie than the producer - any system supporting such a situation is wrong. 376. No one is challenging the rights of artists to say what they want, EXCEPT the RIAA who limit what we hear to that which is commercially viable. 377. Answered false even though I have no idea what the First Amendment rights of an artist is. If it involves the RIAA then it's a lie. You should provide a link further explaining this though. 378. the riaa supports riaa 379. LoL 380. they re lookin out 4 their own interests always have and always will 381. Cant explain 382. I wouldn't know about the First Amendment... I'm Canadian... 383. If the artist do not do what they want the record company cuts them off. 384. what about the first amendment rights of everyone else? Artists are NOT a special class of people who get special protection 385. What's the first amendment? 386. :P 387. Right, sure. The first small time artist to say other wise will lose their contact and be out on the street, without a representative agent. Big time artists know which side of the bread is buttered. Those who say otherwise are seen as 'excentric'. 388. RIAA supports the industry, not the artists. 389. The RIAA dictates who it goes after. Damned be the interest of the artist, or how they feel about it. Those that are for open fair use of thier music are quickly shut out by the RIAA. 390. Parntal Advisory 391. RIAA is all about themselves, and nothing else... 392. Only when it suits their bottom line. Otherwise, they don't give a damn. 393. The record labels that make up the RIAA manipulate the image of the artists and look down on them for speaking out on current events such as the War in Iraq and the genocide in Darfur. 394. they don't support anything 395. They make a strong case against it if you ask me by sueing everyone in sight for trivial reasons. What is happening now is a evolution of the copyright. w/ GNU and Open Source on the rise and DRM free music on the rise, RIAA won't have anyone to "Protect" in a while. everyone will shift there market scheme to "free" w/ ad driven and other sources for revenue. 396. The RIAA supports more money for the RIAA. 397. Not enough information for me to answer #18. 398. supports $$$ 399. Stop making me type in this box. For your stupidity for making these litlle text boxes, I am now forced to c&p this response in all the boxes. Bad poll making guy, BAD! 400. The RIAA doesn't support anything unless they can gouge $$$$$$$$ from any given group. 401. As a Canadian, I am not familiar with the RIAA's effects on first Amendment right of American artists, but I tend to the opinion that they in all likelihood screw the artists no less in this regard than any other. 402. I hate to answer several questions with the same answer, but... The RIAA wants TOTAL CONTROL of ALL music distribution, pricing and control of all artists. They will toe the line or else. No indys, just RIAA "music" 403. Let's see:....... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the ,freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Nothing in here about Intellectual property - sorry. 404. RIAA is just selfish greedy bastards that can all crowd into a bus and drive off into the Grand Canyon. 405. Not exactly sure what the first amendment rights are but I'm sure the RIAA does not support them. 406. The RIAA exploits artists through routine cheating on royalties, bad contracts, and promotion of no-talent mainstream crap. 407. The artists don't need a label organization to protect their First Amendment rights. 408. Claims to support the rights as a distraction for financial practices 409. Thier interpretation for the First Amendment is to collect every cent for every art every viewed or heard. 410. It's not that I think the RIAA doesn't support the artist First Amendment rights, its just that their campaign is in no way an effort to support those rights. 411. From what I've read, some artists would actually prefer to have the option to deliver DRM free music online. This goes against every statement the RIAA has made on this topic. 412. Look at what happens when an artist tries to express themselve and leak a piece of work outside of the RIAAs little system. They FREAK OUT! They try and sue the artist. 413. bollox! 414. Perhaps indirectly. 415. The simple fact that the record labels hold the copyrights on artists' music is at odds with that statement. I can understand that when an artists signs a contract with a label, the label should hold distribution and/or licensing rights to the music for the duration of the contract, but the artist should own the copyrights on their work. 416. The RIAA is only incidentally concerned with artists, in so far as artists provide the material that the RIAA's members exploit for financial gain. If artists use their First Amendment rights to work against the RIAA and its members financial interests, I believe the RIAA would attempt to silence that artist. 417. the right is for freedom of speech. not the right to get rich off of songs. so long as the first amendment is in place and there is freedom of speech, the lawmakers are doing their job 418. O RLY? Let's have someone do a cover of a tune they claim and see how long it takes them to start sharking. 419. riaa supports riaa. i support the right to stfu. :) 420. They should read the first ammendment then. 421. They stifle innovation and homogenize the music scene. 422. The RIAA supports the corp. interests of record labels. 423. I dunno what the First Amendment Rights of Artists are. Sorry. 424. I don't even have the energy to respond to such hypocrisy any longer. 425. I don't know enough to answer either way. 426. I think they do. 427. Wrong on all accounts. 428. Horse sh.t 429. Contractual obligations, they've turned music into work for hire. It's paid speech with little substance to fulfill obligations. 430. They support their own pocketbooks. 431. Freedom of speech is not freedom of profit. If anything, they restrict the rights of artists who want to sample or alter existing music to create new music. 432. Could be true as a premise, but in action it's all twisted around. 433. I don't know enough about the first amendment (I am not American) but anythung that locks people into to something restrictive and crippling is not supporting their rights. 434. The RIAA represent sony emi etc, not the artists- they support the right of large corporations to make large profits out of artists work whilst the artists make little or nothing from the "revenue stream" provided by the corporations 435. it could care less as long as it gets to keep conrol 436. The RIAA creates a monopoly necessary for all artists and thereby takes the majority of CD revenue. 437. BUNKUM 438. Really? 439. Which artists? Oh, yeah . . . the ones making money for them. They don't give a rat's patooty about the rights of the up-and-coming artists that are inspired by the works the RIAA represents. Artists feed off of each other's creativity. Newer artists have always been inspired by and learned from established artists. The RIAA's actions seem to indicate that they'd like to short-circuit this natural process. 440. Artists can't take "their" music elsewhere. 441. For example the NIN situation that is currently happening. They chose to release certain singles to release hype, were completely successful in doing so, and now the RIAA is urging them to stop. 442. They support kicking artists in their collective balls/vagina's. 443. As an artist, if you buck the trend of the RIAA and their money making agenda, they will attempt to squash you. 444. it's all about the money. 445. They support the right to make a lot of money and not pass those billions of earnings on to consumers by lowering prices a bit. 446. I don't know any examples of them actually fighting censorship, defending freedom of speech. The issue is wholly unrelated to piracy/P2P. I imagine they had a purpose before lawsuitmania but it's been lost in the ether. 447. I really don't know... but I can't imagine the RIAA supports the artists for anything, unless it means money for themselves. 448. I've heard stories of artists being discouraged from speaking up on the issue if they are pro-sharing. 449. Huh, not sure I have ever heard them fighting for the artists they represent. 450. I don't recall Congress deigning their ability to talk, sing, or have a posse. 451. The major labels dictate when and how often their artists are allowed to record music, and then they assume ownership of all the recorded material. That doesn't equate to free speech to me. 452. Actually, this could be true but I think this is a vague question, with it depending on what you mean by First Amendment rights and "supports." But since I believe the RIAA does not care at all about artists, I can't imagine it would go out of its way to do anything useful for them. 453. Are you kidding? The only reason that the RIAA stands up for freedom of speech is because the only time freedom of speech becomes and issue is when someone is saying something controversial, and controversial sells like crazy. Back when the RIAA thought that they'd get boycotted for 2LiveCrew, they tried to censor them. It was only after it was clearly a money-maker that they lifted the ban. I guarantee you that if controversy started costing them sales, the black tape would come out in a heartbeat. 454. Again all they are caring about is money money money. 455. They support the "rights" of their own pocketbook. 456. Some artists. Those that can be persuaded to see things the RIAA way. 457. The RIAA supports the 1st amendment rights of artists that tow the line. Not those working outside the preexisting order. See Immortal Technique and others not signing record deals. 458. their rich 459. Then perhaps they should level their guns at the FCC instead of the fans. 460. It is still a coverup for what is really happening. 461. True as long as it's profitable. 462. THis has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment. And, what about artists from other countries? 463. Money? 464. The RIAA just fights for the record labels' money. 465. They wouldn't screw them with horrible deals if they did. 466. The RIAA just wants as much much money in the bank accounts as possible. Rights are meaningless to them unless it benefits them in court being used as a reason to sue you. 467. Im french . What is the first amendment? dont you think this is a worldwide concern and shouldnt be cornered to USA? 468. Money 469. Cant answer, don't know what it is 470. see answer above - bet they'd support any serial killer who murders kids, downloading and sharing music. (ok, maybe not the best of examples, but - scary thought - I think they might...) 471. the riaa supports crap, basically. preventing someone to use stuff basically is not what the first amendment says 472. the riaa cares only about money. 473. Then why are the big media conglomertates all the time ripping the artists off. 474. The RIAA are supporting their way of getting rich, not the artists. 475. RIAA is only interested in protecting there corporate clientes 476. RIAA just wants cash. that's it. 477. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!! can anyone say censorship. not the RIAA's fault though, its just that they are not realy for or against it, if tommarow they could not make a dime by supporting it and they had to change there official status to non suportive, dont you think they would? 478. Sometimes the label makes the artist change the look of the artwork because it's not marketable. The artist gets pissed because the original artwork is a symbol of expression. They probably do that with the music too. 479. um, no 480. they're all about censorship 481. liars 482. I say false because i seem to recall the RIAA being done for price fixing before. Now i admit, this isnt a breach of the First Amendment, but it shows they are quite willing to stoop to dirty tricks (as if suing dead people and kids and grandparents isnt already dirty) as long as they can get away with it. I have no doubt whatsoever they would breach every amendment known to man if they though they could make more millions and get away with it. 483. still about the $$ 484. If they would provide evidence that the artist is actually receiving the money, this is a false statement. 485. The RIAA only supports racketeering and greed for itself. Copyrights should only last 15 years. 486. BS 487. The pay them 488. They support the "copyright" of the artist's work. 489. refer to above... 490. no comment 491. riaa, kiss my ass 492. The first amendment is not meant to restrict the rights of others. 493. I don't know what an "amendment" is, or if I've even got one. I'm just an artist. That's like a person. I've been creating music for over 50 years now and I personally don't care if the RIAA supports anything. If the cat supports the local vet, should the mouse care? 494. RIAA is a bunch of stupid lawers who cant think in other ways as lobby and legal threats. They are scum. 495. The RIAA extorts artists at ridiculous prices, by use of copyright. 496. Publicly that's nice to say, but I have yet to see them give a damn about anyone's rights. 497. RIAA supports the "rights" of large companies to obscene profits. 498. Nope. They invade the rights of individuals to make examples of them so others cower in fear. 499. They support their right for money. 500. Is this even related? FCC "regulates" our free speech. 501. Give me a break!!! 502. I'm not an American nor am I well-versed in American Law and the like, so i cannot comment on this 503. Kinda in the middle, freedom of speech is available for anyone to hear, and if you can't access it, you can't hear it so you don't have freedom of speech. 504. what about consumers? 505. Sending DMCA notices to sites hosting songs purposely leaked by NIN is preventing Trent Reznor from promoting his albums in the way he sees fit. 506. They just claim to support it to make themselves look good. 507. The artists doesn't make enough from the RIAA 508. The RIAA is nothing but a thugish pressure group for a monopolistic cartel who's only interest is their own profits. They only care about artists as far as they make money for them. 509. copyrights and ownership are not part of the first amendment 510. The RIAA want complete control of all media. 511. Who are they answering for? Canadian labels have spoken out against it, with Canadian labels paying for those victems being sued (example Avril lavigne's label) 512. You don't sick swat teams on unsuspecting DJs if you value the first amendment. 513. they support the grabbing of obnoxious amounts of cash 514. They have shown time and again how they stiffle what the artists wish to say about the lawsuits. More artists would speak up if they didn't fear retirbution from the labels. 515. they rip them off also 516. The RIAA is only self serving. Their actions speak for themselves and they don't include the rights of others... they could care less... 517. The recent NIN controversy shows that they do not. 518. The only rights the RIAA supports are the rights of their corrupt, bloated, and obsolete cartel to make obscene profits by any and all means. 519. they dare say that, after the exploitation that we have experienced. if you look back at music history im not talking commerical music history im talking 100s of years, you will see that music wasnt about money or profit, or copyright, or any right, it was about music. 520. RIAA sux 521. The RIAA: Supports making themselves for money. 522. contracts 523. Riaa supports one thing and that is riaa 524. Limiting some musicians ability to get popular and draconian contracts hardly promotes free speech. The Internet does. 525. They(the artists) are prohibited through their contracts to speak ill of their label else be threatened with a breech of contract lawsuit. 526. The RIAA has also fought to lower royalties payments to artist. They are fighting for the record companies and their own survival. 527. The RIAA: Supports the First Amendment rights of old white men in suits. (Fixed that typo for you.) 528. No they are a fucked up lobbying organization that only cares about themselfes 529. RIAA protects the financial interests of the Record Companies that solicit it to do so through membership. The Constitution protects everybody's 1st Amendment Rights and the ACLU will file suit on anyone's behalf. 530. they treat them like shit 531. I'm not from the USA, so I am not familiar with the Bill of Rights. 532. Have you seen this: http://www.arrogantics.com/2007/04/04/nin-deliberately-leaks-music-from-new-album-riaa-doesnt-care/ They don't give a fuck about what the artist wants. 533. based in Europe - not applicable 534. First Amendment? Sorry, this is the Internet, the Internet is world wide, the world is bigger than America and i dont know the laws of that country because i shouldnt need to. 535. it's all a coverup to maintain the proffits, they don't care about the artists 536. The RIAA isn't what allows artists to speak their mind; the artists are doing that anyway. The RIAA supports profiteering off of these artists. 537. They OWN the artist. 538. I suppose you mean the freedom of speech part, as the other parts of the first amendment don't really apply. It's actively suppressing those rights in the case of artists that don't agree with it's stance on downloading and copying. 539. I'm not from the US, so this means nothing to me. Forward the revolution! 540. they don't put out what they don't think will sell 541. The major labels get to exercise editorial control over what goes into songs and albums. 542. The RIAA only seem to support the page of somebody elses cheque book. 543. who cares about a "Amendment rights of artists" like i have already said. its music goddamn it! RIAA is fucked because they turned music into a business and now they are falling. music is about performance, not sold tracks 544. RIAA supports the artists like the mob supports the small grocery store owner who pays them "protection" money. 545. It only seeks to protect the wallets of music industry executives. 546. as soon a a artist gives an opinion which they dont like they can them! 547. The RIAA would not support or allow the release of a record (if an artist was signed to one of their companies) that would go against the RIAA's message to the world. 548. it just doesn't make sense. 549. As long as it make them money, other wise they would rather it was not there 550. like the Dixie Chicks? 551. One thing that truly fights that is THE 1ST ADMENDMENT. 2nd thing is this only works in the USA the 1st and the RIAA can not help the artist outside the USA. 552. The RIAA is out of touch with the constitution, and law in general. 553. Westerners always lie. It's their germanic genetic fault I guess. Anyway I dont believe a word of Germanic. My tradition tell me that the only thing you can expect from Germanics is a knife in your back, when they PRETEND to be your firend. 554. See answer to question 11. 555. The RIAA has time and again displayed what is important to them. It's not the artist, its the cartels. What happened to the blank recording media fee that is still being charged this day from back in the days of cassettes? It was billed during passage to go to the artists, yet still today not one dime has. These cartels are in it for the greed, not for the artist. It can be readily seen everytime they do something. It is never for the artists themselves that something is done, there is always a motive other than that and often is contrary to the rights of artists. 556. Hah. They are just out for big money and big business. 557. read it 558. The RIAA supports the first amendment purely because they know that this will mean greater sales for them and the generation of a feeling of security for their artists, which in return translates to greater profits for them. 559. If they did that they wouldn't be sueing innocent people. 560. dont know so RIAA are innocent until proven guilty. 561. Labels bow to pressure of the likes of Wal-mart who only sells clean copies of cd's. If artist's first amendment rights were being protected, there would be no "Obscene COntent" warning label, and all recording contracts would require the artist to give the final ok to mass-produce the album, not a producer or exec 562. By bullying ang extorting consumers. 563. They wont sign them if they dont like thier lyrics or songs .... the artists have no true freedom of speech ... if someone came out with a song "FUCK THE RIAA", you can garuntee that it would not be "ALLOWED" to be released ... they give the illusion of free speech ``Night_raid 564. In my opinion, the labels are more concerned with sales, even if that means making an artist do something they didn't want to do. 565. They support only their business, nothing else. 566. See answer 15 and answer 17. Nothing they say is true. All they care about is money for the corporations, not the artists. 567. driven totally by money 568. They care more about the money they can earn in lawsuits. 569. On the contrary, there is documented proof that the RIAA has tried to silence artists who speak out against them. 570. they support the money, not the artist. 571. They only support the rights of the artists that make them money. They don't support the ones that are not profitable. 572. I don't know what the First Amendment means for artists, as I'm not from the US. I doubt the RIAA supports it though, as one of its major business strategies is screwing over the artists. 573. The freedom of musical expression is restricted by the RIAA. 574. Oh they'll support the artist's first amendment rights.. so long as they are bound contractulary to the RIAA for the rest of their life into giving up their first amendment rights as well as their means for making an effective living. 575. He is no aid to the artists. 576. the RIAA will bend every law in the book if they think they can make money and get away with it. 577. Nothing they do supports that conclusion. They are crooks. 578. If they dont let the artist own his or her music they dont support free speech in any sense 579. only if lines the riaa pockets i don't thing they give a damn about the artists 580. I'm boggled. What could the RIAA possibly have to do with freedom of speech? 581. Oh come on... 582. supports the riaa's right to rip artists off. 583. HOW do they do that? And I support the First Amendment rights of thugs like the RIAA. (This is a classic example of the "glittering generality" propaganda tactic.) 584. They support only what will secure them product to push. 585. The RIAA is a propaganda organization trying to convince people that they should pay for music everytime the listen to it. If they had their way, there would be no ownership of music. You'd have to pay for a home version, a car version, a walkman version, etc. of the same song. 586. The RIAA is a business like any other. Their thought is for the bottom line. Wilco's "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" anyone? They are willing to sign bands to exploitive contracts to make sure that they (RIAA) come out on top. Granted, bands should have a lawyer present... 587. Have you heard more than a few artists say anything about what's going on with these lawsuits? Reason: their labels and reps are pressuring them to keep their mouths shut and stifling their legal right to talk. 588. Bands are censored all the damn time, and I do not like it. 589. I guess? 590. i have no reason to argue against this... 591. The RIAA supports the enrichment of their member companies. 592. Yeah right, they're in it definitely not for the money.... 593. It allows people to make money. 594. Depends on the artist. They only support those who are under the major labels. 595. the riaa supports sueing children,dead people,blind people they belong in a sifi monster movie 596. NO WAY!!!! They will rob them blind if they could. And probably do already. 597. IF it did, it would support the artists who don't want to sue. 598. The big four sensor the artists by choosing to promote only artists that appeal to them. 599. Everything the RIAA says is false. 600. The RIAA supports only their own interests. 601. They've long screwed artists if they think they're losing money. 602. The artists have little or no say in how their material is promoted 603. The record companies add NOTHING to the music that is worthy of the monetary penalty they heap on consumers. I believe, and the facts DO appear to bear this out, that artists themselves would be MUCH BETTER served financially by marketing directly to consumers over the web. The Record Companies are simply middle-men who act to PREVENT the free and easy exchange of artistic product. The RIAA is a dinosaur who apparently didn't receive his own copy of the memo -- the dinosaurs died out 65 Million years ago when an asteroid or comet struck what is now part of the Gulf of Mexico. WAKE UP -- YOU'RE DEAD ALREADY! 604. The RIAA and the labels it represents has shelfed artist depriving them of free speech because they decided they are not marketable or ran conter the image they wanted.

The RIAA: Fights to preserve freedom of speech.

Total Responses: 1,032 True   9.7%  (100) False   88.5%  (913)

If you've answered False to the question above, how do you see things?

Total Responses: 692 1. duplicate question 2. That's not their reason, it's a byproduct. 3. Nazi-like McCarthyism bullying tactics prove to the public who they really are trying to emulate. 4. Many "artists" on major labels are expected to conform to certain musical and lyrical conventions to maintain album sales or be popular, so no. 5. See above 6. The RIAA doesn't care about freedom of speech one way or the other. Their only interest is corporate revenue and profit. 7. they aim to build a monopoly to quash freedom of speech 8. The RIAA fights to preserve the record-industry and their money. Freedom of speach is in free information. 9. Then why are explicit lyric sticker places on cd's? 10. manifest: its suppression of "fair use" mechanisms and intermodality put the lie to this asertion 11. Already stated, but they are preventing the spreading of the age old method of peer-2-peer. Which works 10 times better than advertising, which frankly is rather invasive in more cases than not. 12. Only as long as their is money to be made. 13. To share is freedom? 14. people sample copyrighted works to create new and different works, but with current laws this is illegal. 15. False 16. They can still get their ideas out there even if they aren't being promoted by a major label. The RIAA might even restrict free speech by only promoting certain types of music to the airwaves. 17. As long as the speech is supportive of their position 18. If the RIAA fought to preserve freedom of speech they would stop suing people for just criticizing the RIAA. The RIAA fights for anything that makes them money. Nothing more and nothing less. 19. If they did they would give more artists a voice. 20. They often champion censoring their artists. 21. see above. its all about preserving emi's profits and bullying the consumer to pay bullshit prices for cd's 22. Yes - sue the bastards; that'll tell them to shut up. 23. Same question as above really. 24. They could care less about our freedom of speech. The point is a distraction from the issue at hand. 25. see above. 26. And the Ku Klux Klan fights for black power. 27. Are you kidding? 28. you dont get a word in only they do .... 29. Truth; The RIAA fights to preserve freedom of speach of the major record companies (ie: Wall Street investors) Again, artists be damned. 30. see answer to question 19 31. >_> That's not relevant at all. 32. They fight to keep thier anachronistic business model alive. 33. The RIAA fights to put a price tag on free speech. 34. money 35. Freedom of speech is not enhanced by restricting access to music and lyrics. Would a record company permit an artist to offer their music to consumers via online download for no charge? This only happens when a contract is no longer valid and the record company cannot control the artist any longer. 36. Except when it affects them or their clients in a negative way 37. Blanket lawsuits do nothing to preserve freedom of speech. 38. Threatening lyric sites with DMCA takedown notices and further legal action is contrary to the principal of freedom of speech. 39. They support freedom of speech as long as it's not daming to them. 40. I'm not aware of any action the RIAA has taken to preserve freedom of speech. 41. thats a lie. 42. screwed up. 43. See above....They support themselves getting richer by taking advantage of the artist in any way possible. They support an image, the image that they do no wrong and are the victims here. The artists are the only victims, while these lawyers collect cash. 44. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with copyrights. If this were true why do those that get subpoena need to sign non-discloser agreements? 45. They are attempting to limit sharing of information on the internet. That seems to be working against freedom of speech. 46. Ummmmm, no. All they seem to be doing is trying to stifle others freedoms by trying to circumvent legal processes such as subpoenas and evidence. 47. they fight so that they can take as much money home as possible. they dotn care about the bands. they care about themselves. 48. The RIAA has nothing to do with the freedom of speech. 49. Like they really give a shit, they want all our money. 50. Disagree with the RIAA, get sued. 51. As above, what does freedom of speech have to do with anything? 52. Just, No. 53. RIAA sucks 54. see 19 55. The RIAA tried to get Listen4ever.com blocked... free speech huh? 56. Their associated lawyers do not act in this manner when they sue people for wrongful infringement. 57. freedom isnt free anymore 58. Money 59. You preserve freedom of speech?? Fuck you if you really pretend this! 60. many artists have more freedom of speech when not constricted by the censors of the riaa. 61. they sue people 62. RIAA fights for whatever speech their marketing analyzers have determined are the most profitable. 63. RIAA is fighting hard to CENSOR freedom of speech by trying to make public services such as P2P not legal, these are the only realistic means in which non-RIAA-signed artists could be able to get their music out to the public and become sucesful. This is the real fear of the RIAA - not loosing a few potential sales to P2P downloaders, but that future artists won't need to sign contracts to RIAA member companies because they will have other new was to make their music heard. 64. see above. 65. to these cretins free speech means they cannot charge for it, which is against their principles 66. If it was truly freedom of speech, there would be no copyright law. 67. Only to a degree that suits the record companies. 68. RIAA = Whores 69. RIAA = bunch of theives and liers 70. they fight for the $$$$ 71. The RIAA fights to preserve its monotary interests and nothing more. 72. TheRIAA supports freedom of speech for itself and its clients - It seeks to quash such rights for everyone else 73. Monoply - Kill Internet Radio 74. not if it cannot be retransmitted 75. The RIAA prevents people from freely expressing themselves by binding up art in DRM and copyright laws. 76. How is brutally supressing new file-sharing technology "supporting" freedom of speech? 77. They're silencing everyone from the artist to the consumer. 78. Um I dont think they do either. 79. It's only the RIAA money the RIAA is concerned about. They are only concerned about THEIR free speech. 80. As long as it isn't hurting them. They are busy attacking freedom of speech in cases like Ed Felton, or the numerous other DMCA lawsuits. 81. To the contrary, they fight freedom by trying to ban legitimate media over one of its uses. 82. Fights who? 83. I have never heard that said. 84. they ignore everyone and pay off lobbyists to get their way with bills and laws 85. WTF? My perception is that they are only about seeking to protect record labels. Free speech is not curtailed by file sharing. 86. The RIAA uses scare tactics in order to accomplish it's goals. It illegally searches computers and traces data, filing random lawsuits to scare people out of taking a stand against them. 87. Bullshit. Songs can be powerful, and sharing them freely with others is an expression of free speech. The RIAA seeks to prohibit this expression. 88. See Above. 89. how is that 90. Sorry, how many albums have i heard whith censored spots? How many stories I have heard about artists being 'guided' (coerced) into strategic decisions that they are uneasy about or flat didnt want? 91. It just fights speech. 92. Only the artists who fall under the MAFIAA’s monopolistic protection and pay their fees are being protected by them. The rights of individuals are not being protected. 93. They fight to keep thing in there favor. 94. Freedom of speech is distributing this speech too. 95. The RIAA knows nothing of freedom of speech. 96. The RIAA see it their way and their way only. 97. Bullshit. The only thing they fight to protect is their huge profits. 98. Freedom of speech? They don't seem to have done anything at all to promote artists from speaking their mind, and have single-handedly overpowered or put down those who disagree with their tactics. That doesn't seem like promoting fairness and freedom of speech to me. 99. The RIAA fights to get more money. 100. I guess I needed the RIAA's fight for freedom of speech to make sure what I say here. 101. My freedom of speech would be to quote works. Great speech writers throughout all of history quote other people and works. Often they would quote works without giving credit to the original. Today I believe if credit is given I should be allowed to quote or use music to my liking. 102. Pretty obvious they don't. 103. By attempting to stop P2P programs they are limiting freedom of speech. 104. ermm how many ppl have they sued for voicing their freedom of speech? 105. It exists to protect itself, promote itself, and to screw the consumer. 106. Same answer as 17 107. Again I have no idea how anything RIAA does preserves anyone's freedom of speech. 108. RIAA are the real music pirates 109. Then why don't they fight the FCC that controls censorship on TV. Why don't they support citizens who are fighting "first amendment fights." They try to warp the first amendment for their own means. 110. See above. 111. How? 112. By fighting the spread of culture and saying what culture expression we can share with friends is not "preserving freedom of speech". 113. They fight to stop the digital file sharing communities that have thrived since the early days of Napster. 114. There needs to be a third option, c. what the fuck? 115. They are a corporate entity, their job is to make money any way they can. 116. The RIAA doesn't fight for freedom of speech. It merely uses it to spread propaganda, and is still concerned about others using their right to freedom of speech where it's against the RIAA's interest. 117. again, copyright needs to change in a world of mass mass distribution, stop suing people and evolve 118. the music companies are making too much margin, are not prepared to adapt their business practices, and are trying to legislate to maintain the status quo. 119. Completely the opposite. 120. and apples are banana's.. 121. irrelevant question 122. How? 123. $$$ 124. No comment 125. LOL, it doesn't seem that way. 126. Neither. 127. They seem to just be bullies 128. When Warner spun off Interscope in exchange for getting the DMCA passed, that pretty much said it all. 129. The RIAA has nothing to do with this whatsoever. This is blatant, ridiculous spin. 130. You work to prevent me from even talking about artists without paying some kind of money. That's not freedom of speech. 131. fights for freedom to make tons of cash 132. nope read last comment. 133. they don't : they ensured the existence of the DMCA . the DMCA is being used be many people to silence critics ( see EFF for more info on that ) so they are indirectly responsable for the decrease in freedom of speech . Also , EFF fights for freedom of speech and against the RIAA . 134. Well, maybe it does, but I only hear and read about its fight to preserve its money. 135. The definition which best benefits them. We are slaves they are the masters I guess some people could come up with some twisted scenario where this is freedom of speech but I don't see it this way. 136. How can they be preserving the freedom of speech when they use bullying tactics to silence people they sue? 137. The RIAA fights to further restrict fair use rights. Thereby denying other rights. 138. RIAA's activities have nothing to do with the freedom of speech - they are seeking to keep a 1950's radio play for royalties business model functioning in a digital, radioless world. 139. Restricting anything does not promote freedom. 140. Again, their are protecting their own interests and the interests of the corporate partners. 141. controll is not freedom in any respect 142. The member companies of the RIAA dictate what music will be recorded and promoted. They also dictate what music will be sold in each country. This is not freedom of speech, this is censorship. 143. If so, why would they threaten to sue people who make file sharing programs? 144. Against 145. free speech can only be reduced by reducing peoples access to media. 146. They are fighting to preserve their profit margins, but will achieve the opposite 147. See 19. 148. Doesn't always seem that your regarding what the consumer cares about. Ie: i myself understand that shared music is a crime. Great, shut down P2P, im all for it. But i cant help but be annoyed at the Digital rights assigned to song ownership are absolutely silly! Many Legit websites only let you download there music and distribute it to DRM enabled players and limit the amount of transfers. Wheres the freedom of speech there? Its appearing that "the man" is pulling a fast one on the lesser. When does the greed ever stop? Music is for the people. You'd have my support if you trashed the DRM idea all together. Music is music; if i own it, i should be able to do whatever i want with it except resell it or distribute it over networks where i know it will be abused. 149. Suing people for outrageous amounts of money per song is not supporting free speech. 150. RIAA wants to make money, and nothing else matters to them. They would rather stop milions of people from listening than see their revenues drop by 1%. 151. Allofmp3.com should have the right to its own "speech". You should leave the site in peace you dogs. 152. Should someone get a dictionary and look-up "freedom"? RIAA is the biggest threat to our freedoms after KKK and Arian Nation. 153. No 154. Not recently, it hasn't... 155. The RIAA: Fights to destroy freedom of speech. 156. Personally, I think the people in charge of the RIAA are just trying to line their pockets and to do that they are subpoenaing everybody they can. But freedom of speech has nothing to do with buying music. 157. Yeah right. They're such hypocrites. Free speech for THEM, maybe. Throw everyone else in chains. 158. Absolutely not, look at how they handle court cases, look at how they handle websites issued with notices to stop sharing copyright works (they invariably place gagging orders). Look at the system they have put in place to deal with claims before they get to court. They are bullies who want to keep their activities below the radar of the public conciousness, unfortunately this isn't possible as demonstrated by a recent poll I saw which ranked them the most hated company in America 159. The RIAA supports the preservation of their income stream. 160. That's why they wanted to prevent every new technology that has come about like MP3 Players, VCRs, DVD Players etc. That's why they support DRM, an anti-free speech technology. 161. ...by litigating against students and children 162. They fight to preserve their dominance in a market where the times have moved beyond the need for the services they offer. 163. WTF does this have to do with music? 164. Fuck the RIAA 165. there are so many artists who want fans to download their music. example: nine inch nails 166. They don't 167. hm i again disagree.. its for the money 168. Not much to say here. They actually use speech against us. 169. The RIAA fights to prevent freedom of speech. 170. Some (not all) RIAA actions do exactly the opposite by trying to silence impopular voices (web sites). 171. umm free? 172. The RIAA fights to force people to buy as much of the record companies' profits by stifling "fair use" and free speech. Nothing more, nothing less. 173. What an absurd idea 174. From what I've seen, they do their best to prevent anything their victims say to reach the public... unless of course, it is 'I've learned my lesson and I won't download music illegally again'. 175. I don't see any relationship between what the RIAA does and freedom of speech. 176. dvd x copy was no more 177. what speech? 178. How? By marking up CDs 400%? 179. The RIAA fights to reduce freedom of speech. 180. they've stolen ours! 181. ...? 182. Only speech they're preserving is their own. 183. Stifles it. And won't even defend itself in court when called into question. 184. just irrelevant 185. The RIAA fights to preserve itself. 186. The RIAA represents record labels, not artist 187. No comment needed -- they propose and support changes to the law and technology that make the great firewall of China seem "liberal". 188. Freedom of the lawyers to make more moeny than anybody else...Yeah! 189. The RIAA fights to preserve their right to earn money immorally. 190. The RIAA represses freedom of speech. 191. They fight to scare people into believing what they believe. 192. The RIAA is concerned with controlling the marketplace and increasing profits, nothing more. 193. When? 194. riaa fights for riaa 195. The RIAA fights to put more money in their pockets. 196. same as above 197. They are abusing the freedom of speech and nothing that they are doing supports it. 198. A true statement would be: The RIAA fights to preserve its freedom of speech and fights to silence its opponents freedom of speech. 199. You fight to get paid and that is fair, but taking money for peoples right to speech is limiting freedom of speech. 200. they fight to preserve there bottom line. as soon as the artists realize they don't need the big 4, and sell there music themselves then they will still make a living and don't need the big 4 201. How is sueing those that share music playing a positive role in fighting freedom of speech. If someone gives someone else music they enjoy, isn't that also freedom of speech? 202. Not sure 203. There ought to be a 'dont know' option 204. i know of no actions taken by the RIAA that help preserve the freedom of speech. 205. the RIAA fights to make more money. 206. as long as freedom is defined as "whatever we say it is" then maybe you're right, they DO fight for freedom of speech! 207. RIAA is out to protect the record companies pockets. 208. They do not 209. Through copyright, RIAA try to stiffle Freedom of Speech. Without better Fair Use rights, one cannot have Free Speech. 210. I don't know that that is exactly what they're trying to do, they're concerned with their own money (since the RIAA is made up of a bunch of major label honchos) 211. They preserve their business, right, but to do this block the coming of new artist. The system is old and faulty. 212. Freedom of speech would be if all artists had the ability to foster their musical integrity. Currently only the major label artists are being assisted by the RIAA - although they would claim otherwise as the deviant media machine they are. 213. How can an organisation that supports "rights management" pretend to 'fight to preserve' freedom of _anything_? 214. Ha, this must be a joke, corporate profits is the only thing on their minds 215. How can that be? 216. If the RIAA "fights to preserve freedom of speech", then they won't mind me saying "FUCK YOU" to them. 217. They lie, but they expect everyone else to be honest (oh, and pay up). 218. Fights for their own profits. 219. see above they seek to limit freedom of speech by trying to control it for thier personal gain 220. The RIAA fights to preserve their wallet 221. Look at what they are doing. They are out of control and get away with it because the USA has a technologically illiterate and oblivious government. 222. They want money. 223. They fight to preserve their market dominance. 224. I haven't seen them once fight for Don Imus' right to say what he wants on his radio show let alone anyone else who's right to free speech has been trampled. 225. The RIAA fights to preserve the bottom line 226. They are more like whores not that honorable....freedom of speech is a by-product of their making money. 227. ? 228. Not to my knowledge....I never seen them in the media supporting their right to free speech. 229. Only by accident--the RIAA is about protecting the big labels. 230. Then why sue people, educate us of the true facts and figures and arguments. Then let us decide or don't they want free thought. 231. They fight to preserve their business model 232. Freedom of speech so long as it is in their best interest. 233. Same as 19. 234. I feel it thinks it does 235. Definitely not. The RIAA treats you like a criminal for listening to music. 236. do they? 237. The RIAA only fights to preserve their profits. 238. dirty crooks 239. The RIAA works against the disseminating of culture. 240. the riaa doesnt care about free speech. 241. How did they get to that idea - absolute insane 242. are we still talkin' about musis or about speach? :-) 243. BULLSHIT!! The only thing it cares is a money. And a piratism is a freedom of speech. 244. they're liars 245. See above. Freedom of speech is the freedom to share. I think that P2P file sharing is a way of speaking, but the RIAA in all their support for freedom of speech, attempt to stifle this technology. 246. Haha, the RIAA fights to try to maintain control so the record labels can get richer. 247. [see 19] 248. Yay, free. 249. Freedom of speech is being infringed by selective press reports. 250. They fight for the right to sell overpriced pieces of crap to consumers. Refusing to adapt or change their methodologys of medium / and or profit margins. 251. The RIAA: Fights to preserve high profit margins for themselves. 252. freedom of speech is not at issue here. 253. Not with the heavy handed techniques they use 254. .. as long as it falls in line with the riaa viewpoint 255. if freedom of speech. then we could share music 256. Well let the acts themselves have their say. 257. Bullshit 258. Spin 259. If they fight to preserve the freedom of speech, they wouldn't be suing people for sharing music, which is protected by the 1st Amendment. 260. The only thing RIAA fights for is money they don't deserve. 261. Fights to sue kids out of their parent's money 262. Ha! Freedom of speech... They're doing their best to silence us with lawsuits. "There's no law of the market - there's only OUR law: profit" "We don't care what the users want" That's what they think. How could they listen to us? 263. If that statement is true, why can Wal-mart keep demanding that artists change lyrics to suit them? 264. Big lawyers and big money for RIAA, where are the artist? 265. Lies. Damn lies. The RIAA is a tool of the industry, funded by them, it's only reason for existence is to be their hitman. It is active on naught but the 'right' of these companies to turn a blind eye to their artists and their companies and the ideals of *true* copyright, citizenship and music. 266. The RIAA fights to abuse law and cripple their own consumers. Hitler would do fine as the RIAA Leader, instead of going after Jews he would go after college students and dead people. 267. If this is on their agenda, I am not aware of it. 268. Restrict the flow of ideas. 269. see 19. 270. They're controlling ...... 271. THe riaa/mpaa fights to preserve the riaa/mpaa. 272. They don't fight for it. 273. And? 274. the just are censor to the freedom of thinking 275. dont make me laugh 276. A fallacy of being to widely defined statement from what they do. 277. The RIAA fights for money and control. 278. See above. 279. ^ See above. 280. Money grubs in big music business couldn't give a damn about freedom of speech, yours, mine or anyone elses. 281. Total and utter garbage. Look what it's doing to anyone who disagrees. 282. See #19. 283. The RIAA doesn't seem to fight for freedom of speech. It seems to fight for the rights of musicians and companies. 284. They are afraid their business model needs a serious change. no longer are there production costs associated with music. just as many jobs are lost to technology. evolve or get left behind. 285. See above 286. Again only when it gets them a profit, 287. The RIAA has shown a preference toward silencing anyone who opposes them. 288. By curbing every other freedom and technology that comes in their way. 289. Their way or no way 290. I see the RIAA as a corrupt cartel. Artists have been very successful selling their music under their own independent labels. Regardless, record sales have nothing to do with first amendment rights. If the RIAA supports anything, it supports making money off of the very artists it claims to protect. 291. RIAA is a maggot feeding on the rotting corpse of middlemen that are no longer needed. 292. Whose freedom? 293. while they may not censor the artists music they are stopping the people who are file sharing which in a way can be expressing their own freedom of speech in that music should be for simple entertainment and that to try and put a price on entertainment such as music is wrong. 294. for maximizing profits 295. I don't see te RIAA fighting for freedom of speech. They do fight for their money. 296. It actually does the opposite: controlling all the mass media outlets, it can decide what goes and what doesn't go out to the mass market. 297. If they truly said what they meant, they'd let us share files, don't sue us, adapt or die... 298. You can't be serious! 299. As long as you say what they want you to say. 300. The RIAA will only preserve free speech if it's in their favor, not against them. 301. I guess that by some convoluted logic they think that blocking sales of CD's (speech) preserves free speech for the artist. 302. I have not heard anything about the RIAA doing this. I have heard mostly about them going after money. 303. The RIAA: Fights to preserve their fat wallets 304. The RIAA fights to preserve the traditional business models of recording companies, a business model which requires the maintenance of such high revenues and margins that there is little room for freedom of expression in an artist's music - it has to be shaped and moulded by whatever their PR/marketing departments decide will sell best to the largest proportion of the target demographic. The obscene amount of money they make from this activity allows them to obscure alternative works through sheer promotional marketing power. 305. Screwed 306. The RIAA is just in business to squash the consumer and make more money for everyone involved. 307. Freedom is a word that can not be associated with the RIAA I'm afraid. They own a huge monopoly is the music business. No wonder, they do not give a damn about the consumers point of view. 308. I don't see how 309. Until you clearly articulate the filthy nature of groups like the RIAA... Seriously..folks, no one can strip away the bill of rights and no one agency can save them. 310. They wouldn't be raiding homes of popular DJs if they supported such rights. 311. I have no evidence of this. 312. This is similar to my answer for 17. The RIAA is fighting for the major labels. Period. 313. I don't see how freedom of speech is applicable to the RIAA. What do they do to foster this? 314. Heh, RIAA represses fair use of copyright works. 315. see above ... 316. see 19 317. I see no such cases. 318. Artists can do that for themselves. The RIAA is just there to make money. 319. They stifle their opposition and have done nothing notable to preserve the freedom of speech. Again, this is not in their interest, except perhaps to defend those speaking out in their favor. 320. They're stifling free speech and expression. 321. The RIAA fights to limit the rights of the consumers of the music industry. 322. rubbish, everyone fights for that right. 323. see above 324. I think that is evident by all the takedown notices and law suites. 325. They are doing the opposite! 326. Only in their own interest. 327. By fighting fair use? 328. this is a convenient advertising angle to reel in the young and seemingly angry and disaffected population 329. People are prevented from mixing. Aritists have to do what the record companies want them to. Music is sold online wrapped in DRM. 330. Nothing the RIAA fights to preserve will ever be free. If they could enforce charging for speech, they would. 331. Same answer 332. . 333. If the record companies didn't pick up an artist in the past, how was their voices / music heard? The internet gives the next generation of breaking through without being stifled by the record industry. The Arctic Monkeys made it big on their own without record industry control. Therefore, they didn't make money out of them. 334. They do not fight for freedom of speech, they fight for the profit of their controlling corporations, nothing more. 335. Since when? What does being greedy and money focused have to do with anything close to freedom of speech? How? 336. Complete nonsense! the RIAA secure financial comfort for themselves and all those related to the industry. No one has freedom once money is involved, least of the consumer. 337. If that was true they wouldn't seek to silence some of the court cases. 338. see above 339. RIAA has never been interested in "free" speech 340. perhaps true, if it said ' the freedom of speech...of those that can afford it' 341. You can't fight for one freedom by doing away with another 342. WHAT A NON SENSE STATEMENT. THERE IS NOT ANY FREEDOM WHEN YOU HAVE TO PAY LISTEN WHAT OTHERS HAVE TO SAY. 343. Their freedom of pricing 344. It's not in their best interest. 345. If so, I havn't heard anything about it. 346. Whatever thats not true I always feel like I have no freedom of speech thank to them!!! 347. Ditto (see above). 348. If it goes against the leanings of the public or government, the RIAA will censor an artist so that they can keep control and regulation over the music industry. 349. RIAA fights to preserve freedom of money into deep pockets. 350. they fight to maintain the status quo in spite of a changing world. 351. Those who are genuinely talented artists are bound by rules they sign regarding copyright 352. They fight to fill their pockets. 353. They fight to preserve the companies they serve. 354. This is so bizarre that I don't know how to dispute it! 355. LABELLING CDs? C'mon! 356. Just for the music industry 357. Ahem. *bulls*t* choke *cough*. 358. See Q17 359. How is this possible. 360. I feel that the RIAA is against everyone that they feel is not giving them a share of the monies. 361. artists fight to preserve freedom of speech, the RIAA attempts to make money from that. 362. The RIAA fights to line their own pockets. They dont give a rat's ass about any such freedoms. 363. Doubt it, they control the artists output. 364. Nah, I don't see it that way. Are they fighting for my freedom of speech? No, I don't think so. They're fighting to keep the money out of my pocket... 365. bullshit 366. They are fighting to protect their content and their monopoly. 367. RIAA is enguaged in extorsion 368. The RIAA fights to preserve a lost status quo in which consumers would pay whatever the ridiculous markup was on music in digital form. 369. The RIAA fights freedom of speech by trying to destroy a means of unsigned and unpopular artists from reaching the world. 370. The RIAA are interested in suppression of information, not in sharing. 371. How does piracy restrict freedom of speech? 372. They only fight to preserve anything if that something is making them money, and they see a threat to it. 373. They are preventing people from choosing how they want to aquire their music. 374. They fight to preserve what they feel will sell, regardless of the quality of the product or the harm done to society. 375. The RIAA only cares for money, not freedom, much less of speech. 376. What about my freedoms?? 377. the riaa preserves the right to make money off of free speech. 378. They disseminate propaganda at almost any opportunity. 379. I'm not sure what freedom of speech has to do with this. 380. Does it matter? The First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the U.S. government, and only in the U.S. The RIAA has nothing to do with artists presenting their perspectives through their recordings. The RIAA should be abolished. 381. Why would a large corporation fight for the people? It's much more advantageous financially to speak on their behalf and make all of their choices which are most cost effective of course. 382. See previous answer, and what they seem to imply in various letters, websites, and documents that try to prevent people from going to court and having their proper say in freedoms. 383. They are limiting the format and ability to share information. 384. The RIAA only cares about money. 385. if they support NWA and songs like "Fuck the police" then ok... but i'm not sure their stand on that 386. parental advisory stickers 387. The RIAA fights for its dollars, no matter the cost to the quality of the music being produced. 388. lame! 389. RIAA fights to preserve interests of labels only 390. They fight verciforously for their own right to speak over all other opinion 391. Unless you are an artist that fits the RIAA mold of what they want to sell, you will never get your product into the channel. 392. dare not say anything in fear of getting sued 393. They violate them by hindering fair-rights-use. 394. freedom of speech may be a nice phrase to use for publicity. but honestly, how does it relate to the music business? i don't see that. 395. The RIAA is attempting to make us stfu, sit down and listen to the same CD a hundred times in a row. lesigh. 396. Artists that speak out against the RIAA don't get airtime and don't get recording contracts. Especially true of "uncnown" artists. 397. riaa is in business, only to make a buck, and should be, just don't lie about it, for press releases 398. depends on who's speaking 399. see 19 400. Four words: Parents Music Resource Council. 401. the riaa only allows music they sees fit to release not the artist 402. p2p is also about freedom 403. limits on fileshareing limits freedom of speach 404. As I said already, to the RIAA it's about money and nothing else. 405. ROTFLOL!!!!!! Freedom of speech => freedom of information => filesharing! 406. What's the relationship between copyrights due and freedom of speech? Next thing they'll say they cure cancer! 407. I just don't see them doing it. Well they not only fight to stop infringement but they also try to impose more regulations on small independent broadcasters and continually exclude independent artists from recieving any airtime. 408. Makin it worse 409. I guarantee you not many people will get sued for downloading ICP or Rahowa. 410. See above! 411. Freedom? I guess I'm a terrorist since I don't support that form of freedom. 412. Filesharing is freedom 413. . 414. So many people are trying to hinder free speech it's scary. Too many skeletons. Too many shinanegan are going on. Shhhhhhh. Don't anybody talk. I'll submit this survey and do the rest tomorrow. 415. The RIAA seeks to control freedom of speech in their own best (financial) interest. 416. Irrelevant. This is about art and commerce, not about free speech. 417. Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. 418. Filesharing does not infringe on the artist rights to free speech. Thats just stupid. 419. See 19. 420. They may have at one time, but now they are hellbent on doing things their way, even if it doesn't work any more. 421. By working to turn copyright into a property right, the RIAA, in tandem with the MPAA, works to prevent me from exercising editorial free speech. I can not re-order and re-present the media landscape I inhabit. 422. FIRST !!!!! They scary I going for free ,new, not nown musician and artists.They like controll whot I gona be liked. 423. I don't see 1st amendment rights at issue in the record industry in regard to p2p. Censorship at the state level is the major concern, and there are interest groups much better positioned than the RIAA to police artists' 1st amendment rights. 424. not inovation 425. no. 426. I can see no link between MPAA and the concept of freedom of speech. Seriously, where's the link? 427. this would be true except, if anything said was copyrighted material they would sue based on infrigment 428. Do they? What about when someone uses copyrighted samples in their songs. Or the freedom to do what you want with your music once you own it? 429. Artists' rights to their creations are secondary to the rights of the record companies that control these artists (which the RIAA is primarily concerned with supporting). 430. The RIAA: Fighting Freedom. 431. so how come the boycottriaa site is down {still} 432. The RIAA fights to preserve a steady cash flow for a bunch of old farts who can't get with the times. 433. Is that a trick question or something? Is 'true' even an option? 434. If they supported Freedom of Speech we wouldn't have to put up with DRM on every download 435. The RIAA fights to restrict freedom of speech. How can you say that limiting the audience is freedom of expression? It's not freedom of speech if I can't hear it. 436. Only when it suits them, like trying to protect gangsta rap lyrics 437. How does the RIAA fight to preserve freedom of speech? I thnk that the RIAA fights to take as many rights away from anyone as they possibly can. 438. internet is more likely to preserve freedom of speech : free, available for all creations can boost an artist's sales and make their creations widely known 439. Edgar Bronfman, the music industry's biggest mogul, is also the head of the World Jewish Congress as well as having leadership positions on other pro-zionist pressure groups. Although his label's music promotes most every vice and vile behavior imaginable - in the purported interest of free speech and "artistic expression" - anything deemed as being against the interests of Zionism (such as displaying sympathy for Palestinian suffering) is not tolerated. 440. Your kidding right? 441. they only play so called in music 442. Cant explain 443. LOL... Bill Gates supports open source, I hear. 444. The RIAA is working to prevent freedom of expression by preventing others from hearing artists' expression. 445. If it were really true, then why are they suing the pants off anyone they can find with a computer? Really now, suing DOGS & grandparents who don't even OWN a computer? Who died & made the RIAA GOD?????? 446. Freedom of speech doesn't include the internet anymore? 447. :P 448. Only their own. The rest of us are on our own. Remember, this is the United States. Free speach is only for those who have the means to speak. The more money you have, the more people can here you. Only millionares get to hold political office. 449. Freedom is incompatible with a big-capitalist-industries-dominated world. Freedom is organic. 450. See answer to 19 451. Parntal Advisory 452. RIAA fights to control what they can't control. 453. Same as the answer for question 20. 454. they are preserving thier riches 455. They fight to restrict the freedom of speech to make sure their clients get their money and the public does what they say to do. instead they should be working with the artist and the file sharer to make money without demanding it. E.G. monthy billed unlimited Itunes downloads...ppl would jump on that...ad driven HD streaming content from the producers of all content. etc. etc..... 456. The RIAA has no idea what "freedom of speech" even means. 457. Free speech has nothing to do with music. The RIAA could care less about free speech. They only care about profit from their business interests. If you get in the way of that interest, may your god help you... 458. fights for $$$ 459. Stop making me type in this box. For your stupidity for making these litlle text boxes, I am now forced to c&p this response in all the boxes. Bad poll making guy, BAD! 460. The RIAA fights to get their coin-operated politicians to outlaw new technologies. 461. I've never seen them fight for it so I can't say they have 462. Same answer as above. 463. hate to answer several questions with the same answer, but... The RIAA wants TOTAL CONTROL of ALL music distribution, pricing and control of all artists. They will toe the line or else. No indys, just RIAA "music" 464. RIAA stops people from distributing music. It does nothing for freedom of speech - unless to stop people hearing stuff said in popular music. 465. they are about wanting money. 466. The RIAA uses whatever means are at its disposal to bluntly enforce its IP rights. Should this imperative conflict with free speech rights the RIAA wouldn't think twice. 467. RIAA seeks to suppress the free flow of information on the internet through overly restrictive copyright laws. 468. See 19 above. 469. Then explain edited releases. There is no justificaiton for this. 470. Although they give the rights to others to speak, they never dignify any populace-owed explanations. 471. Same as above, this is in no way a defense of freedom of speech. This is about money and control. We are not stealing from them, if I am offered something at a fair price I will buy it. $20 for a cd is ridiculous 472. DRM/DMCA is inherently against free speech. The RIAA fights tooth and nail to enforce and expand DRM/DMCA. 473. as long as you sing our tune. 474. The RIAA may defend the speech of a select few, but freedom of speech is meaningless unless they are promoting it for all. 475. I think my statement on the previous question, coupled with the deluge of lawsuits the RIAA has filed against the people they want to be their customers proves that the RIAA does not support freedom of speech. 476. The RIAA fights to preserve monopolies on music distribution that were established in the pre-digital era and are having trouble being maintained in the face of low-cost distribution options for new artists. 477. the riaa fights to preserve itself 478. I don't believe I can even yell "Freebird" and not get sued for copyright infringement. 479. freedom of speech is not preserved by regulation, restriction, censorship or monopoly. 480. Along the same lines you could say, if speech is free. That would make possession theft. That would make copyrights theft. That would mean a copyright restricts freedoms. 481. The RIAA has never stood for freedom of speech. 482. The RIAA fights to alow record labels to make as much money as possible and devil take the hind most. 483. I don't see any relation between pirating music/movies and hurting the freedom of speech. 484. I don't know enough to answer either way. 485. No, freedom of speech would be being able to reproduce stuff. 486. They don´t care about freedom of speech, just profits. 487. See above. 488. bleh, they fight for their own ends is all 489. sharing the music is getting these artists 'words' out to more people =] i dont know if i really believe that 490. See 19. 491. Freedom and RIAA don't belong in the same sentence. The RIAA abuses the legal system through claims of copyright infringement. Copyright is a censorship tool. 492. Um, am I missing something? What freedom of speech? 493. They are trying to smother innovation. That is not promoting the spread of knowledge, information and ideas. 494. Theyre heavy handed approach has shown they fear the arena of free speach ie the courts, favouring offering "huge discounts" for out of court settlements specifically to avoid allowing the plaintifs their amendment rights. Easier to pay up and get rid of the suit than risk your home on lawyer fees... 495. fights for selfish interests 496. How does blackmailing my web host into removing my web site from the internet 'preserve my freedom of speech'? 497. I really hope an explaination isn't needed 498. what about the rights of the listening public 499. Nope. 500. Any organization that would send pre-emptive lawsuit letters out to students doesn't appear to care one whit about any law. 501. Repressive contracts do not help freedom. 502. Exampled above in 19. 503. No comment. 504. They fight for the preservation of their gold toilets. 505. Give me a break! 506. it's all about the money. 507. That is what consumers are doing by sharing files. They are speaking out to the RIAA to lower the cost of music. But by sueing all of these people, they are destroying Freedom of Speech. 508. Same question as previous. 509. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this matter. 510. They might do this on accident just to get lyrics of some music allowed on the radio but this is not their purpose and they only do it to make more $. 511. Same as above. Can't remember them ever fighting for the artist, only the money hungy record labels. 512. No, I see no way in which RIAA is doing anything to benefit my freedom of speech. Obviously they want to invade my privacy and limit what i can say or do so far as filesharing goes, so id say they are liars on this point. 513. they would if they could license it 514. they fight to keep the reigns in all "popular" music, and to strangle "independent" artists 515. Same as number 19. 516. Rejects differences of opinions on file sharing in studies. 517. The concept of copyright itself is somewhat at odds with free speech -- that's why the doctrine of fair use came into being. 518. See above. The RIAA fights to preserve profits and imaginary profits. They could care less about freedom of anything and have demonstrated this on a number of occasions. Their lawyers will quite literally say anything and stomp on anybody to get money. 519. There not an organization of lawyers protecting the constitution, all they want is to make sure whoever they represent makes more money. 520. they fight for their money and nothing else 521. Yes, as long it is the speech prepared by their lawyers. 522. The RIAA fights to preserve its constituancies bottom lines. 523. their rich 524. Repeat of above: Then perhaps they should level their guns at the FCC instead of the fans. 525. Restricting people from doing things is not preserving freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is also telling the artists "we don't like your music enough, thus we won't buy it". Freedom of speech also means being able to purify the "music industry" (*shivers*) from shitty quality music. 526. We were granted freedom of speech. The RIAA wants to control that issue. 527. True as long as it's profitable. 528. Same answer as above. What examples can be made that they have preserved ANYONE's rights?? 529. Greed... And the ability to sue 530. Money? 531. RIAA fights to preserve itself. 532. Freedom of speech means not restricting any form of speech... this includes the transfer of lyrics/songs/thoughts/opinions. These lawsuits work against that whole premise, as does their 'closed settlements'. 533. Freedom of speech and RIAA in the same sentence? Whatever! 534. wtf does the RIAA have to do with Freedom of Speech? 535. i dont see the connection with the freedom of speech. 536. They try to limit the exchange of data between individiuals. Mashup artists and home sound or movie remixes are persecuted instead of encouraged. 537. Money 538. Preserve freedom of speech by limiting free circulation? 539. muswic is speech, they dont want freedom there,or anywhere else tyhey may be involved! 540. like hell they do - and what's sharing files if not letting people decide for themselves whether they like a piece or not. If that's not making profit by twisting the law, I don't know what is. 541. repressive means to prevent certain groups from using / listening / spreading the works / words of artists. has nothing to do with freedom of speech. just with the freedom to make money with my one speech, but dont know if thats part of the constitution 542. LOL..... are you serious.... 543. I say it's false, because I can't think of anything to suggest it might be true. 544. They don't care for that. 545. you dont even are allowed to freely remix music -.- 546. Freedom? Looks more like market control to me. 547. RIAA is responsible for degredation of freedom of speech. 548. The RIAA: Fights to preserve their buisness models from the 1980s 549. DITTO 550. DMCA Anti-circumvention rules. Researchers, and anybody else, gets threatened with a lawsuit if they dare to publicize how to break DRM, no matter what the reason for breaking it is. 551. huh, where did that come from? 552. They want $$$ 553. Laughable, does it really need an explanation? The RIAA fights to preserve its own existence, power, and total dominance over a multi-billion dollar industry that they control, where artists are virtually forced to accept insultingly binding contract terms and paltry royalties for THEIR hard work. They only reason they may give lip-service to "free speech" is so they can sell more of their crap in countries where it may currently be banned by a less democratic government...its freedom to make more money, not freedom of speech they really want. 554. their own bull shit excuse 555. Freedom of speech? By attempting to litigate with 4 digit fines? Yeah, sure. 556. The RIAA is only preserving profits for itself. In the end they will lose customers and force a new industry to form. 557. BS 558. They fight to control it 559. They fight to support the "copyright" of the artist's work. (Freedom of speech is part on the first amendment) 560. They fight for our money. 561. ditto 562. They hinder it trough restrictions on creative works. If someone was to create a moving video that pushed a certain idea and someone found the ideal song to use in the video they would not have the right to do so. Even if they came up with the ideal beat for a moving song and it happened to be the same as another artists it would be bared simply because it was done before. This problem will only increase as time goes by since their can only be so many combinations of tones that will not infringe on copyright. 563. its the total opposite 564. Yeah, I'm sure they love it when people start talking about how to break DRM. 565. How? 566. Someone who wants to hurt another over their choice of how they like to express themselves is into free speech? I can't beleive you asked that. 567. RIAA has nothing to do with the Freedom of Speech. 568. they're pwning file sharing : *( 569. Legal suits are in no way preserving freedom of speech. Take a look at the lawsuits problems where people have the "obligation" to pay the fees to prevent legal suits with lawers. 570. If they fight to support freedom of speech, why would they be so fervent to shut up everyone that opposes them, by means of lawsuits. 571. The RIAA fights to preserve their freedom to say whatever the hell they want to and have others believe it as fact. 572. Copyright has nothing to do with freedom of speech. 573. They would rather suppress speech of the little man as they can afford the high price lawyers. 574. Freedom of information anyone? 575. The RIAA fights to be greedy. Everyone has freedom of speech, no one hurts that by pirating. 576. Above. 577. Give me a break!!! 578. They scare those that they target with lawsuits, and silence them as a result by getting the people to pay a sum of money to make the problem go away. 579. No, they don't let everyone hear it. 580. do i have the right to defend against them? 581. See answer 19. 582. The fight for profit and to instill fear. "Preserving" freedom of speech is a nice disguise/excuse for them to act as they please. 583. They've taken that right away from the public. 584. The RIAA is only interested in protecting the profits of it's largest members. To suggest that they have any greater moral philosophy than that is ludicrous. 585. fights to get a bunch of lawyers rich 586. The RIAA needs to be nuclear detonated. 587. uhg 588. You don't sick swat teams on unsuspecting DJs if you value the first amendment. 589. they promote the festering of crappy music 590. Freedom of whose speech? 591. only if it is the best interest of the record company's share holders 592. its about $$$$$$$$$$ 593. It only fights to fill its own pockets... 594. They fight for their interests, and cite free speech as an excuse to attack people that they see as a threat to their revenue. 595. Their own freedom to make obscene profits is the only Freedom they believe in. 596. thats laughable. 597. The RIAA: Fights to make money any way it can. 598. DRM 599. riaa doesn't fight for freedom of speech rather they fight to make sure only their speech is free and everyone else can be censored. 600. the opposite 601. Fighting p2p as a technology limits sharing speech. 602. If that were the case then the music would be free. 603. This is not a freedom of speech issue. This is a malicious team of attorney's attacking music fans. 604. Huh, Who's trying to take away freedom of speech? 605. Opposite of that. 606. No, they fight to preserve their pocketbooks. In fact, they'd much rather eliminate freedom of speech, so that they could sue anyone who openly disagrees with their actions. 607. Haha that's funny 608. They are doing everything they can to oppress the voices of their victims and critics. 609. They fight to make as much money as possible 610. If that were true, they would allow their artists to be heard without money having to change hands. 611. Really? 612. Is this a joke? RIAA and the content industry is lobbying hard for increased surveillance powers to eradicate free and private speech as a concept, as this is the only way to maintain the crumbling copyright regime. Just look at ISPs. They should have the same status as a telco or the postal service. Instead, the content industry is increasingly trying to turn them into private eyes and ears into our private communications. RIAA and MPAA fights to end private speech as we know it, in order to maintain control over their business segment and prevent innovation. 613. If the were they would help the people to fileshare! 614. the RIAA only exists to protect the RIAA 615. the RIAA fights to preserve freedom of making money off of speech. 616. more like, fighting to preserve the earmarked commercialization of free speech. 617. This makes no sense. 618. How is this question substantially different from # 18? 619. Too many choices, no choice at all. The chance to gain a true appreciation of a diverse range of music without prior financial commitment has to be a good thing for artists and the quality of music generally. If they had there way they'sd sell me shite, like McDs. 620. if it gives them more money, they will support whatever sounds good at the time 621. They lobbied for DMCA, a law that has been used to stifle protected speech. 622. They are trying to take away our rights. 623. the riaa only fight to preserve what they believe is the freedom of speech, that freedom being that they can speak but we have to shut up and listen 624. that makes no sense 625. freedom of speech has nothing to do with a company or group that has is not fighting for human rights 626. The RIAA oppresses those that speak against them with the viewpoint that they are industry dinosaurs. 627. The RIAA does not know the meaning of the expression, "free speech" 628. what total and complete rubish 629. Their a lobbying firm. They fight to maintain their money. Copyrights, with their ridiculously long times do nothing but hurt everyone. 630. i really don't understand how downloading or sharing may annihilate the freedom of speech 631. P2P is free speech. 632. In a nutshell: court ordered gag-orders. 633. see #19 634. one thing that truly fights that is THE 1ST ADMENDMENT. 2nd thing is this only works in the USA the 1st and the RIAA can not help the artist outside the USA. hey I'm starting to get into a rut...... :P 635. The RIAA fights to preserve its own interests. Freedom of speech is irrelevant. 636. Monitoring and censorship of free speech they purchased in parliaments around Europe. 637. They have been trying to limit criticism of thier lawsuits of ordinary citizens in order to keep the public from knowing what they are doing so they can continue extorting money from their victims. 638. That's why recently they wanted an exception to pretexting to allow them to continue this method. While they haven't owned up to it, the only reason they would want this is to be less than honest. They see nothing wrong with this. That speaks far more for the mentality of these cartels than freedom of speech ever did. 639. They would let their artists speak more about filesharing and be more open to a change of times. 640. they are full of it 641. See my response to the previous statement. 642. Same as above. Everyone can be an artist. 643. RIAA fights to control distribution channels and they lost control with the advent of the Internet. 644. they fight to stop others singing or broadcasting (from speakers) certain strings of words and sounds. 645. the RIAA makes money when they sell what people want to hear 646. The companies that RIAA represents, promote only the artists that fit in the "commercial" frame. Anyone who tries to break from the norm can simply go indie, because they will not represent him. This is not freedom of speech this is censorship in its highest. 647. LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA LMAO LMOA ``Night_raid 648. Independant artists have better freedom of speech than those signed to the major labels. 649. They fight to preserve their profits, nothing else. 650. Please see the above answers again. They are "fighting" for money for themselves, at my expense and the artist's expense without providing anything in return except human misery. 651. Yeah, filing suits agains dead people does that. 652. driven totally by money 653. The don't care about Freedom of Speech. 654. On the contrary, there is documented proof that the RIAA has tried to seal testimony that would be detrimental to their cause in the sue em all campain. 655. bullshit, downloading a song for free could also be clased as freedom of speech 656. Again, they'd be more active in certain places (like being on the right side of the Net Neutrality issue) if they did. 657. I don't think it actively fights to preserve it. 658. Freedom in music is the right to share and express music. 659. Ofcourse they preserve the freedom of speech, so long as its in their favor... but GOD HELP YOU IF YOU SPEAK AGAINST THEM!! *shake fist* 660. They supress freedom of speech. 661. No comment... 662. If they did, they would let some of these court cases come to trial. What are they afraid of? 663. Then why do you try to silence your advertising partners, er, i mean, pirates every time we make a peep in the public? 664. they fight to improve profits as i see it 665. they fight too preserve profits. 666. Bullshit shouts to us. We know it when we hear it. 667. They fight to destroy it by holding a monopoly in its market 668. again only if it is in there best interests 669. The RIAA: Fights to control freedom of speech 670. Specially with the confidentiality clauses imposed in the artist's contracts and racketeering settlements on consumers. Even more so by closing down independent media, like local and internet radios. Yeah... 671. tries to stifle same. 672. HOW do they do that? And I support freedom of speech for thugs like the RIAA. (This is a classic example of the "glittering generality" propaganda tactic.) 673. When it works in their favor. 674. Using heavy handed methods to repress the truth, and misinformation. 675. The RIAA fights to maintain the status quo, and to advocate money for record companies that have a failing business model and fear the change modern distribution methods will bring to the music industry. 676. The RIAA is a lobby. Lobbyists only fight for what interests their financial supporters. 677. RIAA fights to preserve its antiquated business model and any revenue streams it can get its grip on. 678. Bands are censored all the damn time, and I do not like it. 679. Their lawsuits violate the First Amendment right of users under the Internet Privacy Act. 680. i have no reason to argue against this... someone got some counter examples? 681. The RIAA fighs to enrich of their member companies. 682. Not to say they suppress freedom of speech, they just don't care. 683. Resticts free speech 684. (it not a true or false question.) Its nothing but a lobbying voice for the major labels. 685. they guarntee your freedom to buy from them 686. HA HA HA 687. The RIAA and other corps have, in open examples, used copyright to shut down opposition unfairly. The only speech the RIAA is concerned with is their own. 688. The RIAA's currently policies inihibit and attack constitutional guarantees for citizens within the United States. 689. RIAA fights for money. 690. The record companies add NOTHING to the music that is worthy of the monetary penalty they heap on consumers. I believe, and the facts DO appear to bear this out, that artists themselves would be MUCH BETTER served financially by marketing directly to consumers over the web. The Record Companies are simply middle-men who act to PREVENT the free and easy exchange of artistic product. The RIAA is a dinosaur who apparently didn't receive his own copy of the memo -- the dinosaurs died out 65 Million years ago when an asteroid or comet struck what is now part of the Gulf of Mexico. WAKE UP -- YOU'RE DEAD ALREADY! 691. The RIAA and the labels it represents has shelfed artist depriving them of free speech because they decided they are not marketable or ran conter the image they wanted.

The RIAA: Works to build a positive environment in which to create and distribute music.

Total Responses: 1,038 True   5.0%  (52) False   95.0%  (986)

If you've answered False to the question above, how do you see things?

Total Responses: 762 1. Re sampling. 2. That's what the Gestapo said. 3. Still trying to get the business of creativity and originality to conform to a "college" business model. 4. Because suing the disabled and depriving "artists" of income is totally a positive environment. 5. EVERYTHING about their tactics is negative. They create an environment that is hostile to creativity and distribution. 6. RIAA focus is revenue and profit. 7. many smaller labels actively try to improve the quality of the industry, whilst the big 3 attempt to regulate the whole world to up there profit margin 8. Hahaha, don't really know wheter to laugh or cry. Positive is made by encouraging new ideas, embracing new technology... that is, the exact opposite to what they are doing. 9. Does the RIAA even care about the music? 10. maybe true, but the RIAA is surely proceeding along a different path 11. The RIAA wants us to have no control over our files. 12. The artists get paid minimal in their contracts and only make it big if they want to put out for the producers to be able to hit it big, and then they get loaned massive houses and multiple cars while other bands are stuck in a tiny bus for months on end. 13. Funny, all the bands I have "discovered" lately are all on indie labels that are deemed RIAA free. Hrmm.... 14. The music industry has fallen into a pit of negative media, dragged there by the RIAA. 15. Works to make money. 16. False 17. 1) The destruction of [free]Napster. 2) Digital Rights Management movement. I mean c'mon, really? Really? I guess i can just look at the Gestapo fear tactics used against our children, students, and low-middle class citizens. 18. how is it positive when smaller artists are constantly being canned, and customers are being sued. 19. They are a monopoly on the radio and MTV. They control what gets distributed and restrict the ease of non-RIAA artists and publishers to get music spread. 20. aspires to total control. 21. The RIAA works to build a environment to make them money. 22. Payola scandals, lawsuits against your own consumers, extortion, lawsuits against children, telling college students to drop out of school to pay for their lawsuits, making the same generic pop music over and over again to rip off young children with an album that has one hit song and the rest is filler...How do you even try to say they build a positive environment in which to create and distribute music? 23. see above 24. The RIAA sets up ridiculous rules for artists to attempt to "create" in, nor can that artist distribute his/her own work on a music sharing site, like last.fm or similar. 25. They want to keep the status quo. Nuff said? 26. bullshit. 27. The RIAA strives to force the marketplace to conform to their vision of how music should be distributed, at the expense of market forces. 28. All they do is frivolously sue people whenever they can. The RIAA is not building a positive environment through extortion. 29. And Osama bin Laden is working to build a safer, more peaceful world. 30. Alienating potential customers doesn't seem like creating a "positive" environment. 31. If it makes money, they will and have sold their souls 32. The RIAA is making anybody who participates in listening to music a criminal by default, both downloaders and purchasers... 33. See monopoly and outdated business model 34. they limit the quality and are just plain idiots... 35. Truth: The RIAA works to create a positive enviorment for record companies to make money distributing artist's music (and, you know, artists be damned). 36. Ha! Yes, i so do enjoy being treated like a criminal because I want to enjoy music without having to whore my body to afford a CD these days. 37. They do the complete opposite in an attempt to market and please shareholders. 38. With extortion, threats and racketeering? Riiight... 39. money 40. Many American artists must adhere to the RIAA in order to succeed and therefore is subjected to an environment that they sometimes join somewhat apprehensively. 41. The RIAA is trying to control a technology shift, which is ultimately impossible. Controlling people's access to music allows record companies to control the price of that music. Since the artists receives little of this revenue, it can be assumed that the RIAA has the best interests of the record companies, not the artists, in mind. 42. Once again, the recording industry as a whole sticks to the model of sucking as much out of the consumers as possible while giving as little back. If they were honestly looking to build a positive environment, then issues like DRM, and fair-use would be revisited. 43. Not positive to assume everyone is a pirate and needs to be prevented from breaking the law 44. Scaring your customers does not foster a positive environment. 45. They made it worse. 46. Historically, they tried. Until business interests superseded those of music and talent. 47. They provide an environment for them to make as much money as possible. 48. That is an absolutely laughable statement. The RIAA had declared war on its customers. It's creating an environment in which customers are actively hostile toward the music industry, and will likely boycott its members. Customers and artists have disliked the way in which the music industry has treated them for a long time. The RIAA has fought tooth and nail to ensure that their stranglehold on the music industry remains. For example, they have crippled online music sales with DRM. They have failed to recognize how online single-track sales will change their industry (e.g. only 1 in 17 online sales is an entire album purchase.) 49. HA 50. opposite is true. 51. only itunes does that. 52. They've had that option for a long time and want nothing to do with it. P2P applications have been around a while now and they've done nothing to solidify they're position with an application available to users, they've continued to sue users of this avenue but have done nothing themselves. 53. They do what every business does. They attempt to lock out competitors by locking in customers. Now that the situation is changing (online distribution, smaller groups producing quality music for a fair price to both the artist and consumer) they are attempting to force the issue by using the worst law ever passed by the modern congress. 54. Never ever would they do that. Theyre answer to everything is a lawsuit. And they try to fight technology that makes our world a much better place. So they can go fuck off. 55. only positive if it makes them money. 56. they are hurting music distribution 57. There already is a positive environment to create and distribute music, the RIAA only damages the community. No one is profiting off the current environment so they feel the need to destroy it and start a new one, which will never work. 58. The are creating an environment where people purposefully pirate music just to stab back at them. 59. They are working to destroy online music distribution. When someone asks me "Will I get in trouble if I use iTunes?" then that's a problem. They are scaring the unaware away from all forms of music downloading, legal or not. Mostly, though, they push DRM hard, and that takes away your ability to do what you should be able to do with the media: Put it on whatever device you want, listen to it whenever and wherever you want. Only "RIAA Approved (TM)" devices will be able to play your music. And who gets a cut of each device sale? 60. They stifle both creation and distribution by attacking music fans. 61. The RIAA works to create an environment of fear and does not respect the rights of the artists. 62. Its worse for low level artists, and higher level artists aren't having their music spread as much, fame is money in the music industry 63. RIAA is only into making as much money as possible ignoring everything else. 64. That's a good one. The RIAA is a trade organization representing Record labels, not artists 65. They just try to make money. 66. They have a biased need to make money, that's what drives them. Positive in this case means "cash flow positive". 67. If by positive u mean an environment where money is the top creative motivation, then yes 68. You are not gouverned by musicians, but by bookkeepers. You claim false value. Have a look at japanese motorcycles: They don't really sell with enthusiastic people because -again- the bookkeepers rule. 69. not a very positive environment when you put your fans at risk in a massive "sue them all" campaign 70. The RIAA is working to build an environment in which no one can profit off of the creation and distribution of music unless they profit as well. 71. Suing your customers, and potential new customers cannon create a positive environment. 72. The RIAA works to further their own agenda and build a positive environment in which to fill their already overstuffed wallets. 73. Too little too late, if the RIAA gave me free albums for a year, I would consider buying one after the year was up for $18. 74. They take over and riun most bands that show any promise and monopolize the industry so consumers have 3 choices, get ripped off, don't buy or steal 75. RIAA = Whores 76. RIAA = bunch of theives and liers 77. They want the $$$$ 78. RIAA is unduly oppressive and tyrannical. By preventing people from hearing music they may not be able to hear otherwise, the RIAA is actively inhibiting the growth of a positive environment to create music. It is not in the RIAA's interest to allow music to be created outside of their control. 79. The RIAA seeks to keep themusic environment as it was back in the 50' and 60's when it was positive only for the record companies 80. Monoppoly - Kill Internet radio 81. distribute? how so they are suing the distribution chains and raising process on the ones that pay. 82. DRM 83. Suing (or even threatening to sue) your potential customers does not foment a positive environment... nor does forcing artists into a creative pigeonhole. 84. Theyre destroying a positive environment. 85. More like they sue the people most likely to buy the albums. 86. It's only the RIAA money the RIAA is concerned about. 87. The RIAA works to build an environment in which to control the marketplace. They would shutdown companies like Magnatune if they could. A positive environment would be open to experimenting, and it would view piracy as competition and feedback, not the enemy. 88. Don't sue some of your best customers. 89. The RIAA works to create a hostile environment to distribute music. 90. If they have said that, it is spin. They seek a monopolized environment, which is positive only for them. 91. again, they give us the same crap, nothing new 92. They build an oppressive environment which will stifle the ablity of artists who are not represented by a major label to distribute their works. 93. Only when they are happy with the cut of money they make do they sign off on a service. For example, Allofmp3.com is, under Russian law, completely legal. However, due to the minuscule prcies they offer, and thus the small cut the members of the RIAA receive from each sale, they try to shut it down. 94. The RIAA works to create a monopoly environment for recording companies, not for artists. The internet and digital technology will soon render the recording industry obsolete, as anyone with a microphone and a personal computer will be able to record and distribute their own music. Again, artists should expect be paid for live performances, not recordings. The recording is only a vehicle to promote their live performances. 95. No because many things are unfair. You pay just as much to download music as you do to buy a cd except you're getting less. You don't get a cd or extras that come with a cd so that is not positive. 96. RIAA is clinging desperately to an outdated structure for music distribution. It's looking to point the blame rather than accept the changing paradigms of the current state of the music industry. 97. allofmp3 is a positive enviroment and a cheap enviroment. 98. they are sucking us all dry people should stop listening to the crap that is being sold 99. See all reasons above. They are income protectors, not music protectors. 100. For it's own execs, maybe. 101. They have created an extremely negative environment. 102. They work to things as it is now. 103. same as 31 104. DRM is far from positive. It's a way for them to rent out content so we pay more for it. 105. The RIAA is hanging on for dear life as a useful organization. 106. Enforcing DRM and closing down sites like allofMP3.com doesn't seem positive to me... 107. They will build an environment in which they make the most money. Since online distribution removes the need for the RIAA, there is little place for them to fit in the next era of music. 108. Environment of fear. 109. Oh please. They've worked hard to build a perfect environment for the larger companies to milk the artists even more by hitting old ladies and small children for file sharing who would not have purchased anyway, and by asking the courts to allow them to pay less to artists. 110. The RIAA harrasses people and their customers to the point that they wont buy from them. 111. They're too busy suing everybody. 112. What kink of positive environment are they talking about? (corporate america... I am not so sure, when the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer) 113. Positive would not be treating its customers like criminals when they are trying to legitimately use the music they purchased. 114. obviously not. 115. The RIAA has made the attitude towards distribution of music nothing but sour. 116. do not have a vialbe avenue to allow artists to offer music in digital lossless format accessible by anyone - they only appear to want the music on cd (which they get massive profits from) or low quality encrypted d/l's 117. What a lot of bollix. 118. Same answer as 17 119. RIAA limits innovation and stifles creativity. 120. They have held both the public and musicians ransom for years. Now the industry has changed and they are obsolete 121. Again, it intimidates artists and acts as a completely unnecessary middle-man in the music industry. 122. The RIAA forces bland and meticulously engineered crap upon us through the scam called 'hit charts'. This crap is designed to appeal to the most influenceable group of people, being teenagers who want to stay cool and hip and in line with trends forced upon them through advertising. Artists who do an effort to create real music have to resort to independent labels. 123. Capitalism is killing the free spirit of music. 124. They are turning the artists own customers against them with this boorish and relentless surge of legal tactics. 125. No the companies behind RIAA are protecting there lucrative markets. 126. It seems they are hurting more public people than focusing on what they state. 127. What's positive about stifling artist creativity? For the Big 4, it's their way or the highway. Again, they don't care about artistry. 128. OH GOD, MORE LIES 129. REALLY?? then why are so many artists going independent??? 130. The RIAA works just to maximize its members' profits. It wasn't founded for any other reason. 131. change your business model -stoip paying big advances and then 'poof' nothing to show 132. Too much money is spent on the distribution / marketing process 133. Pirates work to destroy a positive environment in which to create and distribute music. If they win, there will be little/no music. 134. the music companies are making too much margin, are not prepared to adapt their business practices, and are trying to legislate to maintain the status quo. 135. HA HA HA 136. positive environment? nothing positive about their ideals.. 137. positive environment... by that do you mean hacking into p2p networks and flooding them with bogus files? sounds pretty unethical to me. 138. irrelevant question - there was one there before them and there will be one again without them 139. How? 140. They're the problem in every deal. They're middlemen, and an online music distribution environment cuts out the middlemen. 141. $$$ 142. They took SO long to wake up to music delivery via the web! Distribute my a** 143. As above. 144. they work to restrict music to an antiquated structure ill-equipped for modern times. 145. Bullies. 146. RIAA works to build an environment in which to sell music in a way that maximizes their profits for shareholders. 147. It's doing precisely the opposite. They already know this, but it's all about money, so they really don't care. 148. Positive? The environment the RIAA is creating is an environment that says: our way or the way of the courtroom. That is in no way positive at all. 149. Oh please! You want me to pay 15-20 dollars every time I want some new music! That's not a positive environment! It isn't worth that much. 150. A company that will sue everyone can hardly be called positive 151. Nope won't fly with me, if you let them win, Don't get upset when one guy from the RIAA, rapes ur child and they are the law and allow it to happen. These people want money, power and are GREEDY, I won't trust them with my life. 152. there is nothing positive about oppression of artists 153. Well, some day maybe... but surely not currently. 154. Again they act in their own self interest whatever put another dollar in their pocket. If they didnt' they should have encouraged file sharing technology which they didn't because they were like this giant whale which couldn't change course fast enough. So what do they do, make the rest of us suffer. How is that a positive influence. Wel l once again in a master slave relationship it might be positive but for people who value freedom it's not. 155. Positive for whom? 156. The RIAA works to build an environment to further enrich itself while placing undue restrictions on online content. 157. give everyone that wants a opertunity to publish the chance... 158. Obviously a deterrent to create music if you know the publisher is going to sue your fan. 159. I'm not seeing anything but negative vibes from the RIAA. 160. RIAA represent businesses, they do things to make money, that's it. The art of music itself doesn't matter to them for the most part. 161. the times they are a changin'. 162. they dont care about anything but money 163. True, but they're just going about it in the wrong way 164. Money-grubbing is NEVER a positive environment. 165. They want money, environment comes second 166. Creativity would create such an environment. RIAA's activity creates an environment of conflict. 167. To build environment to get more money for less effort 168. riaa is alienating thousands of people, and creating a lot of unrest in an area that originated as a friendly community. 169. People that have used them say that the industry operated web sites are difficult, expensive, and the files have compatibility and playability issues. I will not therefore use them. 170. Also covered in 19. Having a 20-25% chance of hitting the market with any success is not a positive environment. 171. The RIAA has often been criticized in the past because of the lame brained stunts they've pulled on the little man. Ive heard stories about you charging a old man for piracy because his grandson downloaded copyrighted material that never remained on his PC several years prior to your visit! Shame! Ive heard that you sued a young adult for a hard drive full of mp3's that were obtained long before there was any jurisdiction about online file sharing... To me, in the public eye your all in the doghouse for these brash decisions. 172. Making people pay $15-20 for a CD in which they may only like a few songs does not make people think positive. 173. They never listen to customers, and haven't done so for the past 30 years, maybe longer. 174. allofmp3.com !!!!!!! Look what you did to a legal site that is considered the best of its kind? You didn't get money so you screamed and like a big bully pushed for credit card companies to block their cards! How pathetic! 175. Only to milk the few "idols" they have created. 176. No 177. Limiting distribution options is not positive. 178. They want money. 179. I'm not sure how to answer that. 180. I'd say the file sharing P2P online environment is THE best thing that has happened to music- taking control away from the record companies gives the *artists* a chance to grow on their own without pressure to punch out an album every year. The consumers need to explore the music they like- with current prices, I can't afford to buy ANY CDs. 181. There is no reason to ever limit the distrubution of art. Art should be available to everyone if possible at little or no cost. 182. They exist to make money and foster a old business model which is dead. 183. The RIAA works to preserve the income stream of the music companies. 184. They attack innocent people who can't afford to pay the sums of money they ask for in court. They attack the common individual who just listens to music for entertainment. Not positive IMO 185. sue people who share music? very positive environment.lol 186. that is completely disingenuous. 187. They work to increase quarterly earnings. 188. By suing people who don't do it your way? Great job! 189. Fuck the RIAA 190. artitsts recieve little money cds are expensive 191. They try to limit it 192. Litiginous is positive? Wow, talk about doublespeak. The internet is such an environment without their help, thanks. 193. again again money money 194. Instead of building a positive environment, they are limiting a environment that can't be limited. 195. I will not dignify that with a response. 196. So far, the music industry (NOT the artists) have tried to block or slow down almost all technical evolution. As far as I can remember, the music industry has perceived every single technical innovation as a threat, not as an opportunity. 197. The sueing of their own consumers is surely not creating a positive environment 198. The RIAA assists record companies in squeezing every last dollar's worth of talent out of artists, often causing new artists to LOSE MONEY in the process of producing their art for the world to enjoy. 199. Again, leave "create" out of it. 200. Again, I believe that it should mean more to an artist that their music is heard than it being bought. If I believe an artist deserves my support, then I will give it to them. See above notes on Machinae Supremacy for more info. 201. The RIAA builds a positively negative environment. 202. all the above 203. They create nothing apart from their own comfort zone 204. Every publicized RIAA action is geared toward restricting the distribution of music and punishing those that do. 205. How do artists create and distribute music when they'll typically be in debt to a music label for tens of thousands of dollars? 206. RIAA: load gun -> point at own feet -> shoot 207. ...?... 208. If suing 80 year old grandmothers is a positive enviornment...they're living in a Twilight Zone episode. 209. Creates a climate of fear and prevents further distribution online of music. 210. but it's failing 211. The Riaa works to build a postive environment in whcih it can survive and prolong the exploitation by record labels of both artists and consumers. 212. I haven't see the RIAA suggest new alternatives, just prosecute those who don't follow the antiquated rules 213. I don't think the RIAA has developed a proper way to distribute digital music yet. Too many interoperability issues. 214. They are a legacy industry based on historical technology, and now stand in the way of the composing, performing, recording and distribution of music. 215. They CREATE AND SUPPORT an ARTIFICIAL MARKET that they are the only beneficiary!!! 216. The RIAA fights to preserve their right to earn money immorally. 217. Only if by "positive" they mean "most profitable". 218. They force independent artists to often go underground due to copyright laws. 219. The RIAA is concerned with controlling the marketplace and increasing profits, nothing more. 220. they control environment 221. Most attempts to gain sales from the online community have only resulted in proprietary technologies that anger the online community further. These are simply more attempts to rip people off. The RIAA needs to start charging fair prices and work with retailers to allow fair use of media purchased. 222. They have created an image of the music industry as being uncaring lawyers that are only interested in forcing people to settle out of court because they cannot afford to defend themselves when wrongly accused. 223. The RIAA seeks to limit distribution of music to remain completely controlled by it. I think antitrust actions may be the order of the day. 224. You fight to take my money. Nothing else 225. it works to be the only distributer of music. 226. I'd disagree. The RIAA is only going after money. In general they are working to build a positive, merchandising enviroment for music rather than simply for the music. 227. No they want control 228. They want to get things back to the way they used to be, which is impossible. 229. music sales were perfectly fine before RIAA. thus, the RIAA was not needed. 230. The RIAA is trying to narrow the field. 231. killing napster and the ilk instead of embracing them... good move... 232. Stone age ideas. 233. Umm Filesharings bad by them. 234. Just the opposite. the RIAA wants to create an environment to maximize profits, control all content and eliminate fair use rights. 235. Again, fighting a change in the business model 236. Artist can do it better. They only do frames for pictures, and not the best way. 237. With thousands of people being sued I see it as more of a negative environment. 238. The fact this petition exists establishes that what is being built is far from a "positive environment". 239. well if they are, it certainly isn't working so maybe they should think again about their actions and strategy 240. They just protect their interests. 241. Then why do they sue people who share their music? 242. LOL 243. Has never and will never done so. 244. they limit music growth and the development of new artists by threatening and using legal sanctions to prevent the learning of techniques needed to preform 245. how can suing your customers be positive? 246. Suing people?! Just admit that your structure is obsolete. It has been voted off by the economy. 247. They want money. 248. DRM assumes that all consumers are inherently going to illegally share music. 249. The RIAA works to intimidate and scare people who just want to enjoy music but can't afford to buy every cd off the line. 250. See answer #17 251. The major label environment is polluted. The rise of the many independent labels is evidence. 252. They are capitalists!!!! nothing wrong with it but, get off the soap box. 253. ? 254. The RIAA operates with scare tactics indicative of the fact they are clinging to a now out-dated business model that they are too frightened to realize themselves. 255. The RIAA = Nazi 256. They are afraid of the digital age and haven't figured out a way to respond to it since CDs were first introduced a quarter of a century ago. If they had their way, CDs would be high priced rental only products and consumers would still be forced to listen to music on LP and cassette. Charging outrageous prices for CDs when DVDs can be sold for ten bucks or less is also not positive. And they wonder why sales are down. 257. The RIAA has been a constant roadblock to creating and distributing music, except for the big label artists. 258. Why try to bully governments and excellent sites like allofmp3, surely the cheaper and better formatted records are to download the more customers they'd have. 259. They've built a cartel 260. Why do i only see commercials for big mediocre mainstream bands? Why isn't less known bands getting airtime and promotion? The only thing i would credit the RIAA with is killing the diversity and quality of music. Britney, Paris hilton, N sync, Justin Timberlake, New kids on the block, Jessica Simpson, Debbie Gibson, Westlife, Boyzone, A*Teens.. Do i need to mention more cultural trainwrecks? Compare all those and countless others with for example Dire Straits? Most of them haven't even touched an instrument in their life. Your distribution model is at best laughable. Hint, you're 10 years late, hint. 261. The payola and gangster like activities of the RIAA is legendary. Many groups write songs about their treatment by the industry. 262. Suing people is not fostering a positive environment 263. The RIAA works as bullies towards the general public, attempting to suck money from you until you have none left. 264. this is the C21st 265. suing random members of the public is not a "positive environment" 266. seem like another government...failure 267. The make commerce out of culture. 268. if that were true, they and the music industry they represent would be working to find a new business model to exploit the online world, rather than resisting and clinging to an outmoded way of making revenue. 269. They work to maintain their price point and profits ... all along producing inferior artists to conform to what the industry thinks people want to hear. 270. they create an enviroment to sell expensive music and to maximize their profits 271. repression is never positive. 272. Sorry, I think it's negative 273. they work to build an environment where people are afraid to "mess up" on the internet. 274. If they worked to build a positive environment, they would dissolve themselves and cease to exist. They would not be suing the fans, which inevitable are the customers. They would be working with them. 275. Really? Get real. 276. the RIAA attempts to decide what aught to be popular. 277. They create an image of false hope making every band think they can become the next Britney Spears. Not everyone can make it big. They just want everyone to think they can make it so that they can reap the profits of the one hit wonders. 278. Its more possitive without them 279. "" 280. They work to make the "sellable" artists rich while leaving other musicians behind. 281. The RIAA: Works to build a stable structer for itself so that it can continue to exploit artists and listeners, whether it be at the cost of the general public or not. 282. They seek to make money, just like the rest of us. 283. $1 a song is a major rip-off 284. what's next, cattle prods? 285. too expensive 286. one word... Lawsuits 287. Another pompous lie. 288. The record companies are trying to maintain their proffet is the face of changing music distruibution. 289. Spin 290. No. DRM, if anything, makes pirated music more appealing. A lot of my music is shackled by their DRM BS, which I PAID FOR, when I could have easily pirated unprotected music for free. 291. The RIAA doesn't know what a positive environment is, and they certainly don't know how to distribute music. 292. It's all about the cash 293. Positive? With lawsuits? 294. If they consider "Were your only source and can charge what we want - so suck it" as a positive environment then there's something terribly wrong. 295. Down with RIAA. It should be up to the artist. 296. Lies. Damn lies. The RIAA is a tool of the industry, funded by them, it's only reason for existence is to be their hitman. It is active on naught but the 'right' of these companies to turn a blind eye to their artists and their companies and the ideals of *true* copyright, citizenship and music. 297. If they only had that focus perhaps they would start making more money like the gaming industry is. 298. No. it clings to old traditions just like the movie industry does. Focus on the future and develop a kinship and loyalty base. 299. Maintaining the status quo is not building an environment. It's trying to fix an inevitable change. 300. Determined to charge ridiculous amounts of money to justify their bloated paychecks. 301. I don't see them looking at viable and affordable alternatives 302. Last time I checked anyone who was getting sued by anyone doesn't look at it as a 'positive environment.' 303. If this questionairre even exists, how can it be positve? 304. THe riaa/mpaa fights to preserve the riaa/mpaa. 305. 78p per song............... 306. Theyv'e crippled every attempt thus far; I might otherwise buy individual tracks if the were in a high bit rate drm free format and I knew more than a tiny fraction of what I pay went to the artist. 307. Their main goals are: 1) Maintaining their cartel position 2) Invest as less as they can in on-line music offer 308. only for em, not for the customer. 309. they just manage to make the industry more richer 310. If the RIAA were building a positive distribution environment, all iTunes songs would now be DRM free. 311. music would be made and distributed better without them or major lables 312. A positive environment don't include suing the end users. Music should be fun, today it has shifted to being all about suing back and forward, that is not building a positive environment. 313. I honestly dont know, but I doubt it. 314. theyre do nothing! 315. The RIAA is still trying to run the music industry like it did thirty or forty years ago. People don't want to shell out fifteen dollars for an album when they only want one or two songs on it. And the artists today aren't good enough to produce an album full of good songs, at least 75% of any given album today is filler. 316. The RIAA is like the lawsuit-happy trailer trash of our generation. They are incapable of thinking as creatively as the artists they represent. 317. The RIAA works to completely control the music market. Consumer options will be limited to thier decisions. 318. They couldn't be more negative. 319. How can any organization build a positive environment when their motivation is greed. This is a typical case of lawyers creating an issue so they can collect, and keep collecting, big fees. 320. I have yet to see a working model, and everyone agrees DRM is useless. 321. bollocks 322. They "bite the hand that feeds them." Plain and simple. 323. Then why are they failing in times when every other technical industry and entertainment industry is doing fine. 324. DRM 325. I see the RIAA as a corrupt cartel. Artists have been very successful selling their music under their own independent labels. Regardless, record sales have nothing to do with first amendment rights. If the RIAA supports anything, it supports making money off of the very artists it claims to protect. 326. Only if "positive" means "most possible cash goes into fewest possible pockets". 327. they may try to but they only make it worse. the companies and artists arent losing much money at all and the only real problem with file sharing is that you may search one thing and think youv found it yet it turns out to be completely different 328. monopoly again 329. Slamming kids with lawsuits is positive? These kids will grow up, become leaders and they will not forget! 330. It only desires to charge as much as it can per CD. It would be happy to overturn "fair rights" use if it could, or to make it such as one CD could only be played in one and only one stereo system and/or media player. It has done so with some DRM schemas. 331. They do not act according to their statement,where they give artists less say on their product because they feel they "own" them.Not a great way to create creativity. 332. They're working to preserve their business model and to extract additional money by making us pay royalties multiple times. 333. People hate the RIAA 334. RIAA works to maintain their profitable position and prevent alternative markets that they cannot control 335. If the RIAA Works to build a positive environment in which to create and distribute music, then why didn't they embrace the original Napster, which opened up tons of potential new ways to both make money and distribute music to anyone, with any player they may have. If the RIAA wants to build a positive environment for creating and distributing music, why is it that every single last online music store is full of DRM, restricting what devices and how often consumers can play tracks they've purchased on? Napster was awesome. It had a community, any music you could've possibly wanted, and for the most part friendly users. The RIAA should've taken advantage of the chance to make money on that kind of new online music distribution method, instead of sueing it out of existance! What Napster had was a positive environment for distributing music. What the RIAA has is an ancient business model, and way too much greed! 336. They don't build a positive environment, just the opposite. It is a hostile environment because the consumer wants to choose what to buy and in what format. If you only want a single track why should you have to buy a complete CD other than to feed the greedy machine. 337. The RIAA creates fear and anger by bulling music listeners. If they were trying to make a real difference, they would go after the pirates rather than college students sharing with their friends. 338. The RIAA: Deliberately stifling a legitimate form of music promotion just to make consumers pay to hear music 339. I would use adjectives such as 'comfortable', 'diverse', 'friendly', 'flexible', 'inclusive' and 'convenient' to describe such an environment. Whatever logic leads the RIAA to conclude that 'invasive', 'uniform', 'threatening', 'restrictive', 'elitist' and 'difficult', are positive in this context, defeats me! 340. Screwed 341. Angering the fans does not create a positive environment. 342. They have done nothing but fight new distribution channels. 343. Considering their own customers as stealers (i.e. Sony's rootkit, suits without legitimate proof, etc.) is not positive. 344. The do the opposite 345. Ha! I've seen several people hurt by the industry..everything from broken homes to drug addiction..yeah, let them run the public schools for a while just to be certain every kid turns out a moron. 346. two words: market dominance 347. The RIAA works to build profits and comfortable salaries for their executives. They have no other motive but profit. 348. This is funny. The labels were asleep at the switch when the most efficient distribution method in the history of man was right in front of their noses. Now, because of THEIR arrogance, inability to see the future and refusal to change, they resort to silliness like DRM that harms computers and heavy-handedness such as bullying ISPs. 349. The RIAA has fostered a negative environement in which to create and distribute music. They sue their customers and do not provide a product that the consumer is willing to pay for. 350. P2P is an excellent model for distribution and allows more creation by re-establishing the market force. If the medium the music was presented in followed, then it would be solved. 351. see above ... 352. Low cost downloads? DRM? Sony rootkit? Itunes locked into Ipod? Ditto Zune? 353. The RIAA is working to destroy the new music environment, File Sharing, etc. 354. The products are overpriced and DRM-filled and the environment is in no way getting positive by suing your own customers. 355. The RIAA has failed to understand how to distribute music in the modern era. They have yet to take full advantage of the internet as a distribution tool, and instead choose to stifle creativity and development of new methods instead of seeking to work with them. 356. See #21 357. The RIAA wants music created and distributed one way...their way. 358. It can not be 100% controlled... stop trying. 359. see above - they just promote < 1% of the artists (Rolling Stones, etc.) and could give a shit about the other 99% 360. They just want to controll it all. 361. RIAA encourages HOMONIGIZATION of music (making it appeal to the majority of people), whilst ignoring fringe fans that enjoy non-mainstream music. 362. If they did, why are they now striving so hard to compete. 363. It's very positive when you are being sued. 364. no - especially in the computer driven age, why can't my local music outlet order items I want (and for which I'm willing to pay retail prices, mind you) because their distributor won't work with certain labels? 365. the more DRM they produce, the more pirates will be created. 366. No environment based on a system of punishment can ever be considered positive. It's negative reinforcement all the way. No incentive is being offered to legitimate buyers or creators of music. It's all about control, to ensure the maximum profit for the RIAA's immediate clients. 367. The labels are notorious for creating outrageous contracts which make artists no better than indentured servants. Those artists who manage to succeed invariably create their own labels simply to get out from the oppressive thumb of the labels. 368. They mean one that they control. 369. If they really wanted to distribute things easily, they wouldn't make it so much of a hassle 370. To maixmise their profits. How come is 80 pence per track when all they provide is the file. The internet saves them the cd / manufacturing costs etc etc. Yes the have to pay for the artist / recording / marketing costs but what else? 371. Of course they provide a positive environment to create the music - the last time I checked, artists had a fairly nice lifestyle. Distributing music on the otherhand leaves much to be desired. And since 'lawsuit' is still the word of the day - I don't see anything proactive happening in that area at all. They appear to still be settling the majority of their lawsuits and trying to make up for their miniscule losses. 372. The RIAA is only making a negative environment. 373. The RIAA has done nothing but damage the environment for musical distribution. It has become a bloated monster, hated by all for it's beligerant and antagonistic actions. It continues to make an enemy of the public, even overseas, and has very likely increased music piracy, by making it seem dangerous and exciting. There are many who would prefer to steal their music than pay for it, simply out of a desire not to hand a single penny over to a group of corporations that have created such an abomination. 374. The RIAA is more interested in preserving the profits of major record labels, which is not always necessarily conductive to the creation and distribution of music. Not at a fair price, anyway. 375. What a stupidy brazen claim, who was it threatened our Credit Card companies with possible legal action? and who as a result of this succesfully crippled the greatest music distributer ever to grace our senses. 376. If it was positive it wouldn't be restrictive, restriction is a negative factor. 377. riaa is based on stock holding investments and people wanting to make more money on their stocks period 378. no it builds an environment out of fear 379. Going to record stores is crap. It gives me a headache wading through all the usesless wastes of plastic most albums have become- selling for $20 or $25 bucks a pop no less-just to find in most cases an dalbum that is half good. 380. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY IS WHAT THEY WANT. THY DON'T CARE ABOUT ANY ENVIRONMENT OTHER THAN THEIR BANK BRANCH. 381. Restrict sales, ownership, use and maintain prices 382. RIAA works to build a MARKET its members control. 383. The RIAA supports music that is generally in the styles that I enjoy. I find that HMV or Virgin do not have much in the way of industrial electronic etc. 384. They are only alienating everyone. 385. The RIAA is not interested in the creation of music and is only interested in the control of the distribution of music so they can profit. 386. If they were doing their job PROPERLY I would be taking this survey. They support profiteering and nothing less. 387. drm, pay per access, locked into particular distribution means - they work to build an environment conducive to selling music, not create or distribute it. 388. be real. 389. Is the money from lawsuits going towards artists, new software and hardware for distribution? 390. Yeah, by scamming the artists' into thinking they really need the RIAA in this time and age of Digital Distribution. 391. Positive?!? When everyone's afraid of getting sued? 392. If People havn't stop it the RIAA would start to kill filesharers for the sake of copyright law. Extremely positive environment ... 393. The RIAA actively creates a fearful and negative environment with its bullying and sometimes unfounded court cases against individuals. 394. greed 395. Never have, never will. WAY too greedy. 396. The RIAA works to quash music outlets that allow easy access by independent labels. The outlets it does permit to continue existing are forced to over-inflate their prices, and in many cases are unavailable to independent artists. 397. If they truly wanted to build a positive environment, they would come up with a fantastic way for people to purchase music online, without outrageous prices like iTunes, and without attempting to sue people into submission. 398. For the music industry. 399. Ditto. 400. See Q17 401. That would be true only if it means they positively want to neutralize anyone that distributes music without their costly blessing. 402. maybe they do and maybe they don't, but as a citizen I do not see what the RIAA states 403. by suing and intimidating consumers. 404. See #21. 405. Only as it suits their bottom line. 406. Yeah, right! They sue every Tom, Dick and Harry business that offers music for free/cheap. 407. bullshit 408. It only wants to continue to fund big record companies 409. Lawsuits are positive? 410. Positive environment? The environment for buying music has been the same since the early 90's. Things need to change, and iTunes is not the answer. 411. positive environment to create and distribute music? Yea, right! Only if they're getting rich off of it. 412. RIAA is enguaged in extorsion 413. The RIAA: 1. is attempting to limit consumer choice by promoting a variety of shifty DRM schemes. 2. is attempting to undermine the doctrine of fair use which permits consumers to do whatever they want with the items they have purchased. Instead, it would have them purchase the same item again and again and again for use in different mediums in order to maximize corporate profits. 3. is using scare tactics and punitive litigation to try and limit the dissemination of music to channels thru which its corporate masters can still make a profit. 414. The RIAA works to build a monopoly on the environment in which to distribute music. 415. The RIAA are harming the image of America across the globe. I see no evidence of increased sales money funding new artists, but plenty of evidence many artists are receiving stupid sums of money for little work. 416. To limit and control how people do anything is not positive 417. Simply laughable.... 418. It wants to build a controlled environment where it can maximize it's profits at the expense of all others. 419. the riaa is slow to respond to technology and charges way too much for leagal downloads. 420. The RIAA works towards imperialistic control, not creativity. 421. wtf? they do the exact opposite positive to them means profitable 422. The RIAA works to build a restricted environment in which all music has to be distributed according to their regulations, and the doing of this completely stifles true talent. 423. Instead of embracing the new medium of the internet to distribute music, the RIAA is trying diminish it by charging the same amount for a product of lower quality and lower functionality (*cough*DRM*cough*) than what I can buy at the store. 424. All the RIAA does is screw people, whether it's the artists or the producers or the buying public. They server no useful purpose. They DID, once. They put forth a standard EQ curve for long-playing records to which all U.S. record companies adhered. 425. Partially true. So long as it makes them money first, however no one cares about a positive environment. 426. the riaa is money hungry,and thats the bottomline 427. It sucks balls when i have to buy 5 different $100 devices to i can listen to 5 differnt bands. Or if i want to sample something, I have physically go somewhere to listen rather than trial it at home. 428. They are trying to take advantage of artists to make money. 429. The RIAA makes everyone scared of music by threatening to sue little girls. 430. The RIAA sells plastic. 431. they try... while still lining their pockets 432. where are the record stores, singles and albums that have more than 1 good track 433. monopoly 434. RIAA build monopoly model of business 435. How long have they been at it and do you see it now. 436. They believe in a different rule that listening to music should only be on CD , not an mp3. 437. The RIAA controlls the sales channel. Small artists that don't fit the "cookie cutter" mold are left struggeling. 438. lawsuits litegation etc, not a plesent enviroment 439. Treating your customers like dirt/pirates is not a good environment to me... 440. if they are, there is something wrong with the way they see things. again: unproportional earnings for the middlemen. 441. Ching-ching is the only positive thing in their ears, apparently. 442. They stifle creativity. Any music that does not fit the narrow confines of "commercially viable" does not seethe light of day. This is easily seen in the "sameness" of music on the radio. 443. our way or no way 444. trying to monopolize for riaa gain only / prevent any non riaa methode of music release / sale 445. The major record companies control distribution of CDs, often excluding independents. They have traditionally decided what will and won't be put on a recording. 446. nothing about the riaa helps e create anything 447. think out of greed they have turned it into a hostile enviroment in which cuases people not to buy products from companies involved in these matters 448. If the environment was so positive they would allow file sharing the way people used to trade tapes. In doing that they would promote the artists and in the end would eventually see profits rise. However in being so greedy and not wanting to share they are turning off consumers and making us seek other ways to entertain ourselves like independent music. 449. As long as that means more cash in their pockets and less in the artist's 450. Well the distribution model that millions of consumers is pushing now(p2p) has been put in an extremely negative environment by the RIAA. I don't think the creative environment an artist works in can really be affected by the RIAA if the artist chooses so. I have heard of record companies trying to get artists to produce a certain type or sound in their music instead of allowing for the free flow of ideas. I have also heard of the pressure that being under contract can cause. Having to produce a certain number of albums in a certain time frame. 451. DRM is positive? 452. Filesharing is the way to go. 453. they want to control every thing about music no matter who stands in there way. 454. By suing people? ARE YOU KIDDING? 455. I don't have 100 years to wait for this to happen + based on what I see - I will not be able to afford it. 456. They are bullshitters 457. More like they can't get with the times & rising technology and refuse to adapt 458. The RIAA seeks to limit distribution to mechanisms they can control, in essence attempting to create a monopoly environment within the realm of recorded music. 459. Right, if by "positive environment," you mean suing your fans while abandoning your marginal acts to devote more resources to the commodity-artists. 460. Bands that distribute their music for free are looked down upon 461. No one who actively restricts independent music and continues to rely on antiquated methods of delivery which have just served to minimize the value of the actual full album can be considered to be fostering a positive environment. 462. The RIAA works to keep music distribution going the same as it has for years. 463. they create an atmosphere of litigation and fear 464. The RIAA has singlehandedly destroyed the music distribution system by trying to live in the past. Tower Records is gone, many local record stores are gone, the big box stores get to dictate how they are going to sell recordings, and still music industry sales decline. The internet is a great way to distribute and sell music, yet the RIAA and the labels have done everything they can to screw up that business model. Their decision to make music available with DRM for at least $0.99 per song has made songs from the file sharing world a better value -- even with the costs of time and effort added in (as a working adult, "free" music has the hidden costs of time and effort to find music, but even with those costs added in file sharing is a better value). The RIAA made their first big mistake by shutting down the original Napster instead of buying Shawn Fanning out and turning it into a paid service. Imagine what could of happened if they charge a small monthly fee, say $5 or so, and allowed music trading to continue. They could have had a steady, predictable income stream, an easy way to track what was popular, and would have prevented most p2p issues they are facing now. With a little creative marketing, they could have continued to make CDs (and record stores) popular through promotions and value-added products, and could of ended up not being under the thumb of the big box stores. 465. Misleading labelling, non-standard CDs, rootkits, spyware, DRM, destroying interoperability, threats, extortion, malfunctioning products, inconvenience, etc. 466. FIRST !!!!! They scary I going for free ,new, not nown musician and artists.They like controll whot I gona be liked. 467. No matter what the RIAA's goal might be, it cannot be questioned that the average music consumer regards them as the enemy. Such an alienation of music consumers (whether real or perceived) cannot be termed a positive environment to create and distribute music. 468. no cd here or to much $$ 469. You guys are doing everything for your own gain and the record industry, not for the artists. 470. Deploying DRM is not aiding to creating a positive environment. 471. the riaa limits the distribution of music unless they get an artist into a contract which will only benefit the riaa and not the artist 472. Their idea of a positive environment is to have everyone paying for DRM songs and too scared to share anything. Sounds like they want to build and environment of fear and supression. 473. The RIAA is attempting to stifle online sharing of music. It is desperately holding on to out-dated distribution and creation methods simply because the record companies it represents haven't discovered a reliable, long-term solution to the "disruptive technology problem." 474. Positive environments in which to create and distribute music still exist outside the "heaven" of RIAA. 475. The RIAA works to preserve their member companies' stranglehold on the environment in which music is created and distributed. 476. Because of their Geheime Staatspolizei tactics I have ceased buying cd's I do a tape from the satellite and that's it. 477. Well, it's true if the music you create and distribute is Britney Spears saccarine bullshit. 478. Monopolise, throttle, get control, get power, get rich. 479. The only way it could be positive is if they worked towards a seamless DRM-free music service that could work with any music player 480. Blah. More of the same. RIAA is full of shit. 481. They try to stick to their outdated business model 482. Filesharing is a positive way to distribute music. It gives people the right to decide who they want to support. Since the RIAA fights filesharing, they are actively working against a positive environment. 483. again, DRMised files prevents freedom of playing on any player the files thus preventing anyone to listen to music in a simple way 484. Look at Itunes the music they sell is good but the quality is crap, re-encoded to 128KPS from I would guess 48KPS is making people who know something about music go some place else. 485. as above 486. are you sh*TT!ng me? The Internet itself is built by peers for peers. F*ck the OLIGOPOLITHIC idiots. 487. Forcing people to buy music or get sued is not a positive approach at all. 488. Cant explain 489. Come on. Seriously? 490. No. They support the sale of quantity rather than quality. As for creating positive environments, why are the majority of indies labels flourishing and why aren't we hearing about lawsuits originating from that sector. 491. The RIAA is working so that only the record companies can mass distribute music. If peple really like an artist they will support them by buying their albums. 492. The RIAA has nothing to do with the creation of music. It's about money and control. There's nothing positive about it. 493. why are they suing the pants off anyone they can find with a computer? Really now, suing DOGS & grandparents who don't even OWN a computer? Who died & made the RIAA GOD?????? 494. P2P is a ositive environment, with a much larger audience then your local CD store. 495. :P 496. Didn't Hitler say the same thing about the concentration camps? (Oh look! I mentioned the Nazis first. I win the argument!) 497. Sueing customers doesnt create a positive environment. 498. Every single act from RIAA seems to deteriorate that environment. 499. It's all about the benjamins. 500. Change is going to happen whether the RIAA likes it or not. RIAA fears change, especially change that they don't control. 501. They distribute homogenized crap today. It's either pop, emo, or gangsta rap. You won't see another Beatles or Grateful Dead or Pink Floyd. 502. Only try to put out lowest common denominator music. 503. I guess thats why we are being suided 504. Copyrights cost, and usually don't mean a thing to anyone. so why have it..DRM cost and restrict compatibility with various devices, so why have it? and i don't think threating everyone on the face of the planet is a "positive enviorment" if a potential buyer of an artists music sees them working closely with the RIAA, they might view that artist threatening for no good reason other than the all mighty dollar. 505. If that were true then why are artists starting to explore the posibility of publishing and releasing their artistry themselves and by passing the record labels? 506. The RIAA is the gorilla. It controls the market, so you really have no choice. There are other ways to achieve fame, but they are far more difficult. 507. works for $$$ 508. Stop making me type in this box. For your stupidity for making these litlle text boxes, I am now forced to c&p this response in all the boxes. Bad poll making guy, BAD! 509. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. 510. They make music expensive and don't even want you to burn a CD 511. The only positive environment the RIAA has built and seeks to maintain, is one in which its own profits (both present and future) are preserved. They don't care about music, they only care about money. 512. hate to answer several questions with the same answer, but... The RIAA wants TOTAL CONTROL of ALL music distribution, pricing and control of all artists. They will toe the line or else. No indys, just RIAA "music" 513. RIAA only helps with the distributing of music and profiting thereof it does not do anything for creativity. 514. sueing people is not positive. 515. if they can make money of said music 516. see above 517. RIAA seeks to control the means of distribution in order to maximize their profits at the expense of the public and the artist. 518. Limiting music distribution is not positive. 519. The RIAA: Works to build a complicated environment in which to manufacture artists that don't know what they're signing. 520. It is the RIAA who decides what and who is popular, who and is available, and when it will no longer allow it to be available. 521. They only want to create an environment where they control all angles and set all prices. They want to go back to before the internet where they had control. 522. The RIAA works to limit creation and distribution of music to the big Labels that they represent. 523. IF THE RIAA FOCUSES SO MUCH ATTENTION ON SUING INDIVIDUALS WHO SHARE FILES HOW CAN THAT POSSIBLY CONTRIBUTE TOWARD CREATING A POSITIVE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH TO CREATE AND DISTRIBUTE MUSIC? 524. The RIAA works to build a better bottom line. 525. The RIAA places too many restrictions on what an artist can do with their own music and also casts the artists' fans in a negative light by labeling them "pirates." 526. The RIAA seeks to control the distribution of music on behalf of its members. It believes that abusing the American legal system to pursue random members of the public is the best means to stifle music distribution that is not condoned by its members. This is clearly false. 527. the riaa works to build more rules for the music industry. 528. If you consider the Gestapo positive, I change my vote. 529. copyright has stifled innovation and bred a vast population of lawyers who harass us and eat out our substance. 530. They work to create a positive bank balance. 531. Thats what Myspace does. They foster shit music and pay radio stations to drown us in catchy bollox songs until we are brainwashed into buying the crap. 532. They're making moves toward that, but they're too far off as of yet for me to mark true. 533. The RIAA works to build an environment of FUD to suport its other aims. 534. Going after individuals with scant evidence doesn't seem to foster a particularly positive environment. 535. POSITIVE? Are they joking? 536. They are scared and clumsy. They are accelerating their own demise. 537. Thanks to RIAA, there might not be anyone to distribute to.. 538. micro-management and controll of creation & distribution do not create positive environments 539. Truthfully i have no idea 540. The RIAA works to build a draconian environment. Even the libraries are targets! 541. Filing a lawsuit against 7-year-olds for "possible" copyright infringement isn't shown in the best of light. 542. Yes, by making artists think and behave like civil servants towards whatever has to do with their art. 543. I think I have answered that already. 544. In what way ? -what alternative to prepackaged cds etc have the RIAA offered- THEY dont offer digital downloads, the industry does 545. works to keep control 546. That depends on what you mean by positive. 547. A positive environment through fear?! 548. Come on, that claim is BS giving their behaviour; "sue 'em all" 549. The RIAA discourages creative music and puts commercialism before the interests of its artistes 550. They want to CONTROL it, nothing else. 551. The environment is no longer positive due to all of the things I've written above. 552. Currently dampening music industry. 553. They've created a hostile environment that isn't keeping up with the times. Evolution happens, it's time to stop dragging their knuckles. 554. By their point of view. Anyway, it would be ok if only they get lower pricies, they give us the possibility to buy mp3's at good prices. 555. They work to build their own pre-packaged "environment." 556. Ask artists how much they actually make of there big record company brokered deals. Fat Cat RIAA and all there lawyers steal the bulk of money that should go to the artists. 557. it's all about the money. 558. Suing people... I don't call that a positive environment. 559. trying to put a stranglehold on distribution is not a positive environment. 560. Only within itself. It only sees musinc as a tool to grow rich, all else is an appearance. 561. Many artists have said how bad their contracts are. Unfortunately, they have no choice but to become "slaves" to this system... so they do it anyway. 562. The environment is an overly restrictive "if value, then right" type system. 563. If this was true they would have embraced file sharing. 564. If this was true, they would off people music without DRM that can be used however the purchaser wants. Unfortunately they want to control the distribution and set prices and not allow the market to set this. 565. They may have online distribution now, but nothing about the RIAA is a positive environment anymore. Their mindless attacks against innocents has made them hostile and is now pushing away consumers from wanting to support an evil and hostile industry. 566. ha ha 567. They are working to build a full proof system to protect they're profits. 568. What are they doing otherwise than scaring people? 569. If it's such a positive environment, why are musicians creating coalitions to fight back against the RIAA? 570. Protect their business model. 571. Really, would anyone view suing children, the elderly, and the handicapped as positive? 572. The RIAA wants to maintain its chokehold on the music industry from order to cash. 573. Not all artists agree with the gestapo tactics of the RIAA. Which has created an us vs. them perception of the music industry. 574. Comon, its already there, if people like an artist they support them, simple. 575. Come on...Sue everyone first and then a few years down the road they make difital songs available. It could have been a crafty idea but they owe napster because they were just trying to still their idea without having to pay them royalties. Maybe....sounds good anyway 576. they are trying to shut down one of the fastest largest distribution centers of music that has EVER been. 577. All those lawsuits do not exactly instill feelings of joy and happiness in me. 578. The RIAA works to conserve the old hierarchy of the music business while encouraging rejection of the current technological truths of their distribution system. They fight change and progress. 579. their rich 580. Don't be rediculous... Firstly, they DON'T want to make positive environment and secondly, the don't work on anything positive at all... 581. They work to control the environment and all aspects of it, and pound it into their aging business model in the hopes of continual earnings from their members, with relatively little or no work being done by themselves. Further, they demonize fans who have embraced distribution technologies far faster than the RIAA has, preferring instead to cling to extinct non-digital formats and wondering why no one buys CDs anymore. 582. Sueing everyone, including infants and dead people, is not what I call 'positive'. Sueing is negative by default. 583. A positive lucrative enviroment already exists. 584. THe labels have been dragging their feet for YEARS in the use of alternative technologies to distribute music. 585. Crap.. 586. Money? 587. The Riaa is becoming a hindrance to these aims. 588. It's little more than the music mafia dressed up in a corporate suit. 589. 10 years too late 590. Wrong! The RIAA works to build a controlled market with licenses and half assed media quality. 591. The RIAA: Works to build a positive environment in which to make money and exploit artists and consumers. 592. They try to limit the exchange of data between individiuals. Mashup artists and home sound or movie remixes are persecuted instead of encouraged. DRM on downloaded files restricts fair use. 593. well, if DRM is posivite then micheal jackson is a child lover. 594. More Money 595. There are lots of web sites where everyone can make, upload, download, contribute and reuse other peoples ideas and put their own back for others to use, like Creative Commons, that's positive environment in which to create and distribute anything. 596. These twinkle-toed, split-tounged word jockeys can manipulate any concept getting most people to believe this jive. 597. they create an environment akin to Soviet Russia-"don't do as WE do, do asWE say-- 598. Music and art as a whole is not made for the money - no art is good if it's made for the money. That doesn't mean artists should starve, merely that if an artist is good, they'll make enough money to be able to afford to be just appreciated by those wh can't really afford to pay. 599. yeah right, again: suing customers, DRM, in genereal: treating them like criminals instead of as customers has increased sales greatly and made new generations grown very fond of the riaa. as if... 600. Nope... bittorrent does. 601. If that were true they would be embracing new technology rather than trying to force the genie back into the bottle. 602. They seek to build an environment they can control, where everything is under absurdly restrictive DRM where even decent customers are forced to jump through hoops. 603. there are different classes of artists at the moment.. some who ear money and some who dont RIAA only cares about the last 604. a market controled by corporations is not a positive environment 605. RIAA lawsuits are immoral and inhumane. 606. From 99.9% of the internet community, the statement above should say a NEGATIVE enviorment. 607. the reason nobody likes to buy music online or so we are told anyway is because nobody realy asked the general public what they thought a decent price for a song is. and most people dont have a lot of cash. 608. It's anything bur. unsigned artists understand that the Net, iincluding p2p, can get their music out there, but they are scared of getting a lawsuit and the RIAA is reducing the means for distributing music w/o going through them. 609. lol, no 610. Sueing ppl is not cool 611. They want an environment that they can completely control and rake 100% of the profits in from, where there is no competition or opposition whatsoever, where they can dictate whatever fluff or musical style they think will make the most money. Simple as that. 612. $$ again 613. The RIAA is making a negative impact on music, almost to the point where it's a monopoly on the industry. 614. Again, the RIAA does nothing constructive. 615. BS 616. Positive for the industry only... 617. They want to control 618. They attempt to make artist's money. If they wanted to distribute music, filesharing would be approved. 619. yea 620. Recently their has been allot of development online with huge distributions of new artist with styles never before heard of, the RIAA has been for a long time shutting these new forms of distribution to push for their own control of the market. They are one voice for only the biggest fish, and any change is prevented by them. 621. they are the epitome of negative 622. DRM does not create a positive environment. It's all about control. 623. They are pro business, not arts. You can't be both. Art is about giving, business is about taking. The artist is the resource. As an older person, that is what I must teach to younger artists, because that is what I've learned. A school theacher who does not explain that is either incompetent, or negligent. 624. They are making people nervous, especially the innocent ones. 625. correction - The RIAA: Works to build a positive environment in which to create and distribute music - IF AND ONLY IF THEY PROFIT! 626. Music and his distribution has to be free. 627. If it was positive, don't you think they would find a better means of getting rich than suing people? 628. You see, something can't be positive when you have twice as many negatives in the same grouping. They seem to think their sins are exponged by performing a single good deed, and even then I would be suspect of its authenticity. 629. music should be free to share 630. The RIAA's current actions inhibit creativity and music distribution. 631. They want complete control of all music and movies as that was how they made their money before the digital age. They can't accept change. 632. Why has it taken them so long to use the Internet to sell music? 633. The RIAA is greedy and wants to give you stuff on their terms 634. EMBRACE CHANGE! 635. The RIAA works to create proprietary formats and ideas... 636. It can be true - because if what they do, filesharing communities have evolved that bring people together. They don't "work to build a positive environment," they rather create a positive environment indirectly 637. They're working to make sure that their organization is a monopoly in which on one in their right mind would compete. Positive pretty much assumes you don't feel like you're getting your getting anally raped. 638. The RIAA refuses to change with the times. 639. It promotes DRM which restricts the distribution of music and restricts how people can play it. 640. They work to eliminate file sharing and the ability to hear the full content of a CD before purchasing it. 641. They work to protect the monopoly of the large record companies. 642. music companies need to embrace new methods of distrobution. 643. If they did,why have they declared war on the music consumer? 644. yup.. captain copyright sure is a positive for 7 year olds... They are behind the times. 645. Successful businesses adapt to the "changing climate." By engaging in this "sue them all" campaign, they have clearly shown that not only are they not willing to adapt to the climate, but they think that they can change the climate back to where it was, and that is poor business. 646. they only support it if it puts obnoxiously amounts of money in thier coffers 647. Stop suing your "potential" customers you nitwits. 648. then why does the artist make the least amount of money for their art.....ask Grand Funk Railroad if the RIAA was out to build a positive environment..... 649. the day of cd's are over so get a web site loser...and lower your prices...whats the difference between 1 million and 5....an extra car....????????? 650. Fighting your fans in court. putting them in jail or charging them ridiculously high fines creates a NEGATIVE environment to all except the RIAA as they make money doing this. 651. They give the artist the ability to distribute the IP, then cut into his money by making huge profits off the sale, event at the expense of hte artist. 652. It that were true, it would represent one of the greatest failures of all time. The environment created by the RIAA can be called many things (some unprintable), but "positive" is not among them. 653. works to create a profit thats all. 654. The RIAA: Works to build an evironment were only they can distribute music and make money. 655. DRM 656. They seek to destroy the foundation which is internett distribution, if Riaa embraced the internett instead of setting out to kill it with fire they would sooner profit instead of trying to fight a battle they WILL lose. 657. reduces the breadth of inspiration to poorer people 658. Chilling effects, baby. 659. They mistreat the artists and shortchange them. 660. Not if they continue to litigate everyone who doesn't comply with their agenda. Like college students and 80 year old grandmothers. 661. RIAA has done nothing to enhance or change the music distribution model. Furthermore they have impeded digital distribution by imposing drm to music. Apple just dropped DRM on quite a few albums. The tides are turning. RIAA your time is limited. 662. They receive a large portion of the artists earnings, sue their artists fans and provide a substandard way of purchasing music. Both the artist and the consumer have to bend over to satisfy the RIAA. hardly a positive experience. 663. Positive? Yes, every artist will smile happily when they hear that a 10-year old, with a disabled mom, has been sued when she wanted to listen to the artist's music. 664. ... You're kidding, right? Have you ever talked to an artist who just got signed? 665. It's getting funnier and funnier 666. RIAA is slowly causing a backlash against Record Labels by making them to appear as evil as Big Oil 667. Most negative environment ever 668. Only to raise funds for their members. 669. As I pointed out above: http://www.arrogantics.com/2007/04/04/nin-deliberately-leaks-music-from-new-album-riaa-doesnt-care/ Not letting the band make their own decisions? Who the fuck do they think they are? 670. RIAA works to prevent innovation in new fields to create and distribute music. 671. YES! DRM, rootkits, i buy it all! Or not... 672. they care nothing about the artist except to see how much they czn exploit them 673. I know a lot more disgruntled musicians than I do happy ones when it comes to record labels jerking them around. 674. By trampling down those who enjoy their artists' works through lawsuit? Not bloody likely. 675. They are in a paradigm and need to get with the current day of technology, art, and social venues. 676. Low pay for artists, autocratic control of the content on a lot of radio stations, actively bullying fans and small artists/labels...not such a positive environment. 677. Works to build a positive environment in which to create and distribute music, whilst making the maximum profit, without any regard for culture. 678. They work against everyone. They work against the artist (taking more money than needed), they work against the people (suing them), and they work against the distribution system (online sales). They try to keep control of all things musical, and now that they are losing control, they are very upset. 679. they destroy and cause fear in people 680. I guess it's positive if you happen to be the RIAA or one of the major labels, but for everyone else not so much. They take most of the profit for online stores like iTunes and shoulder non or very little of the distribution costs. 681. Yea right. 682. so far the riaa have only managed to drive more people underground and forced them to find other ways of sharing their music. 683. the RIAA works to build a negative environment in which it strictly enforces rules and sues people in order to make money. 684. i can't think of anything positive to do with the RIAA or DRM 685. They stranglehold artists into doing what they want and tell people what to do with the music they purchase. They want you to spend the money for the price they set and use the content the way they want you to. 686. It works only to manipulate and control 687. they only bring negative things as far as iv seen 688. Suing customers does not build a positive environment. Also, how is it a positive environment when CDs are a loss-leader for many stores because of the prices the record industry charges. 689. ya what? an air tight environment? they are just kidding guys thats all they can and they will. 690. they do it for themselves 691. They only out to control the market place. 692. Works to build a positive environment for increasing their profits. 693. $20 for a CD? Selling at below-market to walmart? 694. DRM is there example of such a thing..... uh sorry but it's not only me but even Steve Jobs agrees that DRM is a bad idea. The internet has done more positive things in which to create and distribute music. several major artist that have appear thanks to myspace and youtube, and with no help from RIAA nor DRM. 695. The RIAA has never built a positive environment for artists who create music. They have only taken advantage of artists. 696. I guess "positive" is something that I won't use for description of oligarchy, even if I have to live in one. 697. The RIAA works to limit what you can do with your music in order to maintain control over the entire music industry and to prevent any competition from gaining a foothold in the industry 698. They work to build a negative environment for anyone outside their control. 699. The people, the fans, the press does the job of getting music out there. If i download a cd even though I wont buy it, Ill let ten people know that it is great. 700. they stifle it and hide until they make aprofit 701. One could hardly call the current crusade against P2P and other unapproved distribution methods as "building a positive environment." Rely on blanket licensing for unrestricted P2P usage as part of the subscriber's fee and then we'll see if this claim has any validity. 702. They want to controle everything like Natzi's. 703. The RIAA: Works to build an environment where it can impose digital imprimatur and reap even more money with artists and producers getting even less. 704. they must mean profitable not positive. 705. they sue people who distribute music in any way the RIAA doesn't like 706. Although I don't know where did you get these statements, "positive environment" for whom? For the consumer certainly not. 707. The riaa works to create a posotive cash flow, and blames "pirates" for "losses" by losses .. we mean. . . PROJECTED sales vs ACTUAL sales .. and they blame the difference on the "pirates" ``Night_raid 708. By threatening music listeners everywhere they are not creating a positive environment. 709. If they did, then the labels would have released online distribution years earlier than they did. 710. They strife to preserve the old ways of selling music. They only want to keep their control, nothing else. 711. That's just a stupid statement. Everyone hates them. Where is the positive environment? In their boardrooms? 712. Yeah, filing suits agains their customers does that. 713. driven totally by money 714. The RIAA and the Record Companies take all the profits leaving the artists just peanuts. 715. just in it for the money 716. They did at one time, but they've thrown it all away when they work to sue instead of helping the artists. 717. The RIAA creates a negative environment for the writers and performers of music to be shafted by them. It creates a negative environment for the public in which to have music distributed by its members and no-one else. 718. The RIAA restrics the rights of people to share and express music. 719. Seriously, it must be opposites day in hell... seriously... 720. The positive environment is already built and it's the internet 721. He scares people. 722. "Sue em all campaign" enough said 723. We already have that environment; actually, we have two. They're called BitTorrrent and Gnutella. 724. An environment where you sue the customers is not positive. 725. when potential customers is handled as criminalt i wouldn't call it "positive" 726. they work to preserve a business model that exploits consumers into buying over priced music. 727. They are not trying to change anything at all they want to keep the same business model and act like it is still the 60's. 728. Same answer as above. 729. Is this for real? 730. as an organization they make the ostrich with his head in the sand look positively out going and progressive 731. Positive, as in suing your customers? 732. We have done that alredy, and they do their best to destroy it. They are triying to enforce monopolistic abuse on us and, failing that, plain extortion. 733. riaa tries to keep focus on "product", and kills any competition 734. Nothing could be further from the truth. The courtroom is not a "positive environment." 735. They have turned more people against the music industry than any other single factor. 736. The RIAA spreads fear and doubt throughout the music industry and people who love music. Rather than encourging people to enjoy music, they threaten and 737. $.99 for a single on iTunes. 128k (except for EMI) and DRM? That's a positive environment? 738. RIAA works to build an environment where they're the only gatekeeper to all that is music. That way they can make tons of money and with the premise of sharing it with their artists, mysteriously find themselves unable to locate those artists they are supposed to be supporting. 739. I haven't seen any online music stores with a decent selection except Allofmp3.com, and the RIAA is trying to shut it down. 740. If by positive they mean tightly controlled for their sole benefit, then yes. 741. drm. nuff said. 742. The RIAA fights to support an online monopoly much as in the pre-internet era. 743. I haven't seen this "positive environment". What are they talking about...? 744. A "positive environment" would not restrict radio stations to particular playlists. A positive environment would allow radio stations to play whatever songs on an album that fans want to listen to, hoping that their play will generate album and concert ticket sales. 745. bollocks! 746. How do they fare against payolla? If they are, they need to update they're stratagies Bad... Usually under their client only a few musicians get proper exposure. 747. BULL 748. They cant even dream that 749. Bullshit! 750. They force artists to meet timelines and sensor what artists can create. 751. They sue there damn customers! 752. they make things more complicated 753. DRM and CRAP is no way... 754. Everything the RIAA says is false. 755. The RIAA is fosters an atmosphere that is universally oppressive to artists and musicians. 756. They want cash. 757. The RIAA contols most media outlets and attempts to block any indie artists or labels. 758. The record companies add NOTHING to the music that is worthy of the monetary penalty they heap on consumers. I believe, and the facts DO appear to bear this out, that artists themselves would be MUCH BETTER served financially by marketing directly to consumers over the web. The Record Companies are simply middle-men who act to PREVENT the free and easy exchange of artistic product. The RIAA is a dinosaur who apparently didn't receive his own copy of the memo -- the dinosaurs died out 65 Million years ago when an asteroid or comet struck what is now part of the Gulf of Mexico. WAKE UP -- YOU'RE DEAD ALREADY! 759. The want to own and control everything which is not a positive environment. 760. Why are they then sueing their customers?

The RIAA says: RIAA leader Mitch Bainwol has, "helped revitalize a coalition of music organizations that now often work together on variety of industry issues, such as anti-piracy strategies or advocating a level playing field for digital music distribution models".

Total Responses: 992 True   20.2%  (200) False   79.8%  (792)

If you've answered False to the question above, how do you see things?

Total Responses: 578 1. He's helped revitalize a monopolistic cartel alright, but levelling playing field was never on the agenda 2. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 3. Well, p2p is a digital music distribution model, and they aren't advocating that :) 4. They shove harmful DRM down people's throats in the name of "anti-piracy". They've created a system in which you don't actually own the things you pay for. 5. RIAA has managed to publicise an industry and destroy any goodwill it had. 6. the RIAA has simply made it possible for the collective to put more pressure - the whole is greater than the sum of its parts 7. He brought the music organizations together to fight the future... 8. INstead of fighting anti piracy why not embrace it and work with it. 9. no basis upon which to respond 10. Hackers are always one step ahead. We are bent on learning about everything and how they work in order to help the community out for the better. Even if that means a multi-billion dollar company loses 99 cents in favor of a minimum wage family. 11. We want to have complete control of the music so we can make more money. We need to be able to obsolete the current formats in a few years so you will have to purchase Dark Side of the Moon for the 4th time. 12. Independent digital music distribution could be done by an artist and a web designer. Eliminating the need for the RIAA. 13. I agree with everything EXCEPT for the words "level playing field". 14. They set up their on-line offerings to fail. Can you say DRM? 15. Mitch Bainwol has only achieved two things; Screw over legitamite customers and steal millions of dollars in artists rightful funds. 16. They are an oppressive ogopoly, abuseive of their power over artistis and now their customers. 17. Level playing fields? Wow, we must have forgot those payola scandals real quickly among other problems. 18. bullying 10 year olds and the disabled seems a good way of advocating level playing fields for rich people. 19. they want to maintain the status quo. 20. I'm not aware of his actions. 21. I have no interest in "industry issues", "organizations" and "distribution models". I only care about music and artists. 22. And violated antitrust laws in the process. 23. They arent working nearly hard enough. If they are working together, why havent they come up with a reasonable business model. How come they are not listening to music consumers. 24. no comment 25. Truth: The RIAA defends the major record company's inability to conduct business based on the new realities of the marketplace, and forces the new media pioneers to pay for it. 26. I'm tired, and the RIAA lies. A lot. Next question. 27. Such a shame that this is true. 28. Mitch Bainwol has helped corrupt an entire coalition of music organizations that now often work together on variety of industry issues, such as the persecution of their own customers or bullying academic institutions 29. money 30. In an open market, there is a level playing field. By controlling access to music through coercion and fear, the RIAA is trying to give an advantage to the record companies... buying them time to learn how to make money in the new model of file-sharing. It is not about technology to the RIAA, but protectionism. 31. They are desperatly clinging to old ways of working (i.e cd sales) 32. The RIAA = bullies 33. Who? Scratch that. Based on the current anti-piracy strategies and digital music distribution models, this guy clearly doesn't balance consumer and artists needs. 34. They want the past back and don't know how to be innovative and handle the digital revolution. 35. "Helped revitalize"? As far as I can tell, all he's done is declare war on his customers. Lawsuits against pre-teen file sharers. DRM. This is a man who is incapable of any vision other than desperately trying to revert to the old status quo. 36. pretty words from Satan himself. 37. rico act. 38. If by advocating a level playing field for digital music distribution you really mean suing anyone they can, than sure, you hit the nail on the head. 39. Level playing field for the big four. Customers and artists are not considered. 40. Don't feel like answering, too much typing already :-P 41. they are money hungry. they havent had a real loss from piracy.. they just want to sue for more money. 42. also known as a monopoly 43. He might have revitalized a coalition of music organizations but that coalition is a worthless waste of time, effort and money as it has taken the wrong steps to accomplish it's goals and only created a bad name for it's self with no effect on the targeted matter. 44. Fuck Mitch Bainwol....greedy bastard. 45. The only reason this "coalition" exists in any cohesive form right now is to collectively defend itself on how poorly it's treated so many citizens. 46. They have lied their way into large coorporations to get them to support their bogus lawsuits against the vary people that keep them in business. It will only hurt the coorporations, in fact as a consumer I can assure you it already has. 47. He is delusional 48. The RIAA should start working with the RAC before they claim to have a coalition. 49. RIAA wants to keep power in the hands of those who need the money, themselves. 50. Blablabla. Publish real good music and (almost) everybody will pay for it. The remaining 10% will be the same crowd all of us have to pay for. And is is GOOD. We do have sponger/parasites. And all of us have to be glad to have them. Remember your own past. ... ... .. Or look at your tax computation. 51. the type of business model of the riaa companies makes it difficult to sell music online effectively. 52. RIAA is using legal strong-arm tactics to try and make it impossible for non-RIAA signed artists to have their music heard. It will be a "level playing field" by RIAA standards as long as all artists are signed to RIAA member companies and all profits of CD sales going to RIAA companies. 53. The RIAA has helped revitalize a coalition of music LISTENERS who are sick of paying too much and are encouraging piracy with their sick business practices. 54. Really means lets work on continuing our price fixing ways to maximize profits. 55. RIAA = Whores 56. RIAA = bunch of theives and liers 57. lires, they want $$$$ 58. the RIAA has pressured other groups into working with them and has sought to create digital formats that are useless to the consumer but support the RIAA's business model. 59. The only coalition he has formed is the Big 4 - The RIAA has sued and alienated its customer base - made a shambles of its distribution network (record stores oob) - cut royalites to artists - increased royalties from radio/internet radio - sued sattelite radio and seeks to increase itune fees - some business model 60. Monoply - Kill Internet Radio 61. The top four labels determine the future and attitudes the industry will take. 62. All the RIAA has done is brow-beat any dissenters into submission... pook at Napster... 63. Bull. 64. Hahahahhahaha they destroy competiton and suck artists dry they care nothing more then themselves and to prove it give more royalties to the artists, yeah thats what I thought. 65. It's only the RIAA money the RIAA is concerned about. 66. Complete BS. The RIAA is not helping the music industry. It is simply trying to control the industry. There wouldn't be rumors of Recording company executives disliking the RIAA if this was true. 67. When the definition of piracy includes such things as post-reception of recordings of public broadcasts, then there can be no respect for their positions. (ie Broadcast Flag). They discredit themselves and work against the public interest. 68. its not really level if they are the only ones controlling it now is it? the indie musician essentially gets screwed 69. Producers and distributors are able to protect their own products without the assistance of the RIAA through the use of proprietary software if they are so inclined. 70. This organization certainly works together, but they do not work to create any level laying field. They work primarily for their own benefit. In capitalism whoever offers the best product has the right to succeed. But Allofmp3.com, since it doesn't give the amount of money the RIAA wants, is threatened with legal action, thus advocating a slanted field for digital distribution where whoever can appease the RIAA overlords wins, instead of whoever has the best product. 71. Of course. They are "looking out for their own". In most cases, "their own" does not include the artist. 72. they just want their money. 73. drm when you purchase music online do you realy own it 74. Human Dinosaur and global simpleton. 75. It gives the digital online leader, iTunes, a hard time in every aspect. 76. They have worked together in building their own market dominance by extinguishing developing markets and distribution models in the past and continue to do so. 77. They work to sell a $6.00 dollar CD for $18.00 dollars. Plus they put out CD's like the best of and sell the same song multiple times (good for RIAA-bad for public). 78. sawe as31 79. There isn't much of a even playing field in this area at all. 80. Mitch Bainwol is in it to make himself rich. 81. "Level playing field"? By blocking anyone who is not a part of their group? Wha? 82. DRM. 'nuff said. 83. The RIAA has indeed has brought all sorts of groups to fight their (insane) battle (against a "force" that is both beyond their control and which has been proven to be far less detrimental to their business than the RIAA's actions itself..), but it has not in the least advocated a level playing field for digital music. It's established policeware DRM that no-one in their right mind accepts, craptacular quality of sound, and overpriced garbage radio music. I see no level playing field for digital music models, they're all the same drm'ed, low quality, radio garbage except those in russia that are far better that the RIAA is doing their damndest to get rid of. 84. Why are you try so hard to insure the security of the rich and famous (this is not one of the avenue where there money are coming from), Why not try to help the unfortunate one. 85. DRM is not a distribution model. It is a money making model. It gives no rights to the user and is to restrictive. 86. absolute rubbish !!! they are ploughing head first sueing everyone they can find without regards to what the artists want 87. How much is HE paid? 88. Same answer as 17, again. The music industry stifles innovation like allofmp3.com. Why should people pay ridiculous money for a 256kb file from itunes when they can buy a whole CD for the same price in the bargain basement of most CD retailers. 89. Not sure how anything RIAA does creates a level playing field. Their anti-piracy measures limits legitimate sales of music to honest consumers who have to put up with DMR and can't play the music they buy on the device they buy unless they are compatible. If there is a level playing field that level is a pathetically low level. 90. RIAA has done nothing 91. A Level-playing field? Digital music distribution is a crap-shoot. 92. This coalition has as only goal to make sure that the profits for the RIAA are maximized at every step in the overly long distribution chain. 93. You left out the part about only if it happens in their own way, with their own rules, and gives themselves the money and not the artists. 94. No by binding several companies together and forcing them to hold back there growth and evolution into better companies set for a future market, the companies instead fights to hold on to an already lost market. 95. screams of bullshit 96. payola scams are great aren't they?? 97. Especially the latter is highly doubtful. The RIAA has no interest in levelling the playing field for digital music distribution. On the contrary, proprietary DRM schemes inherently create inequality among competitors. 98. they are all squabbling for control 99. the music companies are making too much margin, are not prepared to adapt their business practices, and are trying to legislate to maintain the status quo. 100. They are sue happy! 101. $$$ level playing field my ass $$$ 102. Yawn ..sure they do ... 103. As above 104. Embrace digital distribution, don't fear it. Because you disrespect it so much, many refuse to buy albums by RIAA artists. Maybe this is where some of your lost sales go. 105. If they work together so well, how come some (EMI) oppose DRM while others think it's their only safety in these times? 106. Level playing field, my eye! You only support the digital music vendors if they charge a dollar per song! 107. Ask him to speak in plain english 108. Again read previous comments. 109. I see that as a pile of dung. Sad. If anthing has revitalized music its file sharing and the internet not some goofball CEO who talks like Jim Carrey in Ace Ventrua (hands on cheeks). 110. only if those organisations are members of his cartel... 111. THat coalition broke up shortly after the first wave of negative public opinion. 112. no idea - who the fuck? 113. First, they don't work together. Second, their efforts do not advicate a level playing field - if it only did it would be a starting point. 114. not sure. 115. more money 116. True, but in reality these record companies are competitors in the market and there is a growing trend for these companies to move away from supporting the RIAA because they want to pursue their own distribution objectives. 117. They have gathered their forces to combat the common threats from outside their control, in an attempt to regain and retain as much control as they can. 118. They have actually built a Gestapo that tramples on the powerless. 119. setting prices high for mp3 downloads does not constitute a level playingfield. 120. He has failed and should resign 121. It is not in the RIAAs best interest to advocate a level playing field for distribution models. 122. ~and where does that money go to? 123. RIAA still insists on DRM, which is very unhelpful. RIAA does not support download in different formats and different qualities. RIAA only offers bestsellers for download, instead of rare tracks. 124. allofmp3.com 125. The mess they have created is beyond imagination. 126. No 127. I fail to see any evidence of this statement. 128. Mitch who? 129. Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't but their anti-piracy "strategies" include, as I've stated before, just subpoenaing everybody they can. 130. Every RIAA backed digital form of distribution is still overpriced... 131. Spin 132. Who the hell care about Mitch Bainwol?! 133. "Mitch" can lick my balls 134. Their ideas of a level playing field are not level at all. The publishing companies still come out on top. 135. Um, great? 136. Fuck the RIAA 137. Ha Ha...Thats A Good One. 138. they have done nothing except angered people 139. hm no idea 140. They are just looking for a way to make money and not become obsolete. At least mail companies didn't try to stop the e-mail. People still use traditional mail nowadays. ;) 141. Mitch Bainwol is a leech. He sucks dollars away from artists for use in suing poor college students who just want music without having to sacrifice their food money. 142. It's certainly re-vitalised opposition to a cartel's abuse of power. 143. The man sues 13-year olds. How is that positive? 144. I don't know anything about that guy. 145. "bull__it" 146. duh 147. Threatening lawsuits and setting up an E-Z-Settlement option on the RIAA website is not leveling the playing field. Bringing a multi-trillion dollar lawsuit against allofmp3.com is not leveling the playing field. 148. As long as that level playing field excludes any independent artists or labels, then yes, he has helped revitalize it. 149. You only hear the top 40 now 150. iTunes sucks 151. They're again trying to stifle the digital music distribution models. 152. good for them 153. they are all against us - this much has been achieved without doubt. 154. Don't know...don't care! 155. The RIAA fights to preserve their right to earn money immorally. Money should go to the artist, which is very possible these days with the advent of self-production software and hardware. 156. This "coalition" works only to maximize profits without regard to consumer rights. 157. Helped organize an attackdog organization. 158. The RIAA has helplessly floundered from one farce (copy protection on CDs - which didn't work) to another (DRM files are unpopular and don't cut piracy). The RIAA do not care about the music, and have no idea about what the public want, or how to provide it. They also overcharge small, independent music shops for CDs in order to put them out of business and give more power to major chains, which can be influenced more easily. 159. nothing level 160. Give me a break. There are no standards on DRM right now and most DRM technologies have made it MORE difficult to legally obtain and fairly use music purchased. 161. See my answer to #23. RIAA leader Bainwol is seen as a money-grubbing jerk that hides the fact that the artist are paid a tiny amount of the revenue or just a fixed sum and all the other money goes to the companies. 162. The last thing they want is a level playing field what they meant to say was "leveled playing field". 163. see above 164. There are also coalitions of artists FOR the sharing of music. They didn't really do anything but stir up factions for and against sharing. 165. i think file sharing is wrong, but getting music at a good price is what we should be provided. all of mp3 provides a great price, and now that is taken away 166. RIAA is inept 167. There ought to be a 'dont know' option 168. two words: DRM sucks. 169. What companies were involved? 170. not even sure what to say... 250 million people disagree with the RIAA's direction, so how can one possibly state that they've been successful? 171. They do not work together all that well. 172. There are music companies who do not believe in DRM. There is NOT a unified front as Mitch wants us to believe. 173. I've never heard about any of their other "positive" music activities 174. They simply bothering onest people that buy on line. The PC jerk nows very well how to circumvent DRM, while the common buyer discovers too late that his music for some technicalreason disappeared 175. Yes to almost all of it. That is what he has done. Brought conglomerates together to fight "anti-piracy." What he fails to realize is that there is almost nobody left viewing this as piracy. It is viewed as a way of life for my generation. A level playing field would include musicians from all walks of life getting an equal cut and opportunity. That is capitalism. Mitch is a communist. 176. I would replace "coalition of music organizations" with "oligopoly cartel", and "often work together" with "often collude". 177. they mean they have all got together because they are worried about their profits using outdated business models 178. On the premises of my former answers, I don't believe this. 179. Who's working together. The RIAA are the only ones working to fight "piracy". 180. they're still working on it! Maybe I read the question wrong? 181. conspiracy to screw the artists and consumers. 182. worked to make the riaa the laughing stock of the world 183. a half truth; they're sharing anti-piracy strategies, but are in no way looking for a level playing field 184. What a bunch of self serving placating crap. 185. They want money. 186. It's like they're trying to form an all-powerful union lording over all music that seeks to crush out the indy scene. 187. They will never prevent people from using what they paid for from doing as they please.They can only hamper the ease of it. 188. As long as RIAA member labels are the only ones on the field. 189. enough you've made the point. 190. ? 191. They could work harder. 192. I have no idea who he is...I guess he said that. 193. again, the RIAA is all about a coalition of the big players to sqeeze out the little guy. 194. allofmp3 versus iTunes/HMV prices and download models, who do you think wins? No such thing as level, Young Bloods versus the Suits. 195. Revitalized what? Cooperating with what? Sueing your customers? Fighting any kind of technological development and new distribution model? 196. To rip off consumers and artists with the backing of their paid for politicians. 197. who the hell knows what they are doing 198. DRM ruins any paid for music. 199. too many big words 200. down with riaa 201. He stuffed his and his friends' pockets. 202. if that were the truth, they wouldnt be worrying about suing 12 year olds and grandmothers. 203. He's helped revitalize a cartel. 204. I am fan of Metallica and I am buying their cd's because I think it is great music - and I would be fond of using a distribution model where I can buy my "not so popular to me" artists for less money 205. Who? What? Where? 206. they're trying to make people afraid to download and upload 207. The only thing the RIAA has helped to make people work together on is the companies to sue the customers. The RIAA is like a child that won't adapt to change. They are what parents were in the era of Kiss. Kiss was the devil, and the RIAA sees the customer and P2P as the devil now. 208. Just mumbo jumbo. 209. This is an ambiguous statement, under that same logic it could be said that peer to peer technology provides a level playing field. 210. The music industry has worked fine for centuries. This is just another link in the chain that blocks the artists from the getting the money they deserve. 211. DRM's !!!!!!!! Nuff said 212. Ok... 213. I don't know who Mitch Bainwol is. 214. Shutting down anyone you don't like is hardly working in the spirit of cooperation the statement suggests 215. level playing field? would that be iTunes? at a buck for a crappy file? 216. again...labels looking out for themselves 217. More pompous bullshit. 218. They are trying to protect their old bussness model. 219. Spin 220. All they care about is money. 221. Isn't Mitch Bainwol the guy who says he lectured his son about his son's illegal music downloading, all the while he encourages the indiscriminate lawsuits against everyone else who might or might not be involved in filesharing? 222. ... 223. RIAA is really saying "we are from the olden days and we don't want technolgy to put us out of work so we are trying very hard not to get on the bandwagon. We want full control over everything, even if two people listen to FM radio, there should be a charge for both people including the infant in the car seat. 224. Lies. Damn lies. The RIAA is a tool of the industry, funded by them, it's only reason for existence is to be their hitman. It is active on naught but the 'right' of these companies to turn a blind eye to their artists and their companies and the ideals of *true* copyright, citizenship and music. 225. Anything the RIAA says is BS 226. The RIAA does not promote a level playing field for digital music distribution models, it is not in their interest. 227. The truth is electronic media can be controlled more tightly than traditional models. Although it shouldn't be. 228. just have not seen anything like this happening 229. I really don't know 230. THe riaa/mpaa fights to preserve the riaa/mpaa. 231. Partially true. 232. only the big ones are really working together. The smaller and more intersting ones are just left behind or are on their own. 233. dunno 234. as above 235. Both true and false. The false it the last part. There have been some really good music distribution models, such as allofmp3.com (I have never paid for as much music as since I discovered them). RIAA have pursued the way of suing those distributors that went along with what the customer wanted. Instead having shops with a much smaller sortiment (iTunes), with DRM-damaged files with low quality and with outrageous prices. 236. again, I really dont know. 237. just want to get richer 238. Anti-piracy is all they do. They destroy the lives of people who fall for the shit music they want to sell. 239. He started a whole new way of herding consumers. 240. They should be using their time to enter the 21 st century!! 241. Yeah, like DRM? We all know how well that works. 242. They fight for the almighty dollar. 243. no one believes in drm 244. RIAA has made it to where you get charged more for less. 245. after all this time they have done a crap job, they should also police the pricing structure 246. Lawsuits against customers don't revitalize jack. 247. Losing themselves in the jargon. Bottom line reduce the price of the music people will buy. 248. Who is this guy? RIAA just wants to continue to make money and that is solely the reason they are getting involved in anything that could be seen as altruistic. 249. umm no just no. 250. monopoly 251. Models? for what? for holding on to outdated models? They are as revitalizing as the last communist leaders were. Pretending everything was fine on the sinking ship. 252. The only successful model of digital music distributon model came from Apple, and even better with allofmp3.com (which is almost like apple but w/o DRM). RIAA attempts gave digital music consumers even worse options than actually buying the CD (assuming it is a DRM-free CD) 253. DRM isn't a level distrobution model, I say to EMI, if you actually unDRm your stuff, then nice going, honestly, why can't the rest of you dumb fucks get it? 254. I see no evidence of them working for a level playing field, especially regarding digital music. 255. they have made it more difficult for the average computer user to buy and play their music as there are so many ways to accidentally screw up the DRM. too many rules on how many computers and copies can be made. 256. Unless the RIAA changes it's membership drasticly, I don't think they'll have the best consumer digital distribution model, if anything it'll be the worst! 257. How can the field be level with people advocating NO DRM and EMI opening up their catalog. 258. I don't see anything they are involved with as good, much less 'revitalizing'. 259. A level playing field cannot include a distribution model that ties consumers to the most ubiquitous music distributor and technology platform of the day - literally forever (if we want to retain our rights to listen to legitimately purchased music recordings that is). 260. Screwed 261. They are only in it for themselves. 262. It's called a mob, people! I think this is the angle Al Capone started with too. 263. two words: market dominance 264. I think their idea of a 'level playing field' is iTunes. One stop shopping. Their anti-piracy strategies are basically lawsuits intended to strong-arm settlements out of ordinary consumers. 265. whatever 266. Level means not stopping, halting, oppressing, suppressing, corrupting, evading or repressing certain models. 267. He has created bad PR for the companies 268. see 23 269. Where is this level playing field? 270. It is under intense pressure that the RIAA now slowly starts to step into digital music distribution and not at all voluntary 271. I have yet to see a level (or unified) playing field for digital distribution. The RIAA also works against all the other recording companies (the independents), and are not helping industry issues by throwing out false claims of why they want us to believe they are losing money without tackling the real problems (their unwillingness to adapt being a big one). 272. See #21. 273. RIAA leader Mitch Bainwol means, "We are working our asses off (and spending your money) trying to figure out ways to keep our horde safe." 274. They have caused problems and issues, including SPYWARE on some CDs. 275. Seems to me, his actions are pretty useless. 276. A level playing field?? I dont think so. I cant buy my music from iTunes and use it on a music player other than an iPod or a different music software. But now EMI has changed its stance maybe the industry will follow. 277. Sorry, never heard of him. To be charitable I've answered true, having no information to the contrary. 278. They seem to forget there are hundreds of independent artists and labels who sternly disagree with the RIAA and their tactics. 279. In their own fantasy world. 280. iuj 281. Why not set a fair price then? 282. Sounds like a fancy way of saying 'lets buy some more time while we try to come up with the successor to the failed DRM model' 283. The RIAA has created a collusion of corporations that seeks only to develop a shared monopoly of the music industry, whilst acting as a cover to disguise massive breaches of antitrust law. 284. Threats of legal action are the weapons of the greedy and insecure. There is no playing field, the RIAA are the bullies fighting down the true heros of distribution such as allofmp3 who have endevored to bring flawless service and availability to the little guy (the consumer) like no one else has. The consumer never had it so good, until the RIAA stepped in and caused a war with the peacable simply wanting good value. 285. Yeah so level, if you buy a song from iTunes and haven't got an iPod, your screwed.... sorry creative, microsoft, sony ericsson 286. Mitch Bainwol is the blackbeard of corporate pirates. 287. Anti piracy strategies? Did they come straight out of an SS handbook? 288. THE SAME AS ABOVE 289. Their way or the highway - ask the Russians. 290. Level playing field means fair use. Fair use is not a concept RIAA enforces. 291. Mafia propaganda. 292. Again, the RIAA is an organization of control. They are interested in the creation of a level playing field for music distribution only to prevent one company (e.g. Apple) from dictating pricing to them. They fear companies such as All of MP3 even more as it lowers the prices on the playing field to that of what would be dictated by a true free market. 293. I have no idea who Mich Bainwol is, but anyone who introduced DRM so that the same archaid models could be applied to the internet needs to find another fucking planet to live on, 294. level playing field? come on, in the face of the biggest opportunity for levelling the playing field they cling to antiquated business models that stop the new entrants 295. Might've started out that way but, Bainwol now sees an opportunity for some quick cash by suing everyone in sight. 296. get rid of DRM. I can play a commercial cd in any cd player, i should be able to play my digital music on any digital music player be it another computer, portable player, etc... 297. Actually, I don't really know. I didn't have that option. 298. I don't know what the named person in particular has done, but the RIAA actively tries to suppress alternative distribution models, even those (such as allofmp3) that try to pay the RIAA royalties. 299. Blah, blah...whatever. 300. The RIAA uses extortion to maintain the hegemonic control of the music industry by the big 3 music companies. It also continues to use the illegal practice of payola, which restricts access to traditional broadcast outlets. 301. Of course, they co-operate within the group, but how about treating outsiders or competitors with the same level of respect? That will be a cool day in Hell. 302. See Q17 303. helped revitalize a coalition of music organizations , that is all. Balance is fallacious 304. Actually, they have managed to splinter music organisations that have no interest in the current agenda of the RIAA. This is true and loudly proclaimed in Canada. 305. I am have no comment 306. i dont know 307. I don't know what to say about that...Ok, let's get a lot of organizations together to sue people who want affordable music... 308. bullshit 309. Translation: "We are working on creating DRM that restricts the purchaser in order to attempt to protect our monopoly." 310. Sure, they spend much of their time combating anti-piracy. But wheres the level playing field for digital distribution? 311. RIAA is enguaged in extorsion 312. The RIAA is the most obvious monopolistic face of an industry dominated by a few VERY LARGE PLAYERS who define a "level playing field" as one in which new modes of distribution are cut off, and in which the entrance of new competitors is discouraged. 313. The RIAA leader has helped create a monopoly in digital music distribution models by trying to sue their competition out of business. 314. That's just ballocks. 315. "Anti-piracy strategies" = "Suing children" "Advocating a level playing field for digital music distribution models" = "Using the strongest DRM they can find" 316. don't know 317. The RIAA leadership may have finally, like the leadership of nearly every union in the U.S., positioned the RIAA for decline and ultimate irrelevance. 318. Just banded together to restrict music availability to force a high price base. 319. DRM's put limits on how I can listen to my music (I paid for the right!) how can they tell me how to listen to my music? 320. Yep that sounds like the RIAA 321. Bullshit! If the playing field was level, U.S. copyrights would automatically expire in 50 years, like they do in other countries. The RIAA is guilty of corporate greed, just like the companies they represent. 322. Humbug... I think I answered this where back there. 323. This is a very loose statement. All one would have to do to achieve what that statement would be to call a bunch of music organizations and tell them any information. 324. Mitch Bainwol has helped piss a lot of people off and make the rich richer... Good for you, JACKASS! 325. fuck the RIAA 326. RIAA works against digital music distribution 327. Money 328. If it were not for file sharing, i would have given up on popular music, and steered my kids away from it. 329. They only do this in order to hindering fair-rights-use. 330. mhm. the internal concept starts with: how to make the consumer pay over and over again for the same song. drop drm, drop prices, stop blowing money on ridiculous ads and watch how it works. afraid you may not become a multi-billionaire in 6 months with that strategy? maybe you should get another job then. 331. N/A 332. Because of DRM and lack of (legal) availability of music online the bulk of music is still sold in the CD format. 333. do i even need to start? 334. how is blocking and competitive distrabution system a LEVEL playing field 335. The RIAA is nothing more than a criminal organization, designed to protect their members from scrutiny or their illegal and unethical practices. 336. all that statement is about making/keeping money in their industry 337. filesharing is responsiable for advocating a level playing field for digital music distribution models 338. Yes, they work together to try to make everyone pay the RIAA tax. Basically if they can get a fee from everyone maybe, just maybe they would consider stopping their ridiculous rampage against the consumers. If they treated the customer more like a partner instead of a criminal I'm sure things could get better. 339. Well he could be doing that. 340. "helped revitalize a coalition of multi-million-dollar bigwigs that now often work together on a variety of industry issues, such as control strategies or advocating further exploitation of consumers and the quashing of their rights" 341. I don't care about industry issues - I care about my issues. Stop talking about industry - start thinking about customers. 342. He's an ass 343. They work together to control the industry and maximize the profits for those they represent. 344. There's clearly no level playing field for digital distribution. The industry still doesn't understand digital distribution. 345. There is no level playing field for digital distribution as long as the lossy files are being passed on as a legitimate way of charging people for money and albums are broken apart as $.99 tracks in the name of making a couple of extra bucks 346. See 19. 347. they RIAA pick their horses - very bias and non-competetive. to much of a good ol boys club 348. See 23 above. The RIAA has screwed the Artists, their Customers, and the Recording Industry itself over so badly it is not funny -- it is criminal. 349. I'm sure the RIAA did say that. 350. While this statement may be true, it ignores the fact that more and more artists are venturing outside the major-label system to distribute their music due to the handling of the very issues Bainwol cites. While there may be a coalition of major labels, there is not a coalition of artists. Moreover, I doubt the average artist and the average consumer see such a coalition of major labels as a positive development in a free market system. 351. umm. a level playing field? how is leading nearly 1% of America's musicians to dominate the music industry while not giving the other 99% of the honest, good hearted musicians a snowball's chance in hell of even being able to make a small living off of what they actually like to do making a level playing field? 352. I really didn't know Mitch Bainwol up until now and I really don't give a shit about what he has to say. 353. by locking down(drm) music files, and limiting to them to only one platform(fairplay) the riaa is locking users into one drm and hardware solution, which creates a monopoly on music distribution. 354. A level playing field is something they will never allow. They will always want it tipped in their favour 355. "Level playing field?" Hardly. Again, the RIAA's goal is to preserve the record companies' bottom-line, even at the expense (apparently) of artists and end-users. 356. Who asked the artist on this? 357. The RIAA has stifled innovation in cases where technological advancements threaten their member companies' stranglehold on the environment in which music is created and distributed. 358. If they are so concerned @ the artist , why isn't all the $ spent on anti piracy tactics given to the artist. Go after the folks that are pressing thousands of disks, and not some puny school kid. 359. Bleh... 360. Monopoly - monopoly - monopoly. 361. Revitalize? More like annihilate. 362. Mostly true, except for the bit about leveling playing fields. Legislated oligarchy is the opposite of a level playing field. 363. Created an entity that takes the bad PR for all the negative activities instead of the record labels themselves 364. They take away the level playing field for all artists stupid enough to use a label that they represent. People actually refrain from buying music from artists associated with them. How is that for a level playing field. 365. they are responsible for a global consumer backfire : boycott, weariness etc... not good for business (any business school teaches that to students in their first year) 366. How much did he make last year? 367. ...it's no coincidence that the best services are allofmp3.com or Itunes because they are the cheapest. 368. Cant explain 369. Bullshit. They're just trying to hang on to a sinking ship and will not open their eyes to the new paradigm and try to make a buck in this decade - they want to do it 1995-style. 370. It's true the big 4 are in coalition, but as for advocating a level playing field, they're thrashing in the death throes of trying to maintain an antequated business model. 371. They have create a plateau on which the large record companies work together to distribute music. 372. That sounds like what happens at boycott-riaa.com, not the RIAA. 373. get a universal format for downloads, instead of this DRM crap, THEN we can talk about level playing fields 374. There's never going to be a "level playing field". 375. :P 376. Didn't Hitler say the same thing about Himmler? (More Nazis. I'm winning now!) 377. Bullshit..he is on a witch hunt with blanket notices to pay or get sued. Forget the fact they have no evidence..8 to 80, if they can et a summons in your hand, he will. 378. Bainwol is even more draconian than his predecessor, Hillary Rosen, and has only alienated more fans of musicians. 379. who is mitch bainwol 380. He is doing the same thing the RIAA always does with a different PR attatched to it "we are just changing distribution models" but really just another restrictive non-sensical model that doesn't help prevent piracy on encourages it. the company's by themselves are solving these problem by going DRM free at this very moment. 381. See #23... 382. #24 makes my head hurt. I decline to answer until I can figure out what's being said. 383. wtf does that mean? 384. Stop making me type in this box. For your stupidity for making these litlle text boxes, I am now forced to c&p this response in all the boxes. Bad poll making guy, BAD! 385. In Bainwol's dreams, maybe, but in reality, no such thing. 386. See answer for question 23 above. 387. The music industry is in a downward spiral, thanks in part to the RIAA's disorganization of the various music organizations 388. It's only about controlling the music industries - if label companies and other publishers think their best interests aren't being respected properly, they should do something about it themselves. 389. Mitch is scum of scum. 390. The RIAA works with companies that spoof MP3 files on P2P networks. Hardly counts as a music organization 391. The RIAA engages in radio payola and suppression of independent competition. 392. Who gets to say that the RIAA gets to choose what is a decent digital music distribution model? 393. He has destroyed competition, and done everything in his power to eliminate/reduce consumer choice. 394. To be honest I really don't know much about this one, but in seeing the way that the music industry has been reduced to just 2 or 3 major labels, I can't see how they are fighting for a "level playing field" 395. The RIAA under the current and previous leaders, has sought a coalition consisting only of organizations that support its viewpoint. 396. The RIAA brings together a coalition which sues their customers. 397. The current digital music market is anything but a level playing field. The RIAA insists on forcing restrictive DRM policies on consumers who have paid for legitimately- obtained music. CDs do not have DRM, why should I pay $10 (on iTunes) for a digital copy of an album with all sorts of rules on where and how I can listen to it when I can buy the same album on CD for roughly the same price and have the flexibility to listen to it in any CD player or computer, rip it to any digital format that I want, load it on any digital audio player that I want, and have it at any quality that I want? 398. the riaa is working to keep the record labels in money by making sure that everyone across the globe is charged close to $1 per song they want. 399. Laughing too hard, sorry. 400. 'level playing field' = see: 'Tallest Tulip' and 'jante law' also see 'procrustes' 401. They want to put a floor on profit. What is allowable after profit is where the digital distribution comes in. 402. I don't really know about him. 403. I don't know enough to answer either way. 404. Level playing field? Idiots. 405. Don´t care to answer to such an obvious, blatant fallacy. 406. Yeah, they've done a great job of fostering a digital marketplace, helping net radio, and creating a better user experience, not... 407. More truthfully, they advocate monopolizing the music industry. 408. They need to adapt to mainstream technology because file-sharing isn't going anywhere. 409. But what about MUSIC itself? 410. But they work together ti restrict artists from being successful and leveraging alternatuve business models, so I am not sire how successful this coalitionizing is. 411. If theyre so successfull and revitalised how come p2p is up cd sales down and apples just been kicked in the balls over DRM? just as in the days they wanted casettes banned the RIAA stand for Mr yesterday fighting a holding action- if they were truly proactive and offered alternatives to theyre overpriced business model i may consider stopping p2p - shit if Itunes sued my ass id have some respect at least they put somework in.... the RIAA just want money for nothing 412. works to keep control 413. The music industry has never been so divided on a single issue 414. While this may be true in the sense of benefiting organizations that support the RIAA, the RIAA has done nothing to meet the needs of music consumers. Too many digital platforms that don't speak to each other, plus DRM that forces everyone to buy multiple copies of their favorite music. 415. I fail to see the level playing field. Adding more royalty costs to internet radios putting them out of business hardly seems level. 416. He has helped strain the pool of artists to the point where there are hardly any left. 417. I would want some specifics. I don't believe this. 418. It is called Price Gouging, that is what he has helped w/ digital Distribution. 419. see previous answer 420. It's not about advocating anything - it's about making more money. All they do is pound on anything they can call anti-piracy... in order to make money. If there was no money in it, they would have to change, or simply not bother. 421. The RIAA is using the law to maintain a failing business strategy 422. There is no level playing field. It is the RIAA's way or no way. I guess if everyone is working together to set prices and control distribution, then it is level to that extent. 423. I would support him if he was creating new ways to do business using current technology, but his obvious disdain for the digital file sharing public is undermining his efforts to do successful business. Attacking innocents is clearly illegal and he should be put in jail for this. Jail is probably too good, but i dont support the death penalty. 424. its about time (to bad its a lie ) 425. I'm sure they work very closely with their member organizations, but nothing I've seen indicates that they have any interest in creating a level playing field. 426. Have to be dragged into this century kicking and screaming. 427. I have no knowledge of what these organiations do or do not do "on a variety of industry issues" but I dislike loaded terms like "piracy" and I assume this is just another self-serving smoke-and-mirrors statement from a special-interest lobbyist. 428. I don't know who Mitch Bainwol is, but if he's involved in the RIAA, he'd have to be a rogue element to be attempting to do anything even remotely positive with respect to fairness. And what's with this piracy crap? A pirate steals you blind and sets your ship on fire. Where is the burning ship and the missing inventory from public P2P sharing? 429. They are creating a horrible mish-mash of strong arm tactic DRM standards that can still be defeated fairly easily by people who enjoy the challenge. 430. NO COMMENT> 431. All they do is work together to keep the prices up and keep screwing the customer for as long as possible 432. Level playing field for digital music distribution models simply means that RIAA's wants to charge the same inflated price for distribution of digital files as they do for CDs. 433. their rich 434. Yeah right, and Elvis was lead singer for a death metal band... 435. Level playing field = stifling competition and innovation . Heaven forbid someone find a way to do it cheaper or faster! Let's make it uniform, cumbersome, and keep those margins high! 436. The only ones who should fear piracy are the ones who produce crappy quality music. Dependent (an independent label) stopped producing new CD's and blamed piracy, while the bottomline is that their artists just produce the same 4/4 kind of synthpop/helectro music. 437. That is not needed. 438. It's true, but the level playing field is a stifling one that I choose not to participate in. 439. There's no coalition, there's just RIAA for music and MPAA for motion-pictures. Neither seems to be interested in anything more than lining their pocketbooks. 440. All Propaganda 441. Money? 442. Its anti-piracy strategies are costing the artists and the industry. Look at the DRM failure with the Apple Ipod as an example. 443. It's done everything to impede music distribution. DRM is a raging failure.... just ask Sony. RIAA is the voicemouth of an industry holding on to the dark ages and are slowly being dragged into the 21st century kicking and screaming. 444. Is there a level playing field in digital distribution? It's more like a game for the big guys.. or just one big guy to be more accurate. 445. Its like 10 mob bosses coming together to form one supermob. Now they can dish out even more beatings and make sure their combined power base is a match for the law when it tries to push back. 446. Yes, online stores for shit quality music for a high price. IF they really had it their way, you'd have to pay a monthly fee to use the music too. 447. Even MORE money 448. They have alienated their costumers from products they are selling. 449. Revitalize? No. They got Metallica on the "band"-wagon(pun intended) then the rest followed. 450. they're full of crap-if the price is right, people would buy, but, again, who wants one track, and 8-9 pieces of junk, on a cd that cant take a lot more! 451. ahym, sort of an organized crime cartel as an author called it - I really liked that parallel 452. Blabla.... they still only care about money... they just have enough money to pay people to sound it like something good.. 453. That statements only true if you translate the jargon into what they're really saying. They don't want digital distribution unless they can control it in such a way the artists have to deal with them first. 454. They work together to keep their revenue going the same as in the past, and stifle all competition. And pissing off decent customers with DRM, as a secondary objective. 455. they revitalized themselves, after missing the digital revoultion. now they try to control the music scene with "old methods" 456. RIAA entrenches the the statas qou of the current music monopolies. 457. AKA Sue every person with a computer or throwing ANOTHER knife at consumer rights. 458. The only playing field they level is the field where only the big four (the popular kids) can play while undermining the ability anyone else (non-popular kids) from participating in the distribution of music. 459. i dont know 460. lies 461. What i see is a load of baloney DRM nightmares (most of which are already beaten) that more often than not give people who LEGALLY purchased a CD a headache trying to get it to work, being foisted on their customers (nothing like being treated like a pirate right after you hand over the money, eh?) coupled with blatant price fixing of the market (something they already got caught doing) from their puppets. If anyone encouraged and made the online music distribution market a commercial reality and success, its Apple with the iPod and iTunes along with all the illegal filesharing that showed people how easy and convenient it is to acquire music digitally instead of having to go down to a shop in the first place! Oh the irony... 462. they aint done shit 463. They do nothing of the sort. 464. BS 465. Same old song. Let the free market and technology dictate it. 466. The model they created has removed all fair use rights from consumers and has given them no advantage in return. Music is no cheaper, harder to use and more restrictive then ever and this is all thanks to their supposed revitalization. 467. he's an asshole 468. The music industry is focused on controlling its consumers through restrictions placed on music meant only to harm legitimate consumers. People who share music circumvent the technology anyway. 469. The artist won't get more money. Right now the money is rolling uphill. With a level playing field it will roll faster ... this is bad. 470. RIAA is a music cartel... like a drug cartel, except corrupt politicians support the : ( 471. EMI got 5 millions $ from Apple to sell drm free mp3s. What did the RIAA to go in this way ? Nothing. They are old and stupid lobbyist who struggle to be alive. 472. I think they should focus more on the way that they market, they try to levy the "playing field" so that they always come out as the winner. 473. Sorry, wrong! I've seen a number of movements from organizations and websites that have pushed forward the digital music distribution playing field. Personally it would have been in the RIAA best interest to stonewall this new level of thinking as much as possible, and I'm sure that's what they tried. 474. Stomping on things doesn't revitalize them. And the playing field is only level for the behemoths belonging to the RIAA. 475. no comment 476. What was the the leader on about? 477. huh? 478. I'm saying true from now on because I'm sick of typing. 479. Canadian coalition against DRM 480. Well, we're filesharing aren't we? And we're always growing 481. They don't want a level playing field, they don't want you to download, even legally. They don't want any music to be distributed over the internet, therefore, it is not level for music distribution models. 482. REALLY ??? 483. DRM is not a level playing field. 484. I don't who he is, but he's very mislead by thinking the RIAA did something good. 485. They only work together to fight piracy. Otherwise they are competitors 486. not sure, but i doubt they fight for a level playing field. 487. mitch bainwol is rich beyond need 488. They want DRM (Sucks) and controls that the average person hates.Keep in mind the Sony rootkit virus in music CDs. 489. A level playing field wouldn't have them in court with anti-competitive pricing, don't you think? 490. If they are truly achiveing this goal, they should have listened to the fans, and not sue a member company just because they were supporting the old Napster. 491. see answer above 492. Again, level for who? The artists, us, or the record companies. I don't see anyone asking me to a round table discussion. 493. this would only apply to music that moves off the shelf and is a profitable for a paritcular group of the people....the record company.....if they are advocating a level playing field for digital music distribution models why are they trying to tax the hell out of webcasters and shut off internet radio..... 494. liar 495. RIAA has helped create a new leach organization that preys on the music industry and it's fans. It does nothing to promote positivity in the music industry or for the ones writing the songs... 496. DRM is not a level playin g field, especially given the simplicity of a CD rip. 497. "level playing field?" ... with a litigation bulldozer, maybe? 498. they only want their way no one elses 499. DRM... 500. The above statement is almost true but they don't set out to fix issues in the industri they set out to safeguard their own paychecks. 501. Is that why they are always wanting a bigger slice of the pie for doing less work? 502. Music companies need to stop worring about piracy. The people who purchase music will continue to purchase music. Those who pirate music will continue to do so also. Why not work towards making it easier to purchase music at a reasonable price. 503. n/a 504. Level playing field != RIAA monopoly 505. HAHA the RIAA only cares about themselves 506. They are seizing control of all DRM to lock down music and only RIAA will have the key 507. theyre building a cartel to fuck people over 508. I don't know. 509. don't know (missing option) 510. they are trying desperately to maintain the old way of business. 511. They are a day late and a dollar short. Or .99$ if you use iTunes. 512. Sure, I can buy that the big labels band together for these purposes. 513. Protecting markets, screwing society. 514. Though i think they have make some moves in the right direction, they are far from where they need to be. Right now, the anti-piracy measures are too strict, and the playing field for digital music distribution models is not level at all. 515. they breed fear 516. Working together, I thing they really mean a cartel. 517. the riaa has stuck like glue to anybody that's got deep pockets and plenty of money, as for the level playing fields of music distribution, the file sharers set that up years ago by sticking to mp3 formats 518. "revitalize"? i don't think so, the vain music industry is being torn apart because of failed business models. no one to do with the RIAA are being revitalized. everything going shit for them. 519. They work together in fueling the piracy of music and alienating the public. The anti-piracy strategies turn some from casual downloaders to full fledged p2p community members. 520. Only helped to revived coporate greed. 521. total rubish 522. For what that is my question? 523. They couldn't give a fig about that. 524. He's right, but the organization is that of pirates, file-sharers and CCL music fans 525. nope it's to find more ways to bully countries, artist, and paying non U.S. customers. take for example when they forced Russia to close down a buisness for "selling" mp3s for a price that the RIAA don't like. 526. The RIAA has done these things as a last resort to preserve its own relevancy. 527. In which European state was that now? 528. See answer for question 23. The RIAA has been using monopolistic tactics such as price fixing as well as paying radio stations to play only their music. 529. if it's a level playing field then why is drm in there? There's no cross platform support which is what the customer is interested in. Why is all music priced at the same price with nothing lower than 99 cents? That 530. I see them as trying to police the world and telling local law enforcment to go after kids and grandparents and not go after real crimals. 531. bs 532. Only "level" for the majors 533. While their crusade has indeed persuaded a number of other associations, their claim of a "level distribution field" is nothing but a spew of corporate lies. The very purpose of a business in a capitalistic society is to disrupt this playing field in their favor. Whether or not they are successful in doing so is irreverent. 534. They want somthing they have complete controle over. 535. only by removing a association based on profit will a level playing field emerge. 536. the playing field on level at an artificially elevated level there is no true competition among downloads as long as copy pretection exists and limits where you can play your music 537. LOL the "ISSUES" they work on .. .are A: Make more money B: Bully people into submission thru scare tactics also .. notice ... how thier ... coalition ..... only works on .. distributing another method where we PAY them, basicly .. more stores ... with higher prices ... .... not increase the diversity of the music or give the artist's room to work ..... just anything that sells ... and however they can sell it to us The RIAA says: Fuck the artist fuck the meaning behind the music .... give us money . ``Night_raid 538. Anyone can say anything they want to say. It's all about money and nothing else. 539. Steve Jobs has done more to advocate a level playing field for digital music distribution models, even when he does it to gain market share. 540. driven totally by money 541. All they are about is money, and wringing every last penny that they can from consumers. 542. basicaly he paid them so they will also go along with they shit. 543. If they wanted a level playing field they'd be fighting DRM. 544. They advocate a playing field which only consists of the 500 year-old business model of selling information on a pay-per-copy basis. 545. Anti piracy strategies = sue everyone, guilty or not. Level playing field?!? Their playing field they are going for is about as level as the pits in the back of a fat womans cottage cheese thights. The only model they play with are male blow up dolls and buisiness "models" that increase their pocket sizes exponentially. 546. He's a lier :P 547. Then why are they trying to cut out the Independent Labels? 548. I don't see how putting a stanglehold on your customers is creating a level playing field. 549. Putting DRM on online music stores is not leveling the field of digital music distribution, they do it cause they still want people to buy cds, which helps piracy even more. Real piracy and lost in sales happens on the streets, not on the net. 550. i don't see how he has ever helped 551. they force music orginizations into joining them for profits. 552. I see this as just another effort to get the media's attention and to continue to demonize filesharing. 553. He is the instrument for a criminal cartel. No more and no less. 554. if they are doing this it is only because they have failed in there attempt to turn back the clock where they controlled everything and we as consumers were forced to rely on them. this is about control pure and simple they have lost it in this new digital age and they either can not cope or they will not cope with it. they have to change with the times or perish. i personally think they are to stupid to change and will perish 555. Good ol' Boys club. "How do we keep all the money?" 556. See my answer to number 24. 557. level as long as no other company can compete. (itunes or else) 558. Huh? 559. One word CARTEL. They missed the boat on what their consumers want so now they are trying to enforce their out of date business model. 560. read #24 561. what level palying field for digital music? Distribution model? Ha... The only distribution model they're working on is one with RIAA at the gates. 562. digital distribution is a joke. 563. Their "level playing field" includes intrusive DRM that I would not pay for even if I didn't have other issues with their companies. 564. I don't think the music industry looks collective enough to start this "coalition". 565. Four labels! 566. Well, they do work together often. They've yet to do anything substantially possitive on the consumer end though. 567. He is the lead monster 568. Sure thats is right. If you take all that out. And put in "how can we make as much money as can be" 569. BS. 570. He helped,but it was in wrong direction. 571. Cartels help only the insiders. 572. The RIAA has consistently opposed stragegies to foster the development of music in the digital age. 573. It's about the cash. 574. The record companies add NOTHING to the music that is worthy of the monetary penalty they heap on consumers. I believe, and the facts DO appear to bear this out, that artists themselves would be MUCH BETTER served financially by marketing directly to consumers over the web. The Record Companies are simply middle-men who act to PREVENT the free and easy exchange of artistic product. The RIAA is a dinosaur who apparently didn't receive his own copy of the memo -- the dinosaurs died out 65 Million years ago when an asteroid or comet struck what is now part of the Gulf of Mexico. WAKE UP -- YOU'RE DEAD ALREADY! 575. The are about monopoly not a level playing field. 576. If the RIAA wanted to revitalize the organization of music organizations, it would have all the parent companies distribute DRM free music and stop sueing its customers.

The RIAA says: Bainwol has, "strengthened artist relations and devised programs to promote and recognize emerging digital formats".

Total Responses: 998 True   12.3%  (123) False   87.7%  (875)

If you've answered False to the question above, how do you see things?

Total Responses: 630 1. Even the member labels are more progressive than RIAA itself (re non-DRM'ed music from EMI) 2. Let's hear the artists say that, then I'll believe it. 3. okay, and so has CNN, and local grocery store jingles.. 4. lawsuits between the artists and the labels don't constitute a strengthened relationship. The RIAA does recognize emerging digital formats via lawsuits. 5. Many artists want nothing to do with these asshats. 6. Revenue & Profit! The RIAA would like digital formats to have never been invented. Unfortunately for them Pandora's Box has been opened. 7. They missed every major p2p-network for years, great recognizing... 8. Like what Itunes? 9. no basis upon which to respond 10. They barely trust Apple's FairPlay as it is! 11. LOL! 12. The RIAA only supports formats it can control. 13. False 14. This actually is true, except that the movement he is speaking is of artists who are finding methods to release their music without using the RIAA or their methods. 15. Do the even know what a .OGG file is? "oh, it's like those illegal mp3s isn't it? The implication is that all mp3s are illegal because they don't control the format. 16. Bainwols only interest is lining his own money pockets. 17. You have done nothing but try to shut down programs with emerging digital formats. The few you have accepted such as iTunes you are constantly trying to force the companies to raise the prices so you can go back to ripping off the consumers again. 18. if they had got in on the ground level with mp3's instead of trying to hike cd prices maybe things would be different 19. RIAA doesn't distribute music in FLAC or Ogg. Wait, it's opensource, so it's immediately brushed over. My bad. 20. Um, I don't the artists have any love for the record companies. 21. They have done little if anything to promote digital music formats. The converse is more true. 22. I'm not sure what he's done. 23. Bull. 24. Like DRM? 25. They are scared by "digital" formats 26. Artists don't seem to work together very well, and the RIAA is releasing any great software that I've seen. 27. See Metallica...... 28. Truth: the RIAA has strengthened the upper hand of the major record companies, forcing artists into a no-win corner, therefore gaining agreements of dures. 29. Lack relevant knowledge in which to make a decision. 30. RIAA is like the Jack Thompson of music. LOL 31. They have developed programs to promote and recognize their emerging digital fomats that keep them in control of art, which should be fo rthe people. 32. The RIAA has, by presuming to speak on their behalf, helped artists look like assholes, and devised programs to break already recognized digital formats through the use of crippling DRM 33. money 34. There is still too much concern over cd sales. 35. Partially true. The RIAA and record companies are smart enough to know that they cannot control this technology shift. File-sharing has forced them to deal with the new model, which can only be a good thing. But rather than issue lawsuits, they should be investing in technologies to improve service to the customer and revenue to the artists. 36. FLAC? OGG? 37. I haven't seen many artists come out in support of the RIAA's tactics. And how have they promoted emerging digital formats? They've limited the ligitimate use of owned property through the DRM 38. They made it worse. 39. Webcasters have continuously fought an uphill battle with royalty rates. With the rates increasing yet again, killing off a second wave of stations, many webcasters are moving and re-starting their broadcasts. These rates force webcasters into financial strain, a weakness the RIAA has a history of exploiting. 40. They have tried to close down the digital format unless it is locked so tight that you have to purchase a song/album multiple times to listen to it on multiple players (CD,iPod,computer,etc...) 41. Many artists see record labels as an anachronism. The RIAA does nothing to promote the interests of the artists. They are primarily interested in helping to ensure that we have a music industry which can continue to profit from the work of the artists. And we all know that the RIAA has no interest in "programs to promote and recognize emerging digital formats". The drive for DRM is quite the opposite: it is a move aimed to cripple online music sales. 42. more baloney 43. lossless formats are where? 44. By taking advantage of individuals who cannot find their own representation in order to reap what they're rightfully owed?? They do nothing but feed on the week and ignorant and use them as a cover for their greater scheme of things (money). 45. Is this why it took years to create an online store? Why they limit bit rates to such levels that buying a CD is the only choice. 46. All they have done is makes their own artists hate them too. Just ask courtney love or trent resnor. 47. thye only want new formats to stop piracy. it still wont work. drm doesnt work, ask itunes. 48. mp3/4 are lossy and terrible compared to ogg or other lossless formats 49. The RIAA has fortified the barrier between artists and their record company and created a barrier between the record company and the consumer. 50. I think most artists disagree with what the RIAA does, but most are stuck in contracts. 51. Read: "devised programs to promote digital rights management." 52. The RIAA is seeking ways to infect new formats with DRM to further control what people can and cannot do with what they legitimately purchased, be these actions legal or not. In the process, they are simply turning people off legitimate distribution channels because they cannot use their purchases in the way they want to. 53. The only relations RIAA has strenghtened is with the elitist of Hollywood. The people or consumers that keep the artists in business have had enough of their high priced low quality entertainment. 54. delusional, again. 55. Suing people and trying to shut down file sharing isn't a way to usher in a new era of formats. 56. Well, partially. They promoted Napster and P2P by condemning it. By suing college students they give them reason to download, if only out of spite. 57. Where? 58. So you invented mp3? 59. the type of business model of the riaa companies makes it difficult to sell music online effectively. 60. No 61. Promote digital formats? What!? Or scamming people from Jamster ringtone advertisements? 62. I can't speak for artist relations, but I imagine that even if they wanted to lash out they wouldn't be able to due to their contracts. I haven't heard of the RIAA doing jack for 'emerging digital formats.' 63. Emerging digital formats? 128kbps WMA is emerging? Technology changes every 6 months, WMA has been out for 7 years. 64. Really means maintain control to rip off consumers 65. RIAA = bunch of theives and liers 66. lies, why couldn't they find 9000 artists to pay the royalties too? 67. the RIAA has proven itself to be wholly set against digital music formats entirely. Anything that the RIAA has engineered to move digital music has been highly restricted and near useless for the end consumer. 68. If anything it has strengthened artists against them 69. BULLSHIT. Kill Internet Radio 70. HAHA. Seriously, the record labels were about 5-10 years behind the whole 'internet' thing. When napster filled the void, they sued their way into the scene. Straight-jacketing everything in DRM doesn't help to promote anything. 71. "Strengthened artist relations"? In what way? Maybe by making artists even more dependent on their labels? How about promoting DRM-free formats? Um, nope. 72. It's only the RIAA money the RIAA is concerned about. 73. DRM is not promotion any of these things. 74. They thwart the efforts to use new formats. 75. Emerging digital formats will be strengthened if the RIAA stops trying to control them through legistation of technologies. The short-sighted legislation of technologies, from control of digital formats to the banning of incandescent lamps, is harmful to all technical progress. 76. I've not seen a good new digital format in years, and the only ones they "promote" are playable on only a select number of devices 77. The RIAA appears bent on limiting the market to those methods of distribution which will protect their profit margin, not in the availability of music at a price people are willing to pay. If they were not grossly inflating prices, the volume of music sales may compensate for the lack of profit generated by each individual sale. More people could afford to purchase their music collections. 78. He has only strengthened his relations with the labels, and the artist comes later, if at all. 79. That's pure bullshit. The RIAA could care less about artists. 80. The RIAA has done nothing to help with format wars between competing MP3 players. 81. they're trying to get more money out of the consumer. 82. what is that 83. Human Dinosaur and global simpleton. 84. Brittney: "Who's Bainwol?" 85. They have strengthened relations between dominant artists in a concerted effort to suppress non conformist artists. 86. They try to keep artist from going out on there own to sell there music (on the internet). 87. same as 31 88. DRM isn't an emerging format, it's on it's way to the digital graveyard. 89. Bainwol is all about lining his pockets. 90. DRM. 'nuff said. 91. What a joke! The vast majority of artists that I know of that aren't filthy rich already (and some that are, even) have a deteriorated business model and relationship to their labels or volatile relations with potential labels. In general, it's a well-known concept that artists don't get a damned thing from their labels. So how does this promote relations between the artists, the fans, or even the record companies and production studios aside from obscene profit off the hard work of artists? Next, THE RIAA promotes horrible quality WMA and MP3 files and little, if anything, else, chocked full of DRM policeware for legit customers. What a way to innovate with digital formats, guys. 92. They have tried to encode their music so it cant be copied. But it only costs them more money that they want us to pay. 93. Sure Sure Sure, I believe you... 94. They are distrustful of MP3 or OGG which are the leading emerging formats. They only promote DRM as a digital format, and that format is dying. 95. yet to be seen 96. The artists are well aware of their own consumers. For the most part, they are not stupid. Many of them have university degrees. 97. Same answer as 17 98. RIAA stifles emerging digital formats. 99. RIAA lags 100. The Soviets said they "Strengthened relations" when they exterminated mass portions of their populations. Intimidation is not what I'd call "strengthened artist relations" 101. The RIAA has first totally ignored, and later attempted to fight emerging digital formats. Many artists feel ripped off by the RIAA. 102. By keeping artist from freely distribute and form networks to share there work they are hampering creativity and growth of culture expression. 103. Whatever. 104. more bullshit 105. there are more digital formats now then their were 3 years ago 106. Well, this statement applies to only those measures as well as formats which promised to ensure maximum control and potential profits for the industry. 107. is this what the artists say? 108. the music companies are making too much margin, are not prepared to adapt their business practices, and are trying to legislate to maintain the status quo. 109. The opposite. The more they tighten their grip, the more people resist them and choose the alternative. 110. to their own benefit. No doubt! 111. They are sue happy! 112. $$$ 113. took way too long to osrt out digital formats 114. This all sounds like marketing speak. 115. they only work with one format. 116. What does this have to do with anything? Digital formats are already emerged, promoted and recognised. You're just trying to get more money from them in the most cynical, amoral manner while being blind to the benefit they already serve for the artist and the industry. 117. More and more artists begin despising the RIAA themselves. And as far as emerging digital formats? All that the RIAA has devised online, are DRM programs. 118. I have yet to see any of these promotions. 119. Again, for whose benefit? 120. They are taking freedom away, read previous comments. 121. Oh, they mean that DRM-crap? Well, that won't be around much longer, hopefully. 122. I dont' know what to say. These guys think that when they say something it makes it true. Kind of like the Chinese Government when they officially deny something you know it's true. Or when they make great claims like Brainwall you know it's most likely..., false. 123. yes, by encasing everything in DRM... 124. The RIAA has done more to divide artists than strengthen relations. 125. DRM is a stupid idea, let the music come from the back to the people that make it music by people for people. 126. not sure. 127. Kind of the same way Al Gore invented the internet 128. No, he's ruined consumer's chances of ever having easy to use music. 129. Dont know 130. no idea what they are talking about 131. Which programs are recognizing the emerging digital formats? And as for strengthened artist relations, let's speak to the other 16 artists who did not have their works sold or marketed effectively as in answer 19. 132. ~digital formats are much too restrictive. To make DRM enabled music to work on many players or to make the "good 'ol mix CD" your forced to find ways to remove the DRM. Thus,... committing a crime. You guys; cmon... i hope you see the light here one day. But your making the problem worse. Shut down P2P, track down the users that currently use them and bust hard on them. Leave the rest of us who legitly buy music alone. This whole problem was non existent before p2p came along. If you remove that threat, really, things would go back to how they were. 133. Digital audio formats have evolved through the open source community. If the RIAA had their way none of them would exist - or would be heavily copyrighted by them. 134. allofmp3.com (has been far from promoted and recognised even if it is legal) 135. Nothing worth mentioning had been created after mp3 and monkey audio. 136. No 137. promotion of open source formats????? 138. Wha? 139. I'm getting tired of typing responses. 140. Cutting edge artists did this on their own, the the riaa followed suit as a necessity 141. Spin 142. Who cares about Bainwol? 143. They're against new digital formats, if it doesn't come with an encryption layer and set of ZOMGHAXPROOF DRM. 144. FLAC please! 145. Great, wait...why have I never noticed this? I'm sure you had a great part to play in the popularizing of mp3 and AAC...WAIT no that was napster and iTunes. Up yours. 146. Fuck the RIAA 147. myspace is a great way to promote bands but it still gets sued 148. DRM is crap 149. They're devised programs to recognize potential threats to their dominance and crush them, but that's weakening artist relations (see for example the large number of canadian artists who pulled from the CRIA) 150. It's all in the contract. 151. What about P2P? MP3? They didn't promote or recognize them now, did they? 152. See above. RIAA is extremely conservative, and counter-acts innovation. 153. I don't know any differently 154. See above "leech" answer. 155. Stop claiming it's about the artists, already. 156. I'm pretty certain he curses the day the Moving Pictures Expert Group came up with MP3 files. 157. See answer to 25. 158. it is just smoke and mirrors 159. We don't see this 160. Never heard of any artists saying this. From past action, I assume "emerging digital formats" is DRM. That may be true, but it's not a positive thing. 161. Then why has nobody heard of any RIAA-sponsored music services other than iTunes? Why can I name more indie-sites than I can "legit" sites? 162. 99 cents a track on itunes?!?! 163. See number 25 164. They don't want music in MP3 format...they don't want to see music in any "new" formats period other than what they control. 165. if by that he means DRM-ridden crap, then it's true. but that doesn't mean we want this over-restricted format imposed on us. 166. Bainwol has assisted with the promotion of talentless models who cannot sing, write music or play an instrument into the status of artists whilst those that actually have a clue have been relegated to independents. Bainwol has furthermore assisted in the development of unwanted and unnecessary digital formats. 167. The legacy recording industry has done everything they can to oppose the emergence of digital formats which threaten the legacy business model that they represent. 168. Bainwol? 169. The RIAA fights to preserve their right to earn money immorally. 170. Bainwol and the RIAA have made every effort to impede the progess of digital technology and new digital formats that promise to be the future of recording technology. 171. The companies have taken those steps not the RIAA. 172. Never even heard of Bainwol before, but all these RIAA bigwigs have a business background and don't care about the music. I bet he owns a Celine Dion CD. 173. strengthen against artists 174. How about the OGG format? Or FLAC for that matter? What has Bainwol done to "promote and recognize" those digital formats? The only thing he's done is work to promote restrictions on all formats to make things more expensive and difficult for music listeners. 175. Nothing he has done has recognized emerging digital formats. He has been forced to recognize them by the consumers. 176. More artists are bailing from the monopolies every day. I think "devised programs to recognize emerging digital formats" means: sue anyone who even whistles our tune while walking down the street 177. You are fighting digital copying. Why the lie. Please try to tell the truth. 178. Not really promoting digital formats, simply controlling which they see the most profitable. 179. RIAA has done nothing but create a user base that is left without a great way to get electronic forms of music. 180. DRM is not a good idea 181. There ought to be a 'dont know' option 182. what happened to AllOfMP3.com? why were they attacked? they were only an "emerging digital format".... 183. Not for me. 184. the only way they can "promote and recognize emerging digital formats" is to allow them to be used unencumbered, which they don't so they clearly have no interest in promoting emerging formats unless these formats adhere to their cartel's rules. 185. Apple has done so. 186. But RIAA needs to do a lot more especially to promote emerging OpenSource digtal formats like OGG and FLAC. 187. How do they recognize digital formats, when they're fighting them? 188. Let it do to scientist, please. If a 128 kbs in AAC is considered the best... they don't have ears. 189. "Emerging." Yes, they have created some emerging digital formats. But, it costs more than those Russian websites. When the President and Dick Cheney strengthen their relations the entire United States does not strengthen its relationships. When the 5 major record labels sit down for dinner together and agree on something it does not mean the entire world does. How cynical these people must be... 190. The RIAA has been anything but intelligent in regards to their actions towards "emerging digital formats". 191. I like to see any real evidence of this 192. Of course, all to their profit. 193. Then why do the shun upon P2P so much? 194. don't give a damn for digital music. 195. then why are so many artist not being paid and why are they so carefully hiding the aounts that are outstanding and unpaid 196. while it has modified artist relations, i don't see them strengthened, and they seek to control or subvert emerging formats 197. Seems like more and more artists are inclined to do things on their own these days. 198. DRM is not helping the listeners. 199. They want money. 200. Yeah, DRMed formats. 201. Strengthen artist relations with whom? They've strengthened their own pocketbooks, thats about it. 202. They have only created new playtoys for those who enjoy nothing more than to defeat their feeble attempts to deny a user their rights. 203. Huh? I don't know of any evidence to support that. 204. ? 205. The RIAA seeks to not "recognize" emerging digital formates, but rather destroy those which are suited to their means and lace all others with DRM technologies which are ineffective in stopping piracy and aggravate users who purchase music and discover they have bought something which does not allow them to control their own bought and paid for property. 206. By recognizing the digital formats they mean controlling it in a way people can't use the formats in Windows Vista. And the corporate run ITunes store is a rip off....the music is grossly high priced on there. Programs that benefit them ONLY, NOT the consumer. 207. That's a joke. The RIAA has stalled, crapped on and slowed inovation in the digital arena. 208. allofmp3 versus iTunes/HMV prices and download models, who wins....one guess!! 209. The market has taken care of that for them...they are late to the party. 210. Again, where is my VBR MP3 files? Where is your warm support of a flat fee\unlimited download\a certain number of albums each month.. Where is my downloadable lossless FLAC releases? 211. Only those formats which allow them greater control of the product you suppoedly bought from them. 212. who the hell knows what they are doing 213. The artist relations will be strengthened when they get a bigger cut. 214. rubbish 215. DRM sucks.... 216. all the artist i know say you don't represent them 217. Nonsense. 218. what digital formats? itunes? theyve resisited that kicking and screaming. and the artists are still getting ripped off, just as they were before. 219. If he thinks 220. What's this? 221. strenghten the weight in their wallets is more like it 222. I haven't seen anything change within the recording industry. The only thing I have seen change is an increase in the enmity towards the RIAA. 223. I have not heard or seen any evidence of this at all. 224. i wouldn't say they have strengthened artist relations, but they do promote emerging digital formats specifically those which show the promise of copy protection. 225. Like all big organisations they stifle innovation for what they know, knowing that when innovation comes they are no longer required 226. One dollar for low quality crap isn't an evolving business model. 227. Emerging digital formats are seen as a risk by the RIAA and they endorse formats only if they are completely restricted. Thankfully EMI have noticed that end users do not want this and EMI are now seeing the profits. 228. Then why shut down mp3 sites? 229. the riaa hasn't done anything to make up for the fact that most of their new released are shite, and as long as they only offer DRM junk, I won't be buying. 230. They spent the 1st 5 years of digital music trying to shut everything down. They refused to acknowledge what was obviously the future of music distribution. 231. They just piss everyone off. Apple & other sites do that by making easy access that is affordable. Allofmp3.com baby ... love em ... 232. Spin 233. Maybe this is true, they've given the .mp3 file format A LOT of publicity as of late.... 234. This guy doesn't know his head from his ass. 235. They want to keep status-quo. 236. ... and squash them if they don't conform to the existing business model of having complete control and DRM formats. 237. Bill Gates done this, he is violating copyright laws. 238. For 'strengthened artist relatations' read: locked artists into ever tighter and more stringent contracts to the point where their label speaks for them not them for themselves. For 'devised programs to promote and recognize emerging digital formats' read: Clamped down on any new technology that does not conform to the box sold = $10 principle, regardless of whether it is good for the smarter-companies, artists, the consumers, or society as a whole. 239. Anything the RIAA says is BS 240. Wrong. I am not going to repeat myself. See above. 241. This is an outright lie. 242. Not at all... now there is a new model with DRM that infringes on everyone. 243. I have seen no evidence of this 244. I am not aware of these programs. 245. see answer to 23 246. THe riaa/mpaa fights to preserve the riaa/mpaa. 247. difficult to find a format choice on most donload sites. They are still in the dark ages. 248. Invest as less as they can in on-line music offer is one of the goal of music industry. 249. that is not ptomoting, thats is again scaring the customer. If you don't use drm, we will sue you. They don't listen to their customers... 250. dunno 251. dont make laugh just fell off chair 252. See 25 253. I doubt it. 254. same 255. If anything has convinced me to buy CDs, it's the bullshit surrounding all things DRM. 256. Under what pretext? 257. If I heard the news right, rappers are shooting at each other. Artist relations? How much do they spend on guns and drugs? 258. If this were the case we would have high quality download sites like Allofmp3 259. The RIAA is stuck in the 80s, and not quickly progressing. 260. Even most bands don't agree with the RIAA. 261. I honestly don't see what he's done, perhaps im just ill informed. 262. What about the internet?? 263. goes with the trend as advised by its sponsors 264. Their track record speaks for itself. 265. They failed in recognizing and underestimated emerging digital formats. That is half the reason for their current misery. 266. DRM is holding back a market without unlimited potential 267. I don't think somebody so concerned with making money could spend time doing something altruistic like promoting emerging digital formats. He is the head of the RIAA, not an audio engineer. Give me a break. 268. once again these are claims made by the RIAA for their leader. the facts are easily distorted here. 269. they are scared of the Internet 270. Once again, they are completely out of synch with the modern world. Take it from a 45 year old. 271. It only turned an eye to actual working digital formats after iTunes. 272. "Promote digital formats"? You're kidding, right? 273. they sure didn't recognize emerging digital formats in 2000, why would they grow a brain now? 274. Strengthened artist's relations? How do you do that when they want to give them less and take more. Seems to me that they are cheapening the value to the artist. The only digital formats they support are the one's that restrict the use of the music. You can only play it where we want you to. You cannot easily move it another device and heaven forbid you want to write to another device. 275. They have made it difficult to listen to music you bought legally on your own computer or other playing device. 276. The RIAA has never wanted to deal in digital distribution the way the consumers want. Be it DRM or subscription services, the RIAA has no intention of playing it the way consumers want them to. 277. If this has happened at all then it will have been an entirely futile effort in view of the RIAAs other policies and actions. 278. Screwed 279. Same as last answer. 280. Okay..show me one...holding my breath now....turning blue.... 281. That's meaningless marketing blather. 282. "Emerging digital formats"? Such as what? DRM is dying the death, precisely because no one wants it. 283. ditto 25 284. The RIAA has not devised programs to promote and recognize emerging digital formats. The most popular format today is MP3, and I cannot purchase music in it. The RIAA does not understand consumers wants. They are willing to pay for cheap DRM free music. Paying $1 a song for DRM'ed song is more than a CD! there is no distribution overhead either. As far as I understand, artist relations are as bad as ever. 285. If the RIAA is recognizing these formats by fighting them, which does not strengthen relations with the artists only the record labels. 286. see above ... 287. see 23 288. The RIAA seems to be stuck in the old ways. 289. Several artists have opposed to the RIAA suing their fans. 290. When the RIAA recognizes digital formats then we will see movement beyond the CD and adoption of higher definition formats, better compressed formats, and better distribution models. 291. I'm starting to sound like a broken record. See #21. 292. The RIAA has not connection with the artists. They are the "legal" enforcement arm of the record labels and would sue artists if it would benefit them. 293. I'd rather hear this claim be corroborated by the artists themselves. 294. I thinsk artists have more awareness of the possible than the industry. 295. We already have emerging digital formats! 296. If anything, they are trying to CRUSH any emerging digital formats 297. Wasn't the RIAA fighting against digital music sales? Only when they saw, that that didn't help, they acceptet iTunes selling some of their stuff. But DRM-crippled music doesn't seem to be very popular. 298. I'd say they've browbeaten and intimidated artists that have dared to challenge their corporate vision. 299. Many artists dont like their music in DRM. 300. Sorry, never heard of him. To be charitable I've answered true, having no information to the contrary. 301. They haven't done much, if anything, positive towards digital formats. An excellent digital format, mp3, has existed for a very long time, but the RIAA wants crippled, hard-to-use, and restrictive formats to force people to buy the same song multiple times. 302. I understanding is they want to restrict them. 303. jk 304. They are evolving independently and the record industry has kept up. They took their eye of the ball and didn't see what was coming. 305. A fancy way of saying 'artists have been given more money to help support the RIAA in the long term'. While still trying to buy time to find the successor to the DRM format. 306. There has been no sign whatsoever of even the slighest understanding of "emerging digital formats". The RIAA continues to destroy such possibilities with it's attacks on forward thinking digital music stores such as AllofMp3.com. Furthermore it has weakened the relationship between artists and the public, creating an atmosphere of hatred and persecution. 307. The RIAA is protecting the technical monopoly iTunes has on the distribution of digital music. European Union nations are taking much tougher actions to promote emerging digital formats, particularly non-DRM protected music. 308. The best (and still is) source of digital exposure and all artists is allofmp3. 309. How can he be about "emerging digital formats" if the format doesn't support DRM then they don't use it..... 310. he's an idiot 311. The only thing the RIAA is interested in strengthening is its pocketbook 312. THE SAME AS ABOVE 313. And protect the RIAA 314. RIAA totally passed on the mp3 format since it came to widespread use in the late 1990s. "Emerging digital formats" for the RIAA is DRM infested use-less crap. 315. The RIAA supports restrictive DRM. These new digital formats that they talk about are merely what we have been downloading for years. When we have a music store, where we can buy at cheap American prices (like you can for games on Steam) then I will consider downloading music, but only if DRM free. DRM is too restrictive. I enjoy sending and receiving tracks from friends over MSN (messenger) to experiment with different music styles. I do not consider this stealing, but DRM would stop this activity. 316. They're still living in the 80's. 317. The RIAA does not want to pay a cent to promote anything. They'd rather have other companies promote their own formats and charge for the content. 318. strengthened artist relations: so are artists stll getting 10c for ever $1.29 track sold on iTunes? programs to promote and recognize emerging digital formats: its called the internet, supply and demand. 319. artists still get screwed by them, they still don't want to distribute in the formats i'm interested in. 320. And they would be...? 321. What of all the other viable formats besides MP3, WMA, ACC? I don't see many online digital music stores providing Ogg, Wave, Lossless formats nor the ability for the customer to choose which format and quality. 322. The RIAA is not keeping up with emerging digital formats. The whole industry will have to change or it will die. 323. RIAA itself recognized digital formats a decade later after their emergence 324. Again, I don't know what he has done, but I mistrust anything said by the RIAA. 325. Artists STILL don't trust their record labels. 326. The RIAA has continually sought to hamstring efficient and innovative digital formats that do not contain crippling and unwieldly DRM schemes. It continues to actively seek the destruction of non-traditional broadcast outlets, especially streaming radio through the following practices: * bribery of Congressmen and FCC officials by lobbyists * attempting to bankrupt streaming radio operators by retroactively increasing royalty fees * using unrealistic formulas to calculate listenership for the purpose of charging royalty fees 327. Only music industry does. Give the artists the same amount of money they earn by selling a CD and cut off music industry and you can sell CDs for 2 $. 328. Ask Sony about the programs they have devised to destroy consumer computers. 329. i have not yet seen an example of the above stated. 330. no opinion 331. Control the emerging digital formats. 332. Really...what would that be? DRM? 333. bullshit 334. In other words, he's promoting DRM. 335. RIAA is enguaged in extorsion 336. . . . devised programs to promote and recognize emerging digital formats which limit customer use of the products they buy, and maximize profits for the corporations which seek to implement those "emerging digital formats". 337. The RIAA has put all their time and effort into trying to destroy a media they can't control instead of investing in newer media's that can compete: dvd-audio sacd AND HOW HARD WOULD IT BE TO ENCASE CDS/DVDS IN A CASE LIKE A FLOPPY DISK, SO THEY THEN WOULD LAST A LIFETIME WITHOUT BEING SCRATCHED. 338. DRM is killing music, sharing is revealing new artists. 339. There are artists that think the RIAA is idiotic in what they are doing. And the RIAA hates all digital formats. 340. don't know 341. Their insistence of DRM, which is doomed to failure, and their irrational pricing structures have impeded and delayed emerging digital formats. See my answer to Q11. 342. If thids was true the RIAA would have supported MP3 when it emerged instead of sueing long after it's availability. 343. As long as it has a DRM attached to the file 344. theyve held digital format back for years, they know they can no longer justify the cost 345. They have been unbelievably sluggish in responding to any issues regarding what the consumer actually wants. i.e. when they pay for a download they don't want 128kbps files at a similar price to that they could buy the CD at! 346. I have yet to see any of these promotions. All I can get online through legitimate means is crappy DRM infested low bit rate music. 347. Fuch that shit! The artists who sell their own music on their web sites claim they've made more in a year from those ventures than they ever made in 20 years from record companies. 348. Previously answered. 349. The RIAA is attempting to control the music industry by only allowing a limited selection of digital formats. Thereby limiting the artist and weakening any such relations. 350. Way to take the credit for something you had nothing to do with, that sorta reminds me of how Al Gore invented the internet... 351. The RIAA has crippled new technology. 352. not done well but yes 353. RIAA would prohibit digital music distribution if it could 354. Money 355. They are trying to stand in front of a tidal wave of newfound consumer power that this techlonogy is providing saying they are in control....hah. 356. Why do they not offer their material like allofmp3 does if that was true? 357. 'emerging' .. heh, man.. that train is long gone. 358. All I read was "DRM, DRM, DRM, DRM" 359. So how many open standards open source DRM free music formats do the RIAA promote? Even MP3 under Linux is a legal minefield. 360. see 25 361. riaa reconizes digital formats / alt distabution systems only so thay can neuter them / sue / lobby to change laws 362. The RIAA has antagonized the public. 363. what exactly have they strengthened? 364. They are somewhat getting caught up with digital formats, but by putting DRM on the files they are making it very hard for consumers to truly use their music the way they want unless they break the DRM or buy a specific device and use a specific service. I want freedom to use the music I buy the way I want. 365. Strengthened artists relations with who? He might have had a few ideas on "programs to promote and recognize emerging digital formats", but they haven't don't much if anything in putting them into practice. 366. "promote and recognize emerging digital formats"? No, they want to keep the CD as the sole distribution point. 367. 10 years behind, mp3 is dead. We need APE\FLAC\WV or DVDA now. 368. Hes gay to 369. Promote? hah 370. Like what digital formats are they talking about? If they mean DRM strategies, then by its very nature they are limiting emerging digital formats and distribution mediums. 371. As evidenced by the too-little, too-late agreement between iTunes and EMI last week, the big labels still don't have a clue about digital distribution. The EMI deal was a step in the right direction, about 6 years too late. 372. Most bands do not understand the digital formats. They will never find the unbreakable digital format 373. Every digital format for sale out there is lossy and not worth a dime. 374. It seems the RIAA has only tried to stifle new technology. 375. See 19. 376. The recording labels have turned artists into a disposable commodity. They are no longer investing in artists are new music forms -- if the artist doesn't make a quick buck, they are dropped and forgotten. Groups are manufactured instead of discovered and nurtured. The weirdest thing about the whole situation is that my Daughter's generation is into artists that we were into as kids. I see kids wondering around wearing Pink Floyd, Metallica, Motley Crue, and other tee-shirts that WE wore as kids. Yes there is hip-hop, but other than that, it seems like the art forms that are thriving the most are those that were around when I was growing up (including punk rock). The music industry has failed to develop artists that belong to the up and coming generation. 377. Who is Mitch Bainwol? 378. FIRST !!!!! They scary I going for free ,new, not nown musician and artists.They like controll whot I gona be liked. 379. Entirely possible, but as mentioned above, by not allowing the market for digital music to operate on its own, the industry has a long way to go before truly "recognizing" digital formats. 380. load them with restrictive DRM is more like it 381. ha. 382. I really didn't know Mitch Bainwol up until now and I really don't give a shit about what he has to say. 383. the riaa doesn't endorse a music format unless it includes drm, at one point, the riaa equared mp3 to being pirated material which isnt so. 384. If he is an advocate of DRM then he is an idiot 385. How can the RIAA be opposed to online file-sharing and yet supportive of the emerging digital formats that provide the foundation for this activity? Lies. 386. Laughable. Ever hear an artist complain? I haven't. I think Korn made a song about that... 387. The RIAA has ignored emerging digital formats that stand to benefit artists yet threaten their member companies' stranglehold on the environment in which music is created and distributed. 388. Where is the proof?? They say sales are down 389. More like "devised programs to try and cripple any format more advanced than vinyl". 390. It's whole campaign has been to prosecute through the courts and find ways to restrict how people can use music files. 391. By "recognise", does he mean "identify-and-try-to-kill"? 392. I don't know who/what Bainwol is but RIAA have not promoted or helped with anything to do with digital distribution and all they have done is file frivolous lawsuits that harm artists reputations as people react and refuse to get it if RIAA are seen as acting in collaboration with the artist. 393. RIAA still can't deal with the old mp3 format, let alone deal with "emerging digital formats". This is just spin to make us embrace the restriction of our rights with DRM. 394. More and more artists speak up that they are missrepresented by the RIAA and not listened to in their request for no protection and new means of distribution 395. Just because EMI finally got their thumbs out of their asses and are starting to move away from DRM, does not in any way make the RIAA recognise digital formats. 396. artists are under heavy pressure to fake a supportful attitude 397. Some of the artists that jumped on the band wagon with the RIAA lost lots of customers like me. 398. If you attempt to contain information-AHEM-the Internet, the hydra's heads will only fight harder upon next respawn. 399. Cant explain 400. Come on. 401. Excuse me? I must be deaf. Last I heard, DRM is proprietary and locks peeps in. If DRM dies quickly and quietly, only then will the various emerging formats become available to the consumer. 402. As RCA did with the AM radio, holding their monopoly on it by barring the inventor of the FM radio, the RIAA is doing with digital music. 403. Unless by "strengthen artist relations" he means the formation of the Recording Artist Coalition and "emerging digital formats" is code for DRM. 404. Um, yeah.... not what my artist friends have told me.... 405. Emerging digital formats? What about the ones already here... 406. :P 407. That should be 'Steve Jobs has...'. God bless Uncle Steve for what he has done, but I still get my music for free. 408. No...no..no...RIAA is creating a stranglehold on teh market to ensure max profit is sqoozed out of every signed artist. 409. He has called for LOWERING artist royalty rates, and has tried to force DRM upon online retailers, and tried pressuring Steve Jobs to raise the price of music on itunes to the same levels as brick and mortar stores. Thankfully he failed. 410. they are clueless on the digital front. 411. dito 412. Refer to Answer 25. the companies and the public are doing what this claim is supposing. not the RIAA 413. See #23... 414. The RIAA ignored the digital horizon until it was too late. 415. wtf? 416. Stop making me type in this box. For your stupidity for making these litlle text boxes, I am now forced to c&p this response in all the boxes. Bad poll making guy, BAD! 417. The RIAA has only ever attempted to strengthen its own position by having its coin-operated politicians pass laws against technology. 418. Nope, many of the artists today suck. Period. Get some of those indie bands out in the open, they really rock. 419. Yeah, right. See answer to question 23. 420. emerging digital formats. They don.t want to hear about it. Sell CDs. All they WANT to know 421. No - it strengthens the bonds between labels companies not the artists, and even if it did strengthen the bonds between musicians it isn't theirs to strengthen and structure. 422. he is about making money 423. they appear to work hard against digital formats 424. Sellling a few tracks with DRM on Itunes is hardly promoting digital formats 425. The RIAA cheats artists and seeks to suppress innovative digital technologies. 426. The RIAA looks to limit emerging digital formats to thse its members can make the most money from in the most restrictive ways. 427. Apparently Bainwol considers "artist relations" getting artists to shut up and do what they're told. 428. He has attempted to undermine and/or destroy every technology that the consumers wanted in place for restrictive technologies that consumers specifically did not want. 429. The only digital format he'll promote will be the one that will pay his price. 430. See above. They've also fought tooth and nail to limit digital formats to ones they control. 431. that before or afterthey tried to kill all the p2p apps off? 432. I know nothing of this. 433. The RIAA has fought tooth and nail against digital formats. They argue that consumers should not be allowed to rip CDs for their own personal use and they are constantly trying to force higher prices on digital music consumers. iTunes has been the main source of constantly-increasing music sales for the industry, and yet they continue to publicly argue for higher prices in the iTunes store. 434. it may promote/recognize emerging formats, but people are creative and come up with ways around the encryption and pass that info along to others. word of mouth for each of these is much better than a few ads 435. Strengthened relations like they did with the Gimp in Pulp Fiction. 436. outrageous liars. i want my mp3s! 437. They stifle and kill emerging formats with DRM. ITunes tracks are completely locked inside of a single program, let alone rights sets. 438. Two words. Enter Shikari. 439. They have historically resisted any changes to format or business model. 440. If Bainwol has, "strengthened artist relations" with any but those that are already successes, I have yet to hear of it. 441. I don't know enough to answer either way. 442. They promote it, but not well [DRM]. 443. False. They haven´t done squat. 444. Since when recognizing new formats means trying to stifle innovation and technology?? 445. Still waiting for them to notice "mp3" as an emerging format, guess it's a slow process. 446. again no idea 447. MP3 has only recently been promoted. 448. Get rid of DRM. 449. I'm afraid I'm missing something again. 450. Is this was true, Nettwerk and others like them would not have left the RIAA. And there would be no DRM. And they would not be predicating their whole business model on the idea that their 'music fans' are in reality just criminals waiting to happen, their job being to thwart them (as opposed to treating them like fans, their job being to help them get what they want (i.e. the music) for a fair price and in a format they prefer and use. 451. see above 452. it doesnt have a clue what to do with the new technology 453. tHe rIAA has resited progress as it sees a lessening of its power as other distribution methods have evolved 454. I can't answer to the strengthening of artist relations - maybe the RIAA has, but the RIAA has taken some time to come around to the digital world - fighting it tooth and nail. Some of this is to be expected . . . it's hard to change . . . but, they are looking more at how this benefits them than how it benefits music consumers. 455. They're just pushing DRM formats. 456. I haven't heard of any artists that are happy with the RIAA's actions. 457. Artists hate the RIAA and their Labels, and if they dont, they are products of the RIAA who hate their fans. 458. No they want to CONTROL artists and drag there feet on any new technologies that they know in the end will result in their demise. 459. it's all about the money. 460. He has done nothing but shun artists away from digital distribution. 461. see previous two answers 462. And gravity flows uphill? 463. Name one digital format they have promoted? Everyone else is creating the formats... they simply want their DRM slapped all over it, so that they can make you buy multiple copies of the same thing. 464. BS! They have fought digital formats for years! They lose some of the control this way as we aren't forced to pay $20 for a CD with one or two good songs and the rest of which are trash. 465. This one is funny. Can't see any artist that has been strengthened or emerging digital formats they have helped with or intend to use. 466. If he really did do these things in a proper way, there would be no need for attacks on downloaders. So i believe he probably has not done it, or at least has not done it correctly yet. 467. if the artist fits their cookie cutter 468. they try to get everyone to buy the CDs... not "emerging digital formats" they don't care about legal downloads, or at least that's what seems to me. 469. The RIAA has always led the fight to stifle new and emerging technologies. There is plenty of documented evidence available online to support this. 470. Let the market do it. 471. Digital formats arose with no need for any RIAA "programs." Seriously, the RIAA does absolutely nothing with regard to music. They are the representative of a monopolistic distribution channel that wants to keep the gravy train running for themselves and their clients, nothing more or less. 472. I personally have leveraged the synergies of a global community generate win-win scenarios, devising operations to promote and recognize emerging digital medias without prejudice to codec or creed with a cherry on top. In other words it's idiotic double-speak and doesn't mean anything. 473. NO COMMENT 474. They have been AGAINST digital formats from Day 1 and have only recently started giving megar support to a select few technologies that they can reap benefits from, openly rejecting anything they don't see as an immediate cash cow 475. The only reason they recognize digital formats is because they no longer have any choice. 476. their rich, use flac 477. I admit, they are beginning to dabble using technology instead of burning it at the stake. But oh, so slowly, and cramming DRM down our throats all the way. 478. Myspace.com strengthens relations between artists and their audience. It's just too bad there are a lot of hackers/spammers on there. RIAA did nothing worth mentioning. 479. They are all about BSing the public at large. 480. True, but those programs don't work because they aren't consumer friendly. 481. See above. 482. All crap 483. If the music industry was serious they'd provide something more then DRM 128k files on itunes (and shit.. are those things even worth putting DRM in?!) 484. Really? I wouldnt class DRM in that vein. 485. ..By cutting the royalties artists get. 486. Propaganda. 487. emerging digital formats = DRM ? i wish they were sinking digital formats. Seriously since when a format does need promotions? ether its good and adopted ether it suckls and it isnt. 488. what??!? 489. Devised programs to promote and recognize emerging digital formats? or to limit spreading of those. 490. show me where---- 491. promote and recognize, also make sure most new formats are either non-free or give bad enough quality... 492. promote their own repressive aproaches to what they call emerging digital formats. denying open source and customer rights has nothing to to with promoting the right digital formats. of course, some formats were indeed promoted... 493. uhm, the internet is the future... cd's are not.... don't force us to pay for outdated shit.. 494. If by "digital formats" they mean "ridiculously limiting DRM", then yes, they have recognised that. 495. RIAA tries to stop every distribution of music that cant be directly controled by them 496. i think they overslept the promotion and recognition of emerging digital formats 497. RIAA promotos digital formats artits do not want 498. 1) I want 1 artist to come out and telll the world how RIAA has "strenthened artist relations" 2) DRM all you want, but we're just gonna cut a hole through it. 499. Still only mp3's are distributed in legitimate online music stores. 500. Why are we still using CDs? 501. yea right 502. He's restricted the formats 503. Well if by "recognize" you mean "pay vast amounts of money for overly restrictive DRM technology that makes our legit customers feel like criminals while pirates just laugh and carry on" i guess i really meant it was True :) "Artist Relations" - yes the same poor suckers so legally soulbound and contracted to the RIAA they cant have a say in anything they do anyway...if that could be called "strengthening" then again it must be True! 504. they only use wmv/wma/mp3 files as well as AAC 505. The attempts they've made are negligible - they're doing nothing but wasting the time of the consumers due to their faultiness. 506. They have forced new artists to find new and more creative means to get their music heard. This question is a joke right? 507. BS 508. Most artist continue to get the short end of stick 509. no comment 510. idiots 511. Tell that to the guys at musiccreators.ca 512. The only positive note I have heard lately about the music industry is EMI's announcement of selling unrestricted AAC files on iTunes. The music industry failed to recognize the MP3. 513. Business is bad for arts. The people will win in the end. 514. It's all MP3, nothing else. 515. False because "emerging digital formats" would be drm-free. 516. They only recognize formats that allow them to have control over the music, not the customer. Remember Sony's rootkits? 517. More like pressure artists into using strategies that the RIAA feel are an acceptable format. DRM anyone? 518. Frankly, they don't have a clue about technical innovation. 519. Nope. The only thing I hear from the RIAA is who what house wife and mother is being sued next. 520. The RIAA wants DRM, which doesn't recognize new formats 521. WAIT A MINUTE. I retract my previous statement. Condemning file-sharing is NOT promotion. 522. The RIAA works to create proprietary formats and ideas... 523. Not very many digital formats that are well used. Artist relations - if that has to do with relations between artist and record company, perhaps it's stronger but it is an inverse relationship with the filesharing community 524. Show me. 525. They have recognized emerging digital formats they have restricted them through DRM and attempting to raise the royalties for internet radio stations. 526. They've introducing programs that make them money. They are against anything that doesn't bring them cash. 527. They only recognize P2P to find people to sue. They don't want to accept new technology. 528. They seem way of the pace. 529. bainwol has alliened the music buying sector of society 530. Then why is more and more artists going independant? 531. False, refer to #23 and #25. The RIAA would do better to follow current trend. 532. They shouldn't have gone after Trent Rezner for the leaked tracks to his upcoming album. This is just another lie. 533. see above 534. More like scared the artists into following their goose steps. 535. I have purchased "Hotel California" several times in my life....vinyl, 8-track, cassette, dat, cd and now mp3....and I know that the eagles only made a profit off of vinyl sales.....I don't want to see my kids buy their music in 6 different formats...new technology allows mp3 to be to be swamped....not sold....and by the way... this will certainly not be a true statement...if the "perform" act is passed. 536. he's an ass 537. The RIAA's real interest is to keep the music industry dependent on it's services.... such as they are 538. They Hate Digital Music. 539. DRM is not promoting or recognizing new formats; it is limiting them. 540. This is hilarious! 541. Bainwol just pisses people off 542. DRM! 543. If anything Bainwol has oppressed digital music formats and not helped it. And i've never seen/heard any Riaa promoting digital formats campaign ever. 544. Don't make me laugh. 545. Only formats that suit their purposes. DRM laden formats. 546. They must be confused. I swear they think they work for Apple. Sorry Guys Apple has changed the music industry with itunes and the i tunes store. 547. n/a 548. They had to do the digital format. They never recognized it. 549. DRM is NOT an "emerging digital format." 550. Do you realy think i will put true? 551. He has alienated fans from artist and soured artist-label relations 552. not really... DRMwhores 553. I thought that the RIAA was to protect the interests of the labels, not the artists. 554. Look at the story I linked above (http://www.arrogantics.com/2007/04/04/nin-deliberately-leaks-music-from-new-album-riaa-doesnt-care/) They honestly don't give a fuck about the artists they represent. 555. don't know (missing option) 556. they were simply trying to maintain control, they don't care about anything but the bottom line 557. They are merely just now recognizing the need to digitize. 558. ...to make more money. 559. It seems to me that artists are getting ticked off more than happier. It also seems to me that artists were more willing to embrace digital formats before the RIAA even did anything about it. 560. some bands themselves seed their music into p2p one way or another, drm'd music is worthless 561. The labels are notorious for dragging their feet. They're more apt to try and sue or legislate it out of existence, and only when those fail do they embrace it. 562. the riaa are just trying to brainwash people in to believing that what ever the riaa say is the truth, 563. if artists have relations with the RIAA then they are more concerned with making money from tracks rather then performing their music. they do this because their music it crap and they want as much money as possible 564. They want DRM to be the only format thereby controlling how people listen to their music. 565. Things are the same as they ever were for the majority of artists. 566. DRM is all i can say and eveyone hates it!!! apart from the riaa, they dont care what PEOPLE actualy want 567. that sentence is as absurd as it looks. 568. They were not intrested in digital music befoQ89222=yes 569. Latest internet-radio controvercy and forced drm on digital music marketplaces. I guess attempts to kill something can be seen as 'recognition'. 570. promote them as being illegal and illegitimate 571. they have fought tooth and nail tring to limit, tag, and/or eliminate new ways of lisining to music ever since cassetes were made. 572. To the RIAA, artist relations is an oxymoron. The only digital formats they care to see emerge are those laden with anti-consumer DRM. 573. They followed pirates like stupid RIAA sheeps a pirate shepperd. 574. Because of underpaying artists or avoiding to pat artist's royalties, many artists are leaving for the independent market. They will only recognize emerging formats if it only supports their marketing structure. 575. They should stay out of the music business.... Maybe they should try to regulate gas prices lol. 576. bs 577. If artist relations have indeed been strengthened, then why is there still an immense independent sector? Why are there a significant amount of artists who do not wish to be part of the RIAA? 578. They try to cram as much DRM as possible in to music formats. 579. Their actions only promoted that "piracy is a better choice" (tm) 580. artists dont get much choice 581. do they only recognize the emerging formats so they can take them over and destroy open source initiatives? 582. Meaning that PPL(Pay Per Listen) isnt far off. . . . ``Night_raid 583. I have not heard a thing... 584. "Sue them all" not a program to strengthen artist relations and to promote digital formats ;) 585. It's my impression the artists are either embarrassed or hostile towards the RIAA. The RIAA is trying to kill emerging digital formats. This is just an example of "The Big Lie". 586. RIAA would like to see digital music go away. 587. driven totally by money 588. They are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the digital era. 589. such as DRM, yer rite 590. No, they've fought it all beginning from the first MP3 player. 591. The RIAA has devised programmes to try to crush all new forms of technology relating to music reproduction. 592. Strengthened artist relations.. yeah.. like a hangmans noose. Programs to promote and recognize emerging digital formats.. oh I completely agree.. just look at what they did with Betamax... oh wait. 593. Well, he's waiting for the artists to bring out the new songs, so he can hunt down the "pirates"... 594. I would like to see them release a song in OGG format. But this could be simple with just one word DRM, get rid of it and I can play music and videos on my Linux box. 595. DRM. That is all. 596. as far as i remember he never did anything with formats that if worth doing things with 597. emerging digital formats? they RIAA hate anything which forces them to change there business model hence why they insist on DRM and say that anyone who uses torrents is a terroist. 598. If this were true they would be trying a little harder to work out something with the online p2p networks. 599. And I believe in Santa Claus. 600. to little to late 601. its all about control and money with them. 602. Like Sony's infamous rootkitted cd's? 603. like drm perhaps? 604. Unless emerging digital formats threaten the old business model. Then we crush it. 605. I have been a big consumer of Purchased online services but with the new terms and conditions have already made the decision that I will be moving to Linux. Previous bought product won't play on the newer versions of program so why would I spend more money to get stung again with ever more restrictive conditions. 606. Where are the digital formats record companies are supporting? iTunes is the best example - it took a computer company to make it happen on a large scale. What does THAT tell us? 607. read #24 608. The old Napster is the only reason RIAA even acknowledges there is such a thing as .mp3. 609. I've purchased CDs that do not play on any of my home players or computers because of stupid "copy protection" and such nonsense. And I still couldn't get a refund for these CDs because I couldn't guarantee that I didn't make copies of them. So much for their wonderful "copy protection", huh? 610. The opposite seems true to me. 611. mp3 is the digital format to use right now. 612. They have fought "emerging digital formats" at nearly every opportunity. 613. he means "control" 614. Bainwol has not done anything 615. WHAT emerging digital formats? 616. They own the artist. They rip them off 617. on which artists? And is it just me or have they mostly been fighting new formats every step of the way. 618. Bull 619. No no no 620. If they did, they'd listen to what consumers want. 621. They've almost nothing with new markets. 622. DRM and CRAP...and artist do not see almost anything from those money... 623. Everything the RIAA says is false. 624. The RIAA and its Cartel have consistently supported DRM and other restrictive technologies that limit emerging digital formats. 625. Greedy goobers. 626. They've fought tooth and nail against new technology 627. The record companies add NOTHING to the music that is worthy of the monetary penalty they heap on consumers. I believe, and the facts DO appear to bear this out, that artists themselves would be MUCH BETTER served financially by marketing directly to consumers over the web. The Record Companies are simply middle-men who act to PREVENT the free and easy exchange of artistic product. The RIAA is a dinosaur who apparently didn't receive his own copy of the memo -- the dinosaurs died out 65 Million years ago when an asteroid or comet struck what is now part of the Gulf of Mexico. WAKE UP -- YOU'RE DEAD ALREADY! 628. The tried to kill emerging digital formats and when that failed they grudingly adopted digital music. 629. If anything, the RIAA and parent companies have stiffled emerging digital formats.

Says the RIAA: On behalf of its member companies, the RIAA works to protect the value of music.

Total Responses: 1,023 True   15.1%  (154) False   84.9%  (869)

If you've answered False to the question above, how do you see things?

Total Responses: 667 1. they work to protect the *price* of music, there's a subtle difference 2. the dollar value of music to the management teams.. sure, I'll buy that. 3. Music itself has no financial value, but it does have aesthetic value. With the people signed lately to major labels, it seems they are trying to smear music in the mud. 4. DRM crippled music has little value to anybody. 5. They work to try (but are failing) to protect the revenue and profitability of major music distributors. 6. they fight to protect there commercial intrest, and try to earn more monney 7. RIAA is killing music. They are proctecting their business-intressts. 8. Again, I dont believe the RIAA really cares about THE MUSIC. 9. the first dependent clause is likely true; however, the second independent clause is true only is "value" means "income stream to RIAA member companies" as opposed to social or intrinsic value of artists' creations. 10. 99 cents for a song is a little much, I would think 89 tops would be better, Maybe 99 for a lengthy 10 minute song. Plus they distribute more and more cover's of great older songs now. I think if Brittany Spears tries to do another Toxic or My Prerogative then I'm going to have to scream. Or shoot the producer in the face. Depends on which song she cover then. And don't get me started on Rap... "Throw your dick in the air. Bitch suck it. I said fuckin' suck it. Suck it, and hit it. Then come back for a mother fucking round two! Bitch fucking suck that shit." Can someone help me analyze this? Or this new song that somehow makes it onto the radio... "I make it rain on d'em hoes." ... 'Nuff said. Of which, why do we now bleep God but not Damn? When did that change happen? 11. If by value, you mean manufactured crap, then yes. 12. Music has more value to me when it is cheap. if i walk into a record store with 20 dollars, i could buy one 15 dollar cds or 4 5 dollars cds. in the world of cheaper cds, I end up spending more money. There is enough music out there for me to spend a 20 every time. but when i only get one cd for that 20, i question if that 20 inst better spent some place else. 13. False 14. "On behalf of its member companies, the RIAA works to protect the REVENUE of their music. 15. They work to inflate the value of music 16. The RIAA works to protect its monetary interests. 17. The probelm is that they are no longer needed to add value to the music. They know this and as such are now only trying to protect their now redundant role in adding value to music. 18. You dilute the value of music consistently. You are only in it for the money, which is fine because you are businesses but don't pretend you really care about the music itself. Record executives like that are long gone. Well at least record executives like that that are part of the RIAA are long gone. 19. i am boycotting media purchases so its working to protect me wasting money on crap 20. I'm sure that a five song CD that I can't sample is worth $15. 21. The RIAA IS FIGHTING TO PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO. 22. As they define the value of music, not the marketplace's definition. 23. You're not protecting anything by suing everyone left right and centre. No way, no how. 24. make it "protect the *economics* of *recordings*" 25. No, it works to protect the value of its members stocks. 26. The RIAA is degrading the value of music by making it into a product on the level of illegality. 27. Truth: The RIAA works to protect the market price of the major record companies (ARTISTS BE DAMNED!!) 28. All the RIAA is to make sexy-time with my money. 29. Threy work to increase the value of a product that clearly should be far cheaper as indicated by the free market. 30. the RIAA works to protect the value of their gains, and nothing more. The value of music is intrinsic and irreversible. 31. money 32. the value of the music should be determined by the market, not an organization. 33. Value is determine by the market. Now that the market has found a way to become open by moving away from the influence of the RIAA, the true value can be determined. Free music is an over-swinging pendulum, a response to the years of too-expensive music. Eventually, people will be willing to pay for value, as they always have done. 34. Keep them artificially high 35. How is value protected when my rights of use are limited for a product I paid for. 36. The CD was released the month I was born in 1982. 24 year old technology does not cost $18. The price of a music CD is artificially inflated and also the basis of all other music purchases. The addition of DRM cripples the value of music fracturing and confusing the market. All advances in technology are anti-consumer while increasing the price. 37. They want to protect their money and make sure it keeps rolling in. 38. they work fro protect their member companies profits. it has nothing to do with music value. 39. The RIAA is profit driven. Over the past few decades, it has been more profitable to recruit a few young, nominally talented unknowns and mold them into generic pop stars than it has been to look for real talent. Popular music today is more about marketing, style and choreography than it is about music. 40. no. riaa protects riaa. 41. hillary duff has a cd. lindsay lohan has a cd. paris hilton has a cd. 42. They work to protect the value of a dollar. 43. They protect the value of their bank account. Value is a ratio of price and quality, if you reduce quality and keep the same price more value to the RIAA. 44. the value of bank accounts. 45. The RIAA has in fact had the complete opposite effect on the value of music. It has driven down the price of music and in many cases glorified piracy. The RIAA has actually caused many music stores to close, I bet they didn't see that coming. 46. Bitches and Ho music is very valuable........ 47. No. The music is valuable no matter what - or else people wouldn't share and download it. What they are doing is protecting a broken industry of too much man-in-the-middle payoffs. 48. It works to protect the dollar value of music. 49. The RIAA is a shell organisations that the component companies can use to terrorise the populace without smearing their own names. 50. The RIAA works to protect the EXCHANGE VALUE of music, not it's actual content or appreciation. 51. The value of the artists music that support RIAA is a joke. Consumers do not wish to support the artists that try to step on them and spit in their face. 52. not based in reality 53. They promote the one hit wonders just to make a buck and fix prices to rip people off. 54. the Value of Music is determined by the consumers, not the sellers. They're no different than the diamond cartels who've created their price controlled empires with the blood of millions. 55. they are the ones getting money in the lawsuits not the musicians 56. The value of profit 57. Again: real worth/quality will always be recognized. Always! 58. without the riaa there will still be value in music, music has been around for centuries without the riaa. 59. RIAA protects the value of music when artists have signed and agree to give most or all of their CD revenue to RIAA member companies. RIAA wants to ensure that the "value" of music continues to fund their member companies at any cost. 60. The RIAA works to devalue music and line their pockets with gold. 61. They distribute lossy forms of protected saturated music. 62. Really meand work to protect profits 63. RIAA = bunch of theives and liers 64. protect the $$$$, screw the artist 65. Music has no value if people cannot hear it. The RIAA is not interested in music being heard by wide amounts of people. 66. The only value they seek to protect is the $$$ to them 67. BULL - Kill Internet Radio 68. the price of music yes. the value no 69. Music has been cheapened. Bands are made to create a single or two, then fill the rest of the album up with garbage. 70. No, they work to protect the COST of music. The VALUE of music depends on how many people find it worth paying good money for. 71. bull. they screwed up everything music wise 72. I guess they do in a sense but that price is too much. 73. It's only the RIAA money the RIAA is concerned about. 74. The RIAA is hurting the value of music by supporting the old models and the Good ol' boys club that already exists. 75. Value is quality per dollar. They're working on raising the dollar part while at the same time decreasing the quality part. There is less value per dollar today relative to thirty years ago. 76. Works to increase the value of music. 77. They seek to create a monopoly. 78. their music has no value, but they are protecting their overpriced cds anyhow, not the music 79. This is only a positive outcome for the member companies. 80. Not the value of music, the wallets of the member companies. 81. The RIAA is concerned with one thing, the value of the revenue stream that they would like to milk from consumers. 82. It works to benefit the rich and screw the poor. 83. RIAA is a business. Music is an art. By definition artistic expression has no monetary value. 84. the value of anything is what the public is willing to pay for it and I am not willing to pay a dollar a song. 85. most music sold is crap including u2 they suck 86. RIAA works to protect the value of the bank balances of the companies that constitute it. Thats all. If they could make 10x the amount of money from putting artists in battery cages in Cuba - they would do it. 87. $16 per CD with two good tracks in NOT value. 88. The MAFIAA works to protect the value of their paying member’s art at the cost of other artists and the public. 89. same as 31 90. Buying a CD still costs far more than it should. 91. The RIAA works to protect the OVERvalue of music. 92. They work to squeeze as much as possible from consumers. We're now in an age with 80GB iPods and vast music collections that would never have fit in a basement previously. To charge me more for the CD that required nothing more than bandwidth as a physical CD which required factories, workers, trucks, store fronts (with lights and water, paint and carpeting), record store employees... simply ridiculous. 93. Works to protect huge profits. They do not care about the music. 94. Same thing I've already said 20 times: protect the value of music? In a material sense of the phrase, perhaps that's right. The RIAA wants to make music so expensive for policeware-ridden radio garbage that it certainly is of high value in regards to the dollar for anyone that isn't rich! But that doesn't help their business, now does it? In the other sense of the phrase, the value such as quality and people's appreciation and purchase of such music, they've done nothing but allow it to degrade it to poor-sounding corporate radio garbage that has no value whatsoever to anyone outside of those who want to hear uninspired and un-artistic radio pop with no lyrical or musical substance. 95. ther RIAA just gets pissed off when they lose money. 96. Sure thing, what is the value of music? Money and revenue! 97. DRM takes away from the value of music. If they want to give us value let us use the legal music we purchase however we see fit unrestricted. 98. Protects the interests of the recording industry at the expense of everyone else, including the artists. 99. to protect the value of music with the massively over inflated cost of cd's - protecting their profits more like... 100. It exists to promote the cost of music. 101. Same answer as 17 102. Yeah only for it's member companies but not the value of music in general nor protection for the artists. 103. RIAA is only concerned with thier own profits. 104. They work to protect their gold-lined pockets. 105. Well, true in some sort of way, if you take 'value' in the strict monetary sense. In the sense of 'artistic value', the RIAA doesn't give a damn. 106. They are fighting to keep the revenue of the old marketmodel. 107. Define value? and to whom? 108. The value of music is tied to its artistic value. Maybe the RIAA should start working on that. 109. value being the operative word! 110. even more bullshit 111. if they call britney spears and and the rest of the crap like that music, then they have no idea what people want to listen too. 112. This could be true for value as in commercial value. It's a false statement as far as artistic value is concerned. 113. the value of music has changed in a world of mass mass distribution 114. Again, too much overhead. If I could buy songs directly from the artist cutting out everyone else I would do so 115. the music companies are making too much margin, are not prepared to adapt their business practices, and are trying to legislate to maintain the status quo. 116. It works to protect the bloated profiteering of the music industry, and utterly fails to understand the business model promoted by the web. 117. The RIAA is living in past times, they have to realize that whatever they do to try to stop p2p networks and scare people with lawsuits aren't going to work. 118. Don't get me started. Value is inherent in the music, not created by the RIAA 119. They fight to keep prices inflated 120. It inflates the value of music. 121. $$$ 122. works to protect its profit margins! 123. How? 124. they work to restrict the value of music and prevent it from being heard. 125. If it said, "the commercial value" I'd have said, true. 126. It protects the monetary value of music, sure. But not the true value. Yay capitalism! 127. They work to protect the value of their member companies' stock. 128. You work to make music more expensive for everyone by eliminating competition for the pricier music sites. 129. It works to protect shareholders, fat cat salaries etc 130. Read previous comments, they want money and don't care about the value of music, these are GREEDY, GREEDY people. 131. On behalf of its member companies, the RIAA works to protect the money in their pockets 132. Well, perhaps they assess that value a bit too high... Nobody can really explain to me why CDs and downloadable albums are still so expensive. 133. The value in music is free expression an access. How are they going to make this music avalable to the rest of the billions that can't afford it ? It's called file sharing. I'm sure they could work out a short term loan program for developing countries which would you guessed it .... enslave. 134. the RIAA works to protect it's members, it doesn't value music except as a commodity... 135. The RIAA works to enrich itself. 136. Only if their definition of value is $. 137. They may think they're doing that, but I don't think they protect the value of the music that I listen too. It may be true for more mainstream radio music, which is usually trash anyway. 138. money and control same for almost all questions 139. True, but again their method is flawed. 140. The RIAA works to preserve their own self interests. The "value of music" is the maximum profit they can make. 141. If by value they mean how much money they can gouge, it's kinda true but they are actually lowering the value of music by giving the talentless preference over the talented. 142. They promote cookie cutter artists which undermines the quality and value of music 143. To protect profits 144. price fixing is not protecting the value. 145. They will destroy the industry if they continue their war against their customers 146. No, they protect themselves. It's the nature of business. 147. Most honest thing they've said... but i cant help but to relate the term "Companies" to "money grubers". Wheres the artist involved in this? 148. Whether payed for or not, music being listened to is music being listened to. 149. The RIAA is only looking in it for the money. They don't care 1% for music, they might as well sell underwear of peanut butter, as long as there is big money in it! 150. No, you're pushing the price of music far higher than it actually is. Music isn't worth the price tag you put on it, you inflated it. 151. They work to protect the value of their bank accounts. 152. No 153. ...through price fixing. Shouldn't the value of music be determined by the consumer? 154. Not like that. 155. The "value" of current music has never been lower in my eyes... I'm lucky to find 2-3 good tracks on any album that comes out. Why would I want to risk my money on buying the full CD without hearing it first? 156. They don't part of the problem is that the labels themselves have damaged their own industry through a proliferation of poor sub standard artists, clinging to old business models, greed regards pricing. 157. The RIAA works to protect the record companies profits, nothing more. 158. The value of music is in the emotion and feelings shown by the artist.. the only value the RIAA sees is $$$. 159. respect the fans and their value, by not respecting them they dont respect the music 160. They work to protect the cash inflow CDs bring. 161. I enjoy music. I enjoy music even more if I don't have to fucking pay for it. Isn't the value of music enjoyment? 162. Fuck the RIAA 163. if there wasn't downloading, most artists would not get recoginized because companies and record stores only promote and sell less than 10% of the music available 164. Value of music is in whether people listen to it. If its good people go buy the music 165. The true value of music isn't how much it costs, but its exposure and cultural significance. The RIAA is trying to limit that. 166. u pay i say 167. Music is priceless. You can't just tag my work $1.99. 168. There are african tribes that play music to each other for entertainment. They don't want or need some high-paid, suit-wearing feds to "protect it's value", do they? So why should we? Music is expressing yourself, it's art and it deserves freedom. 169. If the value of music is suing their own consumers, those who allow them to continue as an organisation, then yes, the RIAA protect the value of music 170. The RIAA works only to protect the amount of profit the record companies get. The RIAA cares nothing for artists and less for music fans. 171. The RIAA's actions are devaluing the value of music. But Music is losing monetary value anyway. 172. Music is more than making money. Bitch. 173. the retirement accounts of the execs 174. They only protect their own bank balance 175. The value of something is what people are willing to pay for it. People will pay a few bucks for an album, that means the album is worth a few bucks. If people don't buy an album at $20, then the album is not worth $20. The RIAA protects its profit margin, not the value of the music. 176. Music is only a revenue source to them. It works to protect the value of *the* music it sells, otherwise, it doesn't care about music itself. 177. RIAA is useless...the artists and labels should stop funding them and take that amount of money off the album 178. See numbers 25 and 27 179. The value of music to one person is different to another. 180. It just tries to protect its member companies, partly by being on the receiving end of all the mass hatred rather than the companies themselves, Sony, etc. 181. RIAA works to protect the value of music as it relates to money but loast I checked music was meant to play a vital social role and this valuable aspect of the medium has been seriously undermined by the RIAA and its members. 182. Music is valued more than ever, they're working to protect profits 183. They only work to protect the legacy business models, which have largely been replaced. 184. Their only goal is to make more money and exploit everybody else artist and fans.... 185. The RIAA fights to preserve their right to earn money immorally. 186. The RIAA works to protect the exorbitant profits of its member companies. 187. They pay companies to upload fake music files on p2p networks so how is that protecting exactly? 188. I do agree that some people think that all music is free, and this is wrong, but they are a small minority. The RIAA is concerned with controlling the marketplace and increasing profits, nothing more. 189. unless value = riaa profit 190. Without music listeners, there would be no music industry - only starving artists. The RIAA continues to infuriate online music consumers, which is merely destroying the value of music. 191. RIAA works to protect the profits of the few. 192. The RIAA companies work to protect their music's revenue stream. 193. You do not care about the value of music - except for the fiscal value that is 194. Monetary value of music should be added. The RIAA works for companies, not the artists and therefore don't work to protect the music itself but it's value in money for their members. 195. They want to keep it like the old days, like the oil companies. The old days were music stores, we bought an album and did what we wanted with it, so why can't we buy it online and so what we want with it. 196. If so, would encourage quality music. 197. True if you mean its monetary value. 198. the RIAA looks to harass people and make money. 199. Maintain the value of mainstream music 200. the best music is that heard live. everything else is just a placebo for the same. music is valueless, the experience of seeing the band is the value. 201. RIAA is out to protect the record companies pockets. 202. Maybe for some people. 203. profits not value 204. They are working AGAINST the value of music and FOR their bottom dollar. 205. My cynical view is that the RIAA works to protect the value of record company contracts. 206. yep, a bit like King Canute really 207. Their protecting the value of copyrighting, not music. 208. The RIAA is intent on crippling the value of music. 209. seeks only to limit music to their gain. they even try to stop people from performing 200 year old folk songs because one of their artists who did not pay a corpse money for the rights has performed it 210. They're greedy capitalist bastards. What do you think about this statement with that in mind? 211. They want money. 212. They work to protect their own profits. 213. The true value of music is in the enjoyment of it, not in forcing a poor college kid to spend $17.99 on a cd with 1 song he likes and 16 mass-produced crap tracks. 214. Then why are less people buying music from their so called legitimate sources and prices.They are only causing harm,not good,to the artist. 215. On behalf of its member companies, the RIAA works to victimize those who value music. 216. ? 217. The RIAA works solely to preserve their stronghold on a corrupt and old system of music distribution and to maximize their profits. They care nothing about the "value of music". Ironically, they are not achieving either of their goals, as they are resisting the changes that will and must come. 218. Frivilous lawsuits don't solve anything. 219. They cheapen the value of music. 220. By value they mean limited and expensive. 221. The RIAA works to inflate the value of music. 222. They work exclusivly to improve their own profits. 223. who the hell knows what they are doing 224. The value of music is what the music says, how the music sounds, and who the music is by. 225. oh dear, pull the other one 226. The RIAA works only to protect its own profit. 227. make money....does riaa give all money they recover to artisit 228. Money has nothing to do with culture. 229. the riaa works to exploit artists for profit. 230. They want to protect their massive profitmargins from the 80s. 231. They help to produce a lot of crap and selling that expensive - less good music was produced in the last years 232. it does, but what is the real value? was not the value that people do like music and buy it? how many organisation of this type are there all around the world? dont tell me they all only want to protect the music without any own profits :) ha-ha 233. They're just fooling around. 234. on behalf of their own interest, they lobby against the same fans who before the digital age put dinner on their table. 235. The RIAA works to protect its interests in the artists. They don't care about the value of music in terms of quality, they care about the value of the music in terms of dollars. 236. It only works to protect it's companies fat wallets. 237. They do not promote creativity which would give music inherent value. Althought their statement is technically true, as their associated companies would like to keep the price of music as high as possible. 238. That's like saying the government is working to protect the value of gasoline while all the big wigs just get richer. 239. Music will always be valued even without price gouging. 240. The RIAA works to inflate the value of music. 241. what is the value of music? Is it purely monetary? does the value increase with scarcity, or is it increased through proliferation? 242. Works to protect their pocketbook 243. the value of music.. in dollars and cents? and only the member companies. It's more like for whatever junk they put out, they want to be PAID, over and over again 244. It works to protect the overpriced value of CDs and its members interests 245. Padding their own pockets. 246. Spin 247. Fuck the RIAA. 248. $$$$ 249. They want to protect their (stellar) income. 250. How can the "value" of music be quantified? A more correct statement would be "on behalf of its member companies, the RIAA works to protect its margins of music". 251. Since they are sueing innocent elementary school children, it causes me to download even more music. 252. The RIAA works solely to protect the safety of the Big music firms. Nothing else. At all. 253. Anything the RIAA says is BS 254. Like I said before, the RIAA "believes" it is. But, it is only protecting themselves. Though you can't totaly fault them. You would do the same. 255. Works to hide music from potential fans. 256. they are protecting the money in music 257. Seems to me they work to prosecute anyone who breaks their rules. 258. I'm sure it meant to when it was started 259. THe riaa/mpaa fights to preserve the riaa/mpaa. 260. Yes, its cash value 261. Old music from the past that is no more distributed, especially rare music from 1900 to 1970 could be widely sold on line. Nothing is done in this direction. 262. the price for an album is not the fair value of music... 263. I will comment that that statement is true from the that they keep the price as high as possible 264. They protect the music industry. Not the value of music. The value of music was what was there before for thousands of years. 265. yes, I agree - the values of music as in "how much can we charge?" 266. the value of music isnt set right. look at the musicians, theyre fucking rich, and i cant effort a single album 267. You can't put a value on music. You can't say "this song is worth ninety-nine cents" or "this album is worth ten dollars". You can only sell things for what it cost to make them, plus a reasonable amount so the seller can make a profit (which I have nothing wrong with). 268. They devalue the connection between artists and fans. Look at the face value of Metallica post-napster. They are the scum that attack the same people that made them rich. 269. They are preventing access to a lot of rare music and the only value they seem to have is monetary. 270. I would have never discovered Lucinda Williams or Liz Phair if I hadn't downloaded "pirated" copies of their music. Now I own several of their CDs. Without that "pirated" copy, their music was essentially without value to me. 271. They work to protect making money, it's a business. You can't tell me half the higher management even knows any of the bands that downloaders are being sued for downloading 272. stop breaking the music. give us working high quality music. 273. only if it adds value to the bottom line of their pockets. 274. Only to maximise profits 275. The RIAA works to make money, which is the point of any corporate structure. To say otherwise is a deception, at least. Their income is the number one priority; "protecting the value of music" is a clever twisted way of saying "protecting our bottom line." 276. Value of Music is just a perception. A CD sells 10 Million Copies, there is no reason for it to be sold at 15 USD a piece. 277. Tehy protect their profit margin 278. No, it looks to protect its profits, which are unfair with which to begin. 279. More "overprice" than "value". 280. umm no there is no "value" to music. music is priceless and everyone should be able to enjoy it whenever they want. and if anything the RIAA hurts the "value" as they try to stop file sharing which helps the music spread about and be heard 281. music would have more value if more people listened to it, even people that can't afford it 282. Yes, the Dollar Value of music. We agree on that one, 283. It work to protect the record industry profits. 284. Music, for themselves only, they're like fuck the artists, its our stuff... 285. They work to inflate the price. The cost of production of a CD is a fraction of the cost of a movie, yet I can buy a DVD for the same price as a CD. 286. entertainment is priceless. but to them it is just an industry for gross amounts of income. 287. The mainStream hits of today don't even sound like music, so that's not exactly valuable. And if they want to protect the value of music, why can't consumers purchase beetles tracks from Itunes/ It's my view that every artist and every song should be made available, no exceptions! 288. I guess they don't represent EMI. Maybe EMI has seen the light that the RIAA obviously cannot. 289. The RIAA has made it all more commercial and less about the art. 290. The RIAA: Fights to preserve their fat wallets 291. The restrictions imposed on digital music distribution are far greater than have ever been imposed on other forms of music distribution, to a point whereby (given that online digital music distribution is by far the most conventient and preferable form of distribution for most people) it reduces the value of that music for the consumer (by not being able to play it on otherwise suitable devices, when and where we wish to) and consequently erodes the monetary value of the music for the artist when *masses of consumers* have to turn to *criminal activities* in order to unlock the value of that music. 292. Screwed 293. Same as last answer. 294. The RIAA works to protect their outdated business-plan, while failing to evolve with the new digital-music era. 295. They protect the value of their money 296. The RIAA is only striving to protect their own greedy fat fingers... 297. That's code for "We will sue the crap out of you if you share music!" 298. They work to protect the PRICE of music... not the value. 299. By value, they mean the inflated cost of a CD. 300. Music would have more value in a better format. Lets face it, MP3s are to CDs what CDs are to 8-tracks. 301. Music is best valued of its worth when this freedom of expression is free. 302. again, see NIN case 303. They can either sell 1 million songs at a dollar or 10 million songs at 10 cents. Which is more likely to stop piracy? 304. The RIAA works to protect their profit margins. 305. They work to keep prices artificially high. If you take out the RIAA and have artists sell their music directly to the fans, then the prices would be lower and still the band would get more money out of it. That would give much better value to both the artist and the fan. 306. RIAA values only the economy of the commercialized music they make, not the value of the music itself as art. 307. Making money is their first priority, not quality music. 308. *Yaaaawn* I'm getting TIRED of saying this: See #21. 309. The RIAA works to protect itself and its legal extortion tactics. 310. On behalf of shareholders and investors, the RIAA works to protect the incomes of their coprorate members. 311. oh please! 312. They work to keep they value of the muscic artifially high 313. Locking up music and preventing it from being freely enjoyed does just the opposite. 314. Only in their own interest. 315. If people download that much music for free and don't want to pay for it, they don't seem to value this kind of music very much. 316. my definition of the value of music is based on things like creativity, energy and honesty. Their definition is more like $19.99 for a 20 year old reissue of a 38 minute album with nothing new added. 317. the value of music is decreased with DRM 318. And yet they still charge more than $10 for CD's that have only a couple of good songs. 319. They appear to be more interested in squeezing everyone for every last nickel. Overcharging for literally everything, expecting you to pay for the same music over and over, so that you can listen to it on all your devices, screwing the new artists with outrageous contracts, suing the fans (in the name of the artists, yet the artists never see a dime from these suits). 320. So they can keep lining their pocket 321. jk 322. To maximise profits at the expense of the paying public. How come it costs more to down load music in the UK than anywhere else? 323. That's nice of them to keep their member companies in mind. But the average consumer doesn't care how much legality or how many companies get a fraction of the U.S. $13-$25/cd we pay at the store. The RIAA should be concerned with the value of music overall and not how it affects its constituents. Again - money rules the day. Those member companies pay dues to the RIAA - so of course the RIAA is going to work toward ensuring those profit margins. 324. This statement is almost correct, save that the word "value" is misleading. The reality is that they work to protect the cost of music, keeping the profit margins as high as possible for those member companies. 325. On behalf of its member companies, the RIAA works to egregiously inflate the value of music. 326. Crap! Music is overpriced and overhyped. Value on any level doesnt enter into it. 327. They don't understand the value of music, if they did, they wouldn't be taking civil action against their customers. 328. then just pay the artist several million and let him keep his half of record sales. 329. it works to protect the value of a company, not it's products or consumers 330. If they wanted to protect the value of music, they would stop promoting the pointless pop nonsense they market 331. THE SAME AS ABOVE 332. For value, read price 333. RIAA works to protect the market its members control 334. The RIAA perform price fixing on an international scale. The huge markup in the UK is disgraceful and until it stops, I will NEVER buy another CD. 335. Perhaps the value, but the problem is they are too late! 336. They just want to protect their ability to cheat artists. 337. The RIAA does not seek to protect the value of music. They seek to maximize the profitability of music. If they were interested in the value of music, they'd do a better job of screening new artists instead of cranking out boy band after boy band. 338. They protect the perceived monetary value for the companies they reprasent. 339. A bunch of executives? What do they care about protecting music. 340. I think they should work on integrity first and fully disclose what they mean by "value". 341. The value of music is also changing. It's getting so easy to make music these days that almost anyone can do it. We're going to see the price of music going down, down, down. But that doesn't mean the value is going down. Music is very valuable, but may not profitable in the future. 342. better to say "the RIAA works to protect retail prices of music" not the value 343. And to inflate it as far as possible 344. "Protecting" it by refusing to accept payments from allofmp3, and my making the music less widely available. Yeah, right! 345. As soon as the RIAA comes clean and admits that artists are just a way of filling publicy-held record companies' coffers without consdieration to the artist, the better off they'll be. 346. On behalf of its member companies, the RIAA works to protect the monopolistic control over the monetary value of music. 347. To protect an anxient and useless industry. 348. The RIAA works to protect the established distribution system, which includes unnecessary fees (distribution / retail / packaging / etc), promotes the creation of "pop-culture-clone" bands based on what the music-industry executives deem to be popular trends (and not spontaneous generation of art by artists), and chokes competition by creating a tilted playing field for alternative distribution models. 349. It's all about money, not music 350. The value of music is it's enjoyment by me. The RIAA had no part in that. 351. the RIAA works to make money off music, that is their 'value of music'. 352. RIAA isnt about quality or value of music. 353. Protect profit. 354. They protect their profits, nothing more. 355. bullshit 356. Music should not cost 15.99... maybe 9.99 but that is still way too much. 357. The RIAA works to protect its assets (cash). 358. Ha! 359. RIAA is enguaged in extorsion 360. . . . works to limit means of distribution and doesn't give a rat's ass about the quality of music the corporations sell. 361. The RIAA on behalf of its member companies work to protect the value of their overpriced media. 362. The music is over-valued in this new world-wide economy. 363. The value of music is what it means to the listeners.. not how much it costs. Artists deserve to be rewarded, but the current system vastly overcharges consumers 364. They mean "value" seriously. It's only about the money. 365. The value of music? LOL! 366. The monetry value, the income stream, the cash cow..... 367. riaa works to protect their profits. 368. the RIAA work to raise the price of music, they care little for the value, only the profit 369. Total nonsense. The RIAA works to protect the share value for the member companies' shareholders, not the value of music. 370. Of course they would like to do that, it means more money for them. The QUALITY of music is what they might want to look into. We are getting less for more. 371. Maybe so, but all the whole shebang is anyway is a coalition of companies to price-fix music. Buy royalty-free music from outside the U.S. and support another nation's music industry. 372. Maybe in their minds they do and according to their beliefs and practices, but obviously not to the masses. 373. the riaa works for it self and thats it. 374. If they actually protected the value of music, they wouldn't produce so much crap. The market is over crowded with music, that alone is depreciating the value of music. 375. The RIAA is looking out for its member companies, but that is all it is looking out for. That means it does not work for the artists, nor does it work for non members of the RIAA. This statement even contradicts the statements on questions 16 and 26. 376. Well, True if you mean commercial value, but False if you mean the value to the consumer... Consumers won't be allowed to let their friends listen to their CDs anymore at this rate, they might get sued for a couple million dollars. 377. RIAA protects radiculus labels profit 378. It works and fights to preserve its own existing revenue streams 379. They work to preserve the status quo 380. How do you protect the value of music by making it impossible for small bands/artists to get a contract just because they do not make million dollar profits? 381. trust me. we people who download lots of music do it because we value it a lot. i still buy more of it than the average consumer. 382. That it shouldn't be heard by anyone? 383. The worth of a song is something that the listener creates. If you alienate listeners your music becomes worthless. Maybe that is why they are experiencing sales losses. 384. if it was for the value of musik ALL distrabution / promo methods would be explored and exploited not blocked / litagated against 385. Poor quality samples and limited selection does nothing for value, 386. the value is what they can make off it 387. all the efforts they have made backfires on them then devalues music in which they say their protecting 388. The only value they are protecting is their bottom line. 389. ...to protect the PRICE of music. 390. It's all about the almight dollar. The actual value of music can only be determined by the listener and artist. 391. They are making it less valuabel 392. if they did that why is music still being shared free of coast. 393. Value? Only if they mean the monetary sense. High prices abound. 394. vlues means $1.5 for one track for member companies? Good luck with this. 395. They work to get money for their own ass 396. More like they're trying to preserve their assets 397. The RIAA works to maximize the value of the music their labels represent. They could care less about music as a whole. 398. The value of music to consumers is not monetary, it's much deeper. The RIAA would do well to understand that. 399. They protect their money 400. Lossy music files aren't worth a dime. 401. idk 402. Still I would like to comment. "Value" is utterly subjective. Value in terms of what? Money or utility? 403. Unfortunately, they think they are working to protect the value of music. It's others that disagree. 404. The RIAA and the big 4 are working to totally destroy the recorded music industry and any value it has through what it has been doing the last 7/8 years. They have alienated their customers (and future customers) through lawsuits, failing to provide the products that customers are looking for, and failing to invest in future artists. Revenues have dropped close to 25% since they started their war against the music customer. If the is protecting the value of music, I'd hate to see what NOT protecting the value of music would be. 405. The RIAA works to protect the value of it's members. If it destroys music in the process, so be it. 406. FIRST !!!!! They scary I going for free ,new, not nown musician and artists.They like controll whot I gona be liked. 407. The value of music is determined by the market. Digital music is an entirely different product than a cd or even "music" generally. While the RIAA may well look to protect current profit levels, this cannot be confused will the "value" of a product. By not allowing or encouraging the development of a market price for digital music, the RIAA has proved that is does not even want to know the true value of digital music. 408. they work to protect their unlawful income 409. the undeserved value of shitty music by artists who are doing it for the money alone, not the music. 410. Music value has constantly decreased since RIAA was formed. 411. the riaa fixed the prices of CD music which was proven in the late 90's, even though they lost in court, they did not stop their practices. By over valuing music, they decreased their user interest since many believed CD's are ripoffs. 412. They have no idea of the value of music. If they did, they would let people share it!! 413. No, the RIAA works to protect the value of record companies. The art is secondary, and is seen merely as a product to be sold. 414. Same as the movie industry with the arrival of the recordable VHS, right? 415. While the RIAA may INTEND to protect the value of music, they have failed miserably in doing so. They have become too firmly entrenched in a mentality of serving their member companies' antiquated business model, without first considering how said business model serves their member companies' customers, or the artists on whom those customers may choose to spend their hard-earned money. 416. Don't think so .. As far as I am concerned they have shot themselves in the foot. 417. Should say "the value of it's members stock". 418. on behalf of the companies, of course...on behalf of the artists, definitely not... 419. For a company that claims to support and nourish the music industry all they seem to do is actually destroy it completely 420. RIAA works to protect the value of the stocks of its constituent members, they clearly don't give a fuck about the value of music or they wouldn't be destroying it by stifling innovation and creativity. 421. By using outdated business models they are hurting the value of music 422. The RIAA works to protect the value of music to them and noone else. As long as they get paid in some way or other, they don't give a shit about how. 423. as the riaa describes art like an industry, it should embrace the usual business model : dvd players used to cost several hundred dollars 15 years ago, now 30 bucks is a fair price... why would a beatle song cost 1$, it should only cost 0.001$ at most... 424. How do they do that, by making the average user buy every cd and not the songs they want? With technology running at full speed the RIAA cant catch up here my friends they can only shut the door on the few. 425. If you're not protecting fans/consumers, then you thus are NOT protecting music. 426. Cant explain 427. The RIAA works to protect the bank accounts of music execs - they don't give a shit about music. 428. It protects corporate greed and in the same instance it's trying desparately to maintain a draconian cash cow business model. The quality of the music they're putting out leaves alot to be desired. 429. The monetary value not the value people place on music. 430. Their sales are so bad that they're not even going to do a end-of-year report for 2006. They'd have to include all the returns from Tower Records. 431. the value of music is NOT financial. It's an intrinsic part of the human being. Can the RIAA copyright the song that my DNA creates? No, it can't. (and yes, DNA has been coded into music. Very interesting experiments) 432. Music would be more valuable if the RIAA wasn't ripping everybody off. 433. :P 434. Music today sucks. Corporate music is warm mush without a soul. Give me something good (that's not rap crap) and I'd buy it... no I wouldn't. Not when I can get it for FREE. That's the price they have to beat! 435. All you do is sue people. WHeres the protecting value of music. 436. This is a subjective statement. Their value is whatever they tell the consumer constitutes as value. For example, their shortsightedness is forcing Britney, N'Sync and other crap upon us in the late '90s and early '00s. 437. They don't make music that will be important to people in 20 years. 438. they would make it more accessible 439. Only the artist can do that, it has to make the buyer....want to buy, hence making it valuable. buy either new technology you can't download, or concerts and tours and hi def dvd that you wouldn't want to download becuase of large file size or loss of quality. 440. See #23... 441. value on whose terms? 442. Stop making me type in this box. For your stupidity for making these litlle text boxes, I am now forced to c&p this response in all the boxes. Bad poll making guy, BAD! 443. The RIAA works to protect its obsolete distribution model. 444. They say that each song is worth $750,000. Value my ass. 445. The only thing the RIAA is interested in is the continued value of their profits. 446. RIAA works to protect the value of music. They sure do. Soak the people who buy music 447. The value of music to the companies, not the artists, are being protected - because true artists have a a special bond for their music, its value is not determined by how many people listen to it and like it, the artist's music's value is determined by how they like the music. 448. if the music was good, maybe it would have some value 449. The RIAA works to protect its profits nothing else 450. The RIAA promotes mainstream crap at the expense of talented niche artists. It is only interested in maximizing profits. 451. See 17 above. 452. Music's real VALUE is not monetary. 453. They work to protect the status quo 454. Their predatory acts have shot themselves in the foot. They have incriminated their consumers, they have alienated the artists they are supposed to represent. 455. No they work to protect the cash piles of the rich CEO's. If they would stop feeding me bullshit I might actually consider eating what they have on the spoon. 456. The RIAA is only interested in the profitability of its member labels. 457. actually that is true. the monetary value and potential profit for their member companies. 458. If anything, it has turned people away from the music industry in recent years. 459. RIAA is a sue-bot. 460. I'm sure there are individuals at the RIAA who want to protect the value of music, but the RIAA as a whole only wants to protect their bottom line. 461. It protects the value of music as determined by its member companies, not in general. The value of music as far as the RIAA is concerned is a dollar amount per unit that is determined by the monopoly that runs the music industry. The actual value of music in general has increased due to the easier access granted by mass file distribution to the average music lover. 462. the riaa works to protect the high cost of music 463. Apparently music had no value before fat old white guys were making a buck off of it. 464. the question of value presupposes an answer to the questions: of value to whom and for what. the value of which they speak is theirs alone and exists only at the expense of others. 465. I put false, but only because i want to ramble. It does protect the elevated, cartel-esc pricing of music. It does protect the value for the member companies, but not for the artists. 466. Many albums are choked with filler material, which hardly protects the value of music. Rather, it degrades it. Few albums are epic in the way many from the past have been. Albums that are good from start to finish stand the test of time, and most of the music produced today fails to live up to that standard. 467. On behalf of its member companies, the RIAA works to protect their pofits it the most shortsighted way possible. 468. I'm not sure if the "value of music" is defined by a price tag. 469. Of course they do... but not well. 470. value of music... you mean works to continually find ways to bleed it's cash cow of every last cent 471. RIAA works to protect the value of profits to shareholders (of music industry companies). 472. Less censorship please. 473. The value of money made from selling music, perhaps. 474. I don;t think time or device shifting on my part damages the value of music. If I bought it, it's mine, and it doesn't make me a criminal if I want to put it on my ipod so I can take it to the gym with me. 475. they work to protect the value of share price 476. works to keep control 477. This is very vague. 478. The RIAA works to protect its profits. CD downloading does little harm to the artist. 479. blatant lies 480. Music is devalued when it is commoditized. 481. The RIAA has lost the meaning of music and with it its values. 482. Music = Culture Culture = Free Ok RIAA. Not free, but very, very low cost. 483. They work to protect their pockets (even if they are doing the exact opposite). 484. They work to keep things like they were in the past. ALWAYS thinking backwards and not forwards. 485. He is doing nothing but protecting the interests of those companies STOCK HOLDERS!! 486. they are trying to protect the value, unfortunately music has been over-valued for far too long. 30 years ago you could buy a 45 for $1.00. Now you can buy a single on iTunes for $0.99. If you can buy the single at all... When the CD replaced the Vinyl record at 2-3x the price that devalued the music in favour of the medium ("the medium is the message?") 487. Only for itself, no-one else(including the performers) 488. It's not about value of the music - its about making money, again. They want to protect the "value" of their existing business model. 489. Not the value of music but perhaps the cost. 490. No way. Their music is worthless, if no one wants it. The RIAA had devalued their product severely by launching a critical reputation destroying campaign against the innocent public of downloaders. They rose their prices which forced everyone to learn to download. They made their mistake, now they have to live with it. When the RIAA is put completely out of business, and a new downloader-friendly company emerges, only then will the value of music in the marketplace begin to hold some value again. 491. to protect their own outdated distribution model 492. they protect their money, or try to anyway. 493. Music sales have been on a steady decline for over a decade! If that's what they consider "value" then I'm glad they don't work for me. 494. They overcharge at all levels. 495. See above. They have nothing to do with music apart from being parasitic on artists and listeners. 496. They don't care what the music is worth, they care what they can get for it - there is a difference. I have to admit, however, to finding this to be half-true. iTunes and other "legitimate" online distribution channels provide what is essentially product-as-a-service, which I personally find almost completely valueless. I might get a song from iTunes but if I actually want the music, I'll buy the CD. iTunes is like pay-per-view TV - a waste of money. The RIAA seems hell-bent on maintaining the CD as the de-facto standard and I too hope it stays that way. 497. no comment 498. they are trying to protect job security which I may try to do also but I wouldnt go out and sue people. The customer is always right and we know how we want to receive our goods. The digital marketplace is thriving. But customers are now not always right, hust always a criminal 499. they work towards tightly controlled distribution, if only the ways they can make money from 500. RIAA works to protect PRICE of music. 501. On behalf of its member companies, the RIAA works to raise the cost of music products, extorts retailers to carry their product, and pays radio to play only their product. 502. their rich, use flac 503. Well the do try to protect music, that's for sure... But they don't even know what the VALUE of music means. 504. The value of music is determined by how good it is. People do not buy that which sucks. 505. No need to protect crappy value. 506. B.S. 507. The value as music for whom? Certainly not the artists. 508. Motivated by Greed. 509. Money? 510. The RIAA works to protect its own interests, any benefit to its member companies and the value of music is now purely incidental 511. If anything they help protect the enflated prices and ensure the music mogules remain in their ivy towers. 512. ..By increasing the cost and lowering the value. 513. DRM and monopoly does not increase the value of music, it reduces it. The price of CDs is inflated too. 514. "value" is a good word. They work to protect their part of the cake. They dont work for music but for money. music isnt in peril. 515. they rather deteriorate our respect for the music and promote rebellious copyright violation. 516. What percentage of that value goes to artists? They protect their seats. 517. is that why we have singers that cant sing live, or stuff that is supposed to be music--i.e.-Rap? 518. thay protect their own money on their own behalf. 519. see above, bunch of dickheads 520. Music has no value... People may give it an value, but that is not in the power of the riaa to decide. 521. Tell them them to define what they mean by "the value of music", and I might be less inclined to call it bullshit sloganeering. 522. They work to protect their income, they don't care for the value of music. 523. they protect the value that could be expressed as money, not the true value 524. they work to protect their share holder value 525. RIAA works to protect itself 526. They clearly don't know what the value of music is.just ask every person who's been sued. 527. The RIAA doesn't care about the music at all 528. The value goes down because it's tainted by the RIAA lawsuits and their obsession for DRM 529. they arent doing a very good job 530. they work to protect their bank account 531. they work to keep their own business in tact 532. With lawsuits and increased album prices. Of course! 533. Overcharging is not promoting value, it is encouraging abstinence and piracy. 534. BS 535. Actually I believe 28 is true, but its an inflated value without real free market credibility. In an even world, 95% of what you sell would be 95% less expensive... 536. There is a lot of great free music available online. They continue to push people away from the mainstream and towards these fine alternatives. Ex. jamendo.com 537. Value, if meant moneywise, but people still value music regardless of how the got it. 538. The market decides on the value of a product, current the value of music has dropped yet this has not been reflected in price. This has caused a large disconnect between consumer and corporation and may have even contributed to lost revenue. This idea also neglects the fact that much of a music's value is cultural, and they have removed that aspect of music by limiting a fans ability to perform the music they love. 539. bastards 540. They try to protect the multi-million dollar profits of their record labels. 541. The RIAA works to protect its outdated business model. 542. The value of music increases as you share it. That's how art works. Business is different. 543. The copyright of music. The corporate values of music will depend on the distribution network of RIAA. 544. They are lobbyist who dont care about music. They care about their own $. 545. They work to profiteer off of music far more than necessary. 546. Maybe if the value of music to the RIAA is well the wealth of profit in their pockets. How much are those bastards from Sony and Warner paid now... WTF! 547. Their efforts have nothing to do with the value of music -- only with the value of their stock options. 548. They work to protect the value of their stock. 549. The RIAA works to fuck the little man 550. Music has infinite value; whether acquired legally or illegally, it has the same effect on your mind, body and soul. 551. The RIAA works to preserve its own interests and only that..... 552. Music that's not heard has no value. Because of filesharing, more music has been listened to by the public. The RIAA doesn't understand the value of music. 553. music if a public aspect, it's not owned by a single organization. riaa can't forbid my tastes in music 554. Their wallets maybe... 555. The RIAA does nothing to strengthen the value of music, they are just trying to protect there antiquated business models. 556. They work to maintain the inflation of music. They would charge $40 for CDs if they could. It's all a profit game to them. 557. If by value they mean their members profit margins then yes, but intrinsic value of the music is utterly irrelevant to them. They just invest in what will make them a quick buck. 558. music has no value if no-one is listening to it 559. The RIAA want to protect their profits. 560. They work to protect their best and only interests. Money for the Big-4. 561. There is a difference between protecting and controling music. 562. most of thier music is crappy anyways, who would want to buy it? 563. See question #13, the value of the music is different for each person. I might find Dido worth anything to hear or I might only be willing to find a free model copy of a song. You can't set blanket charges anymore. 564. my friends had a country band in early 80's and they signed up with warner records....warner sat on them for five years, because they simply wanted to control the flow of music.....thank for indies....you kids don't have to sign up with these bullies.....I would like to see Grand Funk take on this or maybe we should enlighten everyone about Credance Clearwater Revival 565. if its good its good 566. On behalf of the RIAA the RIAA works to protect the value of itself. 567. Its ALL About The Money. 568. The recent NIN controversy shows that it is not. 569. "...the RIAA works to protect the value of music." After "value of" insert "their profits from exploiting those who create the" to make this a true statement. 570. they dont work to protect anything but their profits. 571. they only work to make money 572. low quality and DRM 573. Riaa works to protect the values of the companies in which makes up Riaa, meaning they are setting out to make sure the money flowing into their pockets (read: not the artists) does not stop flowing. 574. On behalf of their members. That's the key part. 575. They work to protect their members bottom line. 576. They have destroyed the value of music and make music fans lothe the very music they fell in love with. People do not like companies the go after their customers. 577. The RIAA works to protect its businesses model. 3 minutes of sound is hardly worth $.99 considering they have infinite product available. 578. Again: suing 10-yeard old girls. Doesn't really protect the value of music. 579. Partially true, they have fought to protect the financial value for member companies, but have tainted the artistic value of music. 580. Untrue to the core 581. Not the value of the music itself but the monetary value of the media that contains it. 582. RIAA works to protect the value of the record company and the music-as-a-packaged-good business model. This is often at odds with the value of music as such. 583. the RIAA works to inflate the value of music 584. Works to protect the commercial value of music, more like. 585. they work to protect their pocket book. 586. Sure, as long as you interpret that value as a strictly monetary one. 587. LOL They're protecting markets not culture. If it's good and I can afford it, I'll personally buy it. Nothing beats having the CD on my shelf. This approach makes for a true free market, leveling the playing field for all artists. 588. Though I think the statement is fully true, the meaning behind it is completely different that what meets the eye. The "value" they are protecting is the $18 an album value. They are doing this on behalf of the companies that want money. 589. they work hard to make sure they are making money 590. If by protect they mean colluding to set wholesale prices for music and using other illegal tactics like payola to control the market. 591. They want money...assholes 592. if the riaa wanted to protect the value of music they wouldn't be taking such a large percentage of the profits from the artists 593. music is performance material, apart from that music does not have a value, only greedy corporate companies and greedy artists try to kid the rest of the world into believing in a value for there music so that they can get money money money 594. Crap music floods the airwaves and dilutes its own value. 595. It protects nothing. it is a personification of greed. 596. they have been sued before and proven wrong regarding this 597. if they do anything such as the MS DRM infection they gonna lose the battle. 598. On behalf of its member companies, the RIAA works to protect it's members market value. 599. They are protecting their outmoded business model at the expense of music that will be worth playing for y children 600. they just want to keep music at a over bloated prices so they can keep making more money while giving the artist the scraps. like a master that throws his leftover scraps to his starving dogs. 601. The RIAA works to preserve its own outdated business model. They do not understand the value of music. They only understand that controlling music brings money to their sponsoring corporations. 602. Kitsch (industrialised artistic merchendise) is not usually the art, which have any significant value (not artistic for sure) to be protected at all. Kitch sux. Kitch is not even art. Kitch has no value. 603. Suing your customers into buying only your product is turning customers away well as installing dangerous software that can destroy your computer all in the name of protecting their interests 604. Um didnt the Big 4 get busted a while ago price fixing cds? I still haev yet to see them come down in price. 605. bs 606. Only for the majors 607. Given the number of pop singles in recent decades, the RIAA could possibly be WEAKENING the value of music, by throwing their pre-approved crud at youth in hopes of turning them into fickle zombies that can't divulge a favorite genre for themselves, all in a mindset that is supposed to foster individualism as opposed to mindless conformity. 608. They are going like the dinosaures because they refuse to adapt and evolve, so they attack us to preserve their cash flow. 609. RIAA works to spew crap through all channels available to it (radio, TV) 610. the RIAA works to protect the profit possibility's of music. 611. the artists work to create the value of music. 612. But in the wrong ways. 613. Here ... I fixed it for you. Says the RIAA: On behalf of its member companies, the RIAA works to protect the value of MONEY. ``Night_raid 614. It only tries to protect old style monitary value, not the value of what the music convays, which is diminished the fewer people who listen to it. 615. They want to protect the value of their former profits, nothing else. 616. I'd say the opposite is true. 617. ... works to protect their big undeserved incomes. 618. driven totally by money 619. They work to protect the value of the RIAA. 620. They work to protect the profits of their record company masters. 621. works to make money 622. not music but money 623. Maybe it's value to them, but certainly not the customer. 624. The value of music is the enjoyment people get from it. The RIAA have no interest in that value. The only value they see in it is the amount of money it can make for the shareholders of the record companies, at the expense of the artists and the public. 625. The RIAA works to protect its own cash cow that was foisted on the public through deceptive lobbying. 626. More like "The RIAA works to protect the value the crappy music brings them" 627. Music by Big Four artists is getting worse every year. There are no more catchy hits like in the 90's 628. He prevents the music getting to the people... 629. If they are then why are thousands of us boycotting RIAA affiliated labels? 630. The value of music is nothing unless it is appreciated by it's fans. That is hard to do when a power-hungry conglomorate keeps a fascist ideal over it's industry and it's fans. Ask ANY musician and they will tell you the same. 631. that depends who you ask, i don't see this helping much though 632. ... bullshit! 633. And to push down the price of Cocaine. We don't believe it 634. there profits you mean there product is way over priced 635. the RIAA works to extort the value of music, control its distribution and your ability to access it. Preferably one license per device 636. They work to protect a cartel of companies that abuse the market, abuse the legal sytem fort their widespread racketeering scheme, and conspire to steal the People's rights. They should be hanged for treason. 637. "protect their interests" is more fitting 638. They protect the PRICE of music, not its value. 639. Their policies are a direct reason why many people have discovered ways to listen to product in other ways. 640. They limit the value of music and the pleasure we can get from it. 641. How do you place a value on art? Only a lobby would come up with that sentence. 642. RIAA works to protect its financial interests. No more. 643. My girlfriend used to date a performer in a pretty well-known heavy metal band (not saying who, but they are famous internationally), and she told me when his band signed to a major record label and his CD didn't sell well enough, he had to tour like hell to pay bac his "debt" to the record label. It took him almost three years of busting his ass to get back on his feet because of the rediculous big label contract. 644. Value of music? What does that mean? Financial value? Artistic value? If the former, yes; the latter, no. 645. they work to protect the price of music the value of music is something the riaa cant hope to grasp. 646. The value of music lies in its listeners ability to enjoy it. I personally do not enjoy the stain the RIAA has placed on music and artists I once enjoyed. 647. The RIAA works to make money like any other company that wants to survive. 648. Well... maybe if you mean value as in how much it costs the consumer. If you mean value as in it's artistic worth, it can't get much more watered down in a marketplace with almost no competition whatsoever. 649. Kills music 650. Music only has value when listened to. 651. Bull 652. In thiers dream yes. In reality NO. 653. It's protecting the worse music. 654. They work to protect their profits. 655. See 23. 656. they want money for something they can't control 657. They are decreasing it by DRM... 658. Everything the RIAA says is false. 659. Music, in and of itself, is intangible. It has no directly calculable value once the mechanics of its reproduction or recording are removed. The work of musicians, e.g. the live performance of music can continue to be effectively compensated in a digital age and the ephermeral mechanical tools of digitization will be used to increase the livelihood of musicians universally, at the expense of the death of the traditional, antiquated mechanical recording industry. In order for music to survive and continue to retain this intangible value, the industry must change and learn how to make money in completely different ways. The RIAA's "value" is that of the mechanical recording, and the mechanical recording has become obsolete. 660. They could care less about the music. 661. Monetary value perhaps, but where are the good quality artists ie: The Beatles, Ella Fitzgeralde, early Michael Jackson, Frank Sinatra, etc. 662. The record companies add NOTHING to the music that is worthy of the monetary penalty they heap on consumers. I believe, and the facts DO appear to bear this out, that artists themselves would be MUCH BETTER served financially by marketing directly to consumers over the web. The Record Companies are simply middle-men who act to PREVENT the free and easy exchange of artistic product. The RIAA is a dinosaur who apparently didn't receive his own copy of the memo -- the dinosaurs died out 65 Million years ago when an asteroid or comet struck what is now part of the Gulf of Mexico. WAKE UP -- YOU'RE DEAD ALREADY! 663. They attempt to do this but their actions have lead many, including myself, to boycott any purchases of music from any artist signed to a label of the RIAA. 664. to protect the value of stocks 665. The RIAA has ensured no value for the product by thier sue them all campaign.

Says the RIAA: Technology initiatives of record companies and policy initiatives coordinated by the RIAA are working toward a seamless, interconnected world for music fans.

Total Responses: 1,015 True   6.5%  (66) False   93.5%  (949)

If you've answered False to the question above, how do you see things?

Total Responses: 706 1. Not about the music, not about the fans, not about the artists. 2. BS. 3. RIAA and MPAA cannot stop it. It is a juggernaut that has left it's backwoods cave. Seamless, interconnected?.. sure.. so is everything in this age of the internet. Music fans and movie fans are just seeing the same kind of accessibility that Fine Art admirers have had for the last 25 years.. you want to look at the Mona Lisa..? sure.. you could spend $5000 on a flight to France and a stay at a decent hotel and a taxi to the museum and the entry fee and the few hours walking towards the goal.. or.. surf the internet... for .. $10 to $50 a month. 4. DRM is not seemless, copyright law is not seemless, but the RIAA are interconnected to music fans when they sue them in court. 5. There many non-compatible DRM formats. I can't buy something in iTunes (unless I want to pay the 30c freedom tax for EMI songs) and have it work on any other media player. Same thing with plays-for-sure or the Zune store or any others. One, universal, open format is the only way to go. If the RIAA won't allow anybody to sell me uncrippled mp3s, then I'll just have to keep stealing them. 6. True but... They want a world where I don't own music, I rent it and pay every time for a new format, a new device on which to play it. Taking this to it's logical conclusion, they would like a world where I pay every time I listen to a piece of music. 7. the initiatives by the RIAA are trying to monopolize all music and therefore earn more money for the labels under it 8. But they are getting on the tracks a few years too late, the train already left.. 9. totally untrue, the RIAA doesnt want world music fans to be connected. 10. bullshit. let the facts speak. 11. We already have one. It's called a group of friends, and peer-2-peer. And it works a whole lot better than anything they can come up with. Just look at Sony again with their screwed up ARccOS. The worst of them all they are. 12. Control the money!! LOL! 13. The RIAA oppresses independent artists, and tries to prevent their music from being sold. The RIAA does not want to see any music sold that is not sold through them. 14. False 15. "A seamless, interconnected world of music fans all at the mercy of DRM and fear tactics causing them to question their own right to use their own music. 16. DRM, need I say more. 17. DRM restricts music to flow freely between devices. 18. pay per listen 19. The RIAA is working on things that stop fans from seamlessly listening to music they purchase. Corporate posi-legal bullshit like drm and copy protection only further alienate music fans. 20. DRM restrictions are the opposite of this. 21. You are? Thats news to me. You are constantly trying to stifle technology initiatives. 22. seamless yes - them at the top everyone else getting ripped off at the bottom. 23. Music fans hate the RIAA. 24. I see that pure greed is behind their decisions. If they could, they would charge us each time we played a song on our CD. 25. Seamless, integrated and totalitarian. 26. "policy initiatives coordinated by the RIAA" (a.k.a. lobbying and corruption) are working toward DRMised monopolies on entertainment and IT. 27. Then explain to me why I can't play the song I legally purchased from iTunes on any device I want. 28. Theyre full of shit 29. This seamless, interconnected world is already here, it is called file sharing, how is someone who purchase a song from ITunes, or a CD from a store connected to someone who did the same thing? 30. the Riaa is struggling to find ways to stifle attempts by really creative people to work towards a seamless, interconnected world for music fans. 31. This is a grey area question. Yes, they are 'trying' to develop technology and policy initiatives to create a seamless, interconnected world for music fans. But just simply to control the entire marketplace, and make as much money as possible. EVERYBODY ELSE BE DAMNED. 32. I see the RIAA lacking a updated business model in which to protect copyright laws. They need utilize the advancements in technology to their own benefits, only then can they reduce infringement and protect copyright laws. 33. All the RIAA is working toward is letting us listen to all the free music we want... while sitting in a jail cell somewhere. 34. Music fans couldn't care less about the company that owns their music 35. Music fans had a seamless, interconnected world before the RIAA interfered. Now we have a seamless interconnected world that's noisy because they won't stop yelling. 36. money 37. Partially true. They are responding to an overwhelming demand for fairness by music consumers (and probably artists). If they truly want to service these people, they should be looking for ways to increase the accessibility of their music, and attract new consumers. 38. seamless on devices that it can control, non existant on others if it had its way (linux?) 39. When you have to hide, or not share, or jump through hoops to share music with your friends and family, then nothing is seamless nor interconnected. The RIAA should embrace the technology, and realize that this digital "sharing" age is an opportunity, not something that is harming them. 40. The RIAA stifles interconnection at every opportunity. DRM, as a technology that relies on secret close-system technology, requires a platform of supporting technology to operate. DRM systems are not interchangeable, requiring to user to purchase unique hardware and software. Nothing about this is seamless nor interconnected. It is a source of burden for music fans. 41. If it was seemles and interconnected I would be able to play a song on multiple devices legally without buying more than one copy. 42. The RIAA's vision of a "a seamless, interconnected world" consists of a program to restrict the devices on which customers can play music, thereby allowing the music industry to re-sell the same music to the same customer multiple times to play on different devices. In my opinion, this is the antithesis of a "seamless, interconnected world". 43. they wish. 44. restrictions are not what music is about. 45. Are you drunk? They're trying to keep everyrthing for themselves, cut the artists out of profit so they can build a better tomorrow.....Fuck them, fuck Mitch Bainwald and fuck the RIAA as a whole. They promote a shitty business model whereas wealthy lawyers sue anyone under the sun in order to push their propeganda. Our government needs to step in and disband these monkey fuckers before people begin retaliating on them. 46. Why can't I move files from one computer to another? Or from a zune to an ipod? listen to it anywhere, anytime? The RIAA is working on a way to nickel and dime customers to death. I'm sure their ideal is that we pay a dollar for a song a dime everytime we listen to the song, and a nickel to move that song from one device to another. Until the RIAA changes the customer will not. Classic insanity; the RIAA is doing the same things over and over and they expect things to change. The customer will always find a way to get what they want. Until you deliver what they want they will get it some place else. No war on piracy will change it, jsut like the war on drugs or the war on terrorism will not be complete until things actuly change. 47. Total BS 48. they are lossing fans. most people i know will only download cause of drm on cds. 49. The world of music fans is already 'interconnected' except the record companies don't have their hand in that world. The only seamless world the record companies have in mind is the path from the consumers wallet to the record companies bank account. 50. What the hell does that mean? 51. Music artists are disgusted with what you're doing, the fans are disgusted with you, and you have very little hope of ever being a respected organization ever again. The FCC is heavenly compared to the RIAA. 52. They are working towards a seamless capitalistic plan to make money. 53. A seamless and interconnected world would be achieved by allowing artists more say in their music, and selling music in a DRM-free format people can use as they like. Artists, music fans and innocents are like are being harmed by the RIAA's current terrorist tactics. 54. Seamless, so none of their private property can leak. 55. If that were the case they wouldnt be suing def, dumb, blind, dead, elderly or the young children. They would be contacting consumers and ask what they can do to help them better support the arts. 56. two words: ROOT KITS 57. DRM sucks. Let me do with what I bought what I will, however I will. I don't tell you how you should wear your clothes! 58. So they can make more money 59. Sorry guys. You are too late. Others have done a better job with this. 60. not when they are suing their very fans. 61. The RIAA doesn't want a seamless interconnected world, so much as they want a road littered with toll booths, ready to collect a fee for every move. 62. Napster was a speamless interconnected world of music fans and it was shut down by the RIAA and member companies. 63. Seamless, interconnected world? Sounds like RIAA's walled garden to me. 64. I think there was a typo. I've corrected it below. Technology initiatives of *Bittorrent, Kazaa, and Soulseek* and policy initiatives coordinated by *P2P users* are working toward a seamless, interconnected world for music fans. 65. the RIAA is as blood sucking as the record industry, that is why the fit hand and hand. 66. To ensure no one can muscle in on the big boys, forcing the consumer to only have the 2 options. get ripped off or don't buy 67. RIAA = bunch of theives and liers Total Bullsh*t 68. lies, preserve the only business model we clunk heads can understand 69. They are working for a seemless, interconnected monopoly free to control all aspects of the music business and music appreciation 70. KILL Internet Radio 71. DRM can only fragment. 72. Nope. A "seamless, interconnected world" would mean that, once a person pays for a song, they would have the right AND ability to convert that song into any format(s) they choose, and store/play it on any equipment they choose, now and in the future. whereever and whenever they like, as often as they like, without ever paying for it again. THAT world is the antithesis of what record companies want... if it were up to them, all music would be rented for a single playback, and we'd have to pay up each and every time we listened, and we could never have more than one copy at a given time unless we coughed up more dough. 73. theyre giving us hell 74. No causing more problems and excuses for anti-piracy measures. 75. It's only the RIAA money the RIAA is concerned about. 76. DRM, need I say more. 77. Yeah right. I can't listen to the music i BUY of iTunes on my PDA or laptop or car audio. Interconnected my ass 78. The RIAA has little to do with coordination, it is just the record companies and distributors talking. 79. The world for music fans so far has been fragmented and disconnected. The use of DRM has made music quite unpleasant to use for ordinary consumers. It is far nicer to enjoy music in the gray areas outside of the RIAA's control. 80. they are completely against the internet because it means removing the "costs of production" (that don't exist in such high dollar values) 81. DRM software by its very nature requires that consumers subscribe to specific formats in order to enjoy even the producs they legitimately purchase. This does not promote seamless enjoyment. eg. It is more difficult to move items purchased from one mobile device to another if a different brand is purchased. 82. One again, the RIAA is working for their own interest, shutting down sites that don't make them the money they want, not working for anyone else but themselves. 83. The RIAA is working toward a seamless way of siphoning money from artists and their fans to the pockets of music industry executives. 84. An interconnected world to benefit the rich and screw the poor by charging to much for a music file 85. RIAA has been the main hindrance to an interconnected music world online by shutting down many p2p sharing sites. In my opinion the RIAA has slowed the growth of the music and technology industries. 86. they want our money. When is enough enough. 87. they forget if it is not for the people there would be no music bussiness 88. Working towards isnt good enough. It was already happening until the RIAA blundered in, fell over and started messing up the place. How soon? 2010? Too little, too late. Un-DRMed mp3 is here to stay, period. 89. DRM is not an initiative that allows seamless use with a Zune, or an iPod, or any other device I wish to use. 90. Seamless? Then why are iTunes files filled with DRM? 91. A seamless, interconnected world of music absolutely controlled by the MAFIAA where non conforming artists and fans are completely assimilated. 92. They will say anything if it sells. 93. they stiffle things by putting to many restrictions on how you can use what you purchase.if i purchase it i should be able to use it any way i choose without DRM thats bull shit then they wonder why people share music 94. drm!! 95. They can have fun with that... long live bittorrent. 96. The RIAA is all about DRM and control and money. 97. That's what last.fm is for. Where the data is independent, and where I'm not having a "hey, you like Metallica, buy Jessica Simpson's latest shit too!" 98. They are deliberately inhibiting progress towards a 'seamless, interconnected world for music fans'. 99. Last time I checked, limiting what someone can do with their music and totally disallowing them (through policeware drm) to share their music even through a radio program that is NOT "p2p piracy" and suing the ass off people who try different music before buying is not a way to encourage connection between music fans, it's a way to drive them apart or away altogether. It's hilarious that most music "fans" of all countries buy and converse about music from russian sites offering non-drm'ed, cheap, quality (in both meanings of the word) music instead of from native places offering garbage, at high prices! Come on, folks.. make with the capitalistic ingenuity and competition, not the disgusting lawsuit slapping and "bandaid for a bullet hole". 100. There already is a "seamless interconnected world for music fans," Its called LIMEWIRE!!! 101. Sure thing, the RIAA are doing a great job for it. 102. If that world denies my choice in an operating world and requires that I constantly check in with them I don't want it. I would rather create my own world where I can use nay computer, operating system, and music player. 103. Just make it harder for honest users to listen to their music. 104. Lossless? DRM-Free? no, I didnt think so... STILL unable to find ANY legitimate site (apart from allofmp3) that offers the choice of d/l format, high quality and drm-free 105. Companies exist to make a profit. Technology is only used to further that aim. 106. Same answer as 17 107. Well if that's what they are working for they have failed. Digital music is highly incompatible and no where near seamless thanks to RIAA's insistence on DMR. 108. I'll believe it when I see it. 109. Technology initiatives coordinated by the RIAA are working toward a world where everyone has to pay for every single time they want to hear a song. This will make listening to music akin to being raped anally. File sharing provides a seamless, interconnected world for music fans, and this is exactly what the RIAA is trying to destroy. 110. It's already here. 111. Bu splitting the different groups and network up and preventing the formation of new networks the "interconnected world" is not happening. 112. There are 2 different music worlds. The RIAA and the indies. 113. they are just making sure that they continue to make as many bucks as possible. I don't feel that my music world is connected to them at all! 114. More like a seamless, interconnected world for GAINING THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!111oneoneoneoneoneoneoneone 115. they want to work together, so they can charge everyone to listen to each song, so you never actually own an album but only rent it and return it, and it has a built in expiry date too... 116. Any kind of DRM limits interoperability. From a technical point of view, this statement simply is a lie. Those initiatives simply aim at maximum control. 117. DRM, DRM, DRM 118. focus on creating technology that puts music into peoples hands less expensively 119. the music companies are making too much margin, are not prepared to adapt their business practices, and are trying to legislate to maintain the status quo. 120. .... as long as you use their proprietary format, use one device only (ever) and listen in solitude with no chance of anyone overhearing you. What rubbish. 121. Yes, i want more of this crappy electronical-everything-is-the-same music! 122. They haven't done anything to help digital music but destroy networks and sue companies. 123. yup - their own network 124. Fell off my chair again... 125. They stifle it! 126. I don't see any cooperation on their part to work towards anything except for more money for their selves. 127. $$$ 128. about 5 years too late ... 129. Well maybe they are, but just not very well. The RIAA should start by sitting down with the folks at allofmp3.com to learn how to create a truly great music distribution platform that delivers what users want, and strongly to consider purchasing their infrastructure in an agreement that ensures that the site is not then shutdown. 130. they work to restrict music to an antiquated structure ill-equipped for modern times. 131. Where is the technology? All they have done is get Microsioft to beef up it's DRM in Media player in Vista. SOftware now dumbing down music you legitimately own... Thats stifling the market I reckon... 132. DRM 133. This already exists, buffoons. Apparently your job is done, do please desist. 134. They certainly didn't try hard to make iTunes available in my country. Took nearly a year for it to work here. Now that iTunes finally is about to sell DRM-free music, we'll have to wait half a year again before it's available here. The RIAA doesn't care about music fans, and definitely not music fans worldwide. 135. The only people who would be connected are the people who are paying what *you* think they should pay. Preposterous! 136. As long as it makes even more money 137. Nope read comments above, once these people are in charge, don't get upset when murder, hate and chile molestation go rampant and since they are the new government, WHO ARE YOU GOIN' TO CALL? 138. Not as long as DRM is around. "seamless interconnected" and the actual DRM is a contradiction in terms. 139. The only thing seamless and interconnected is they are planning is the money flowing out of our pockets and into their bank account. 140. Dont make me laugh... why so much DRM in "product"? 141. These initiatives are the delusions of a broken distribution model. 142. i see the opposite 143. they just want their money!! 144. If they did they would encourage sale of songs, not albums, promote unknown artists and old artists' work for less than the cost of the popular songs (long tail prfots), and would otherwise follow what O'Reilly and Amazon have proved about the market for goods through digital marketplace. They are essentially dolts stuck in tarpit of their corporate heirarchy and arcane business model. 145. They've taken way too long to get with the program here. I've been sharing music for almost 10 years. The RIAA should've been on board with this DAY ONE! 146. only so long as you pay your monthly licensing dues. 147. as above 148. The current DRM and anti-P2P stance does not support a seamless and interconnected world fr music fans. 149. The RIAA have been dragged kicking and screaming into the current age with a big catchup with technology, initiated by those outside the industry. Their initial and current response is to stifle and stop anything outside of their control. They need to dictate what the public wants, as they have always done. 150. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Yeah, your iPOD's music seamlessly integrates with your other MP3 players, right? HAHAHAHAHAHA!! 151. They do not want digital downloading to infringe on their market dominance 152. Who knows... 153. how is it seamless or interconnected if you include software that only allows me to listen to my music on a single device? yes, i DO have 2pcs, a laptop, 2 mp3 players, and a cd player i would like to listen to things on, and hey, i might even occasionally want to listen on office pcs or at a friends. oh dear, i have reached the limit of licences allowed. bull. 154. They have failed 155. They've been saying that for years. Why should we believe it this time? 156. "the RIAA are working toward a seamless, interconnected world for music fans?" ~without being to hard on the obviously ignorance in that statement; but it actually was there before the RIAA and it will still be there if you went away. The fans are in charge of interconnecting themselves and before p2p and illegal music sharing it was seemless. Here i go again, music is for the artist and its people. leave it to them. If you add business and politics,... well watch the news and see what that gets you.... Id like to say i started off 80% pro RIAA until i took this survey. These statements are the most disillusioned one side thoughts that clearly outline the organizations motives as dark and greedy. Its so easy to make a good world, but the people that populate it are so selfish and easily controlled buy fake wealth. 157. Suing people for outrageous amounts of money is not a method that leads to a "seamless, interconnected world for music fans" 158. The RIAA does everything to stop these. Instead of looking at an innovative site like allmusic.com and copying their business model they come up with DRM. I would switch to a legal version of allmusic if only it was there. The RIAA is missing all sorts of opportunities, and has ensured every music lover hates them thoroughly. 159. allofmp3.com 160. This world was emerging on its own just fine, before they started dragging people to courts... 161. No 162. lack of standardization, inferior digital products, etc. 163. The opposite. 164. I'm not sure what the hell they are trying to say there. 165. I've never felt *more* division between the RIAA and music lovers. They don't seem to think much about their target consumers- these frivolous law suits on poor college kids just goes to prove how much they don't care. They're just greedy- that won't stop me from file sharing and they certainly won't get MY support any time soon. 166. Working towards making more profit, lets face it that's the only reason these guys exist. 167. Record companies will never catch up to technology. The only option is DRM-free downloads at high volume, low prices, in the quality of the purchasers choice. Follow the AllofMP3 model and sales will EXPLODE. 168. So seemless that users of Free software operating systems can't even play their favourite music videos without fear of getting in trouble (DeCSS needed for DVDs, various "outlawed" decoders/hacks needed to play some DRM'ified formats). 169. if that were true, file sharing wudnt be as frowned apon. the only 'technology initiatives' brought forward by the riaa are new methods of ruining file sharing - i.e. viruses, static mp3's and mislabbeled files. 170. bring back vinyl! 171. I've yet to see evidence of this. 172. Except half of them get sued on a good year. 173. Fuck the RIAA 174. stop suing every company online and let nine inch nails promote their band how they want 175. They arent working and they are disrupting. DRM limits the consumer 176. News flash -- we have a seamless, interconnected music world already: the mp3s on p2p services. DRM and the balkanized music marketplace mandated by the RIAA are the opposite of this. 177. well they get paid to do things like that... or at least say they do 178. MySpace does it better! 179. If they are working toward it, they've got a hell of a long way to go. 180. Seamless and interconnected, yes, but on the producers terms. This is not the where the world is going - consumer power and cyber communities are much better ways to let such a seamless and interconnected community emerge. RIAA should *support* such networks, not *control* them. 181. The RIAA refuse to see any use of file sharing and refuse to move foward with the times. 182. Technology initiatives of record companies and policy initiatives coordinated by the RIAA are working toward complete lock-in of one copy of music to one device, and if possible, one playing of said music. The RIAA and the record companies will be happy only when technology allows them to charge "per play" for all music on all devices in all countries. 183. I don't even know what this means. 184. Dude, not everyone makes enough money to buy all the music they'd like to hear. If that means they can't legally hear it, then I find that neither seamless nor interconnected. 185. They need to embrace online file sharing practices that are in place and popular already, then find a revenue model to fit it. 186. again just pure bull__it 187. They are YEARS behing technology 188. Hahaha. Sorry. The best thing the RIAA could do to make a seamless, interconnected world for music fans is to stop suing people who are doing just that. Or close up shop entirely; that would help the music world too. 189. The music fans are creating their own interconnected world the way we always have: word of mouth, copying tapes, and putting a record on when friends are over. The RIAA hasn't helped a single fan. 190. they are fools 191. Copy protection anyone? Huh? 192. I have to laugh at that statement. 193. So, what exactly have they done? 194. ha! laughable - programs like allofmp3 and filesharers are seamless and interconnected - and they're trying to wipe them clean off the slate 195. this is a joke right? 196. we'll see, the world is changing and the music industry has to adapt 197. I think the labels are still feeling the burn from losing so much from file sharers. I believe that there needs to be a format that works across all players and all systems. Hopefully that will happen. 198. Their entire policy goal is to break technological compatability and disallow connectivity of digital devices though DRM, opposition to Net Neutrality, and other such anti-Internet initiatives. 199. Who needs them! 200. The RIAA fights to preserve their right to earn money immorally. 201. They are working towards a monopolistic, authoritarian world for music fans. 202. The RIAA continuously fight to limit the way music is expressed and distributed. 203. Technology initiatives of record companies and policy initiatives coordinated by the RIAA are putting a generation of music fans off by their constant mis-management and general short-term-profit-beats-long-term-gain attitude. 204. i dont believe it 205. There's nothing seamless about proprietary technologies that don't interoperate well with one another and limit the usage of music that is legitimately paid for. I will continue to share and download music for free until I can pay for music and use it on any player or on as many computers as I see fit. FU RIAA! You have accomplished nothing. 206. Have seen NOTHING that supports that statement. Sounds like spin. 207. You need to add: completely controlled by the RIAA to make the above statement true. 208. You are actively fighting file sharing. That is not working toward a seamless, interconnected world for music fans. That is fighting it 209. By controlling the media they are allowed to use, they are imposing standards rather than "coordinating initiatives" 210. DRM SUCKS. Prices for electronic form should be cheaper as there is not hardware and shipping involved. 211. not currently seemless 212. Eh?!!! DRM is the opposite of seamless & interconnected. 213. the RIAA is crippling the music industry, more so than piracy. 214. its pointless. File sharing will not stop. Waste of time and money. File sharing increases music value not devalues it. There is more access to interesting music than ever before. Therefore consumption is higher than ever before but the RIAA wants more of the pie. 215. yeah. not even sure how to answer this. it's a CARTEL. think CALI, MEDELLIN, OPEC. the RIAA is simply the thug in the business suit... 216. RIAA is out to protect the record companies pockets. 217. Then why not allow filesharing? 218. There is VERY poor interoperability between music devices. People are forced to break DRM so the music that they have lawfully puchased can play on their music devices. The music companies are partly to blame for not letting companies like Apple open up its DRM. 219. I don't think their main concern is fostering a good environment for music fans, just themselves. 220. They are working towards a seemless, interconected world for the major labels so their profits will not drop but we are only able to listen to the artists they promote feverishly. 221. The only "technology initiatives" seem to be taken by various hardware companies involved in the manufacture of 'MP3 players', and even then they seem more interested in fostering their own platforms and promoting vendor lock-in. 222. ha, another joke, they advocate DRM which is anything but seamless and failing 223. Oh really, so where is the problem with file sharing? 224. If that's true, then why don't the fully support ALL music distribution methods? 225. bs 226. if they're suing the fans, how are they connecting them to their idols? especially if they remove the means for their fans to BUY their content, ie money 227. It just isn't like that. They want control. 228. They want money. 229. Seamless, interconnected, and based on rights management software. 230. They're trying to prevent music fans from connecting. They want us all in our own little isolated pods where we can't even talk to one another about music without first paying them $17.99 for a cd or $2 for a song. 231. Stop the nonsense.If they spent as much time on distributing music at a fair price as they do trying to protect it,so they say,at a higher cost,everybody would be a lot more happier.The artists,the labels,and the end consumers. 232. The seamless interconnection is in the underhanded methods used to victimize music fans. 233. ? 234. And the Easter Bunny shit chocolate eggs on my lawn last week. 235. The Technology initiatives by the RIAA are working toward a seamless, interconnected flow of money to the member organizations. 236. allofmp3 versus iTunes/HMV prices and download models, who wins....one guess!! 237. They are working towards a seamless, interconnected revenue stream. 238. If true, this must be some bottom of the teen-pop genre, Debbie Gibson lookalikes, overpriced commercial every 5 seconds internet TV thing. Certainly bound to Windows and MWplayer through 2048bit AES encryption in their nice little absolute control DRM scheme. "Sorry, you bought the CD version, if you want to play that song on your MP3 player you've gotta buy it again!" I can't possibly imagine a fair deal after what we've seen so far. 239. They work to still own and control the music you have bought and paid for. 240. who the hell knows what they are doing 241. DRM and the RIAA's wet dream systems deprive you of simple options that you would definitely otherwise have. 242. who are these people? 243. DRM seems more restraining then seamless 244. booo 245. They restrict a free culture. 246. WRONG. if the riaa had their way, there wouldnt be any digital music. 247. DRM anyone? Seamless?? Really?? 248. really - they should use their common sense - drm that kills my pc is not seamless - or is it? 249. coordiated by who? by those who'd like to stop the whole internet and have the only one online shop to be the only one allowed to distribute and control the whole music market? 250. Mr. Pirate is a fan of music. 251. they're working toward "policing the internet", and i'm 100% against it. 252. I have yet to see a technology that the RIAA has not sued first. The RIAA is lost in the past and needs to be removed from existence. They are a middle man that does not need to be there anymore. The internet allows for this. 253. The need for record companies is coming to an end. The internet is the way for the artist to 'cut out the greedy middle man" and just market their songs themselves. 254. If this was true they would not spend so much money into DRM. 255. I'll believe it when I see it. 256. Technology initiatives of record companies and policy initiatives coordinated by the RIAA are working toward a seamless, interconnected world where the RIAA has total control over the way music is shared and profited from, putting themselves in a position to make as much money as possible. 257. The RIAA needs a market research department who will help them understand that they are damaging their customer relations at every turn. 258. Freedom isn't free if I have to do everything the way YOU want it. 259. there may come a day when there will be a seamless interconnected world for music fans, but hopefully the riaa will be completely out of the picture by then. 260. CDs that won't play in certain players... yes, very seamless 261. That pads their pockets. The RIAA is a union. The union works toward it's survival first, their members second. Unlike most unions, the dues are not paid by the membership, but the employer (aka people who purchase music). Their are kind of like the American Trust (you do know what that is??). 262. Their heads are in the sand. 263. What have they done? Other than suing people, I mean. 264. They'd rather have a seamless world of lawsuits and extortion. 265. $$$$ 266. They're holding back the technology, because they're afraid (and rightly so) technology will give us more freedom in enjoying music (and other things), and they won't be able to keep up (i.e. to tax us for everything we do). 267. Seamless if it can involve DRM. It's already seamless without DRM based devices - I can take a MP3 and move it between may different devices, but as soon as I have a DRM-enabled file, I can't do anything with it. 268. The courts don't believe this. RIAA is a terrorist organization run by a bunch of whimps that are still running Windows 95 269. If they wanted a 'seamless, interconnected world' then they would be forcing apple to release itunes users from having to use apple devices. Are they? No. They're suing pre-teens for sharing music with friends. A model, if adapted and adopted that could revolutionize the industry. Again, the RIAA is the hitman of the industry. If the industry is scared by a new idea, the RIAA will beat it to death. 270. Anything the RIAA says is BS 271. See above. 272. I hope they will, but right now they are breaking up legitimate companies and encourages self-censorship. 273. it seems to me this is exactly what they are trying to prevent 274. Working toward total DRM of any piece of music to the point where the purchaser can't even choose how or where the music is played. That's infringement on rights, in my opinion. 275. I dought it 276. THe riaa/mpaa fights to preserve the riaa/mpaa. 277. If so, it is slow going. 278. They took the wrong strategic direction creating a large deep hole between them and the attempts of their customers, not to be fullfilled rapidly. 279. again, not true, bc their seamless, interconnected world of music fans does allready exist. They just want to get prfit out of it, thats why they sue, and scare their potential customers. 280. riaa sucks 281. only if you can afford it 282. The piracy is what forced them to, in the end, take actions in that direction. Had it not been for piracy we would still not have heard of it. 283. This is the most false statement of all of the above. Interoperability is public enemy #1 for websites selling music, hardware players, as well as music companies and RIAA. Interoperability means "choice" and choice is a dirty word when speaking for the viewpoint of a monopoly. 284. Three letters. DRM. You can only play your music with the company you purchased it with. And that will do nothing but ruin music and the experience of listening to music. 285. Hah. Suuure. Have yet to see any of this. 286. I have downloaded titles only to find the song isn't what I wanted. If my kid has one these songs on his Ipod, will he get arrested? 287. What fantasy world does that statement come from? They are fighting with everything they ha ve. 288. One word: Sony? 289. There looking to infringe on your right to share your music, even if means burning a CD of music you legally already own. 290. im tired, its just false. 291. If so why are you suing so much?? 292. so thats why there are regions for dvds, and very rare simulteanous release for movies and music etc worldwide. 293. DRM. Nothing further. 294. Music Fans are the last things on their Closed and Immature Minds. 295. DRM holds back and seperates everyone 296. If that were the truth, it would allow file sharing! 297. RIAA is making things as hard as possible and offering no value. 298. Use a "wrong" (read: non-corpolitical) player, and it's more like "disconnected" than "interconnected". 299. if the RIAA truly wanted to help music fans then the only thing they could do is create a universal area of music which had a collection of all the songs and can have songs added to the collection if not found. yet have this list moderated to make sure things that dont belong arent added in. 300. bull pies 301. Seamless is: The musician and the world of fans. No place for the RIAA, sorry guys and good bye. 302. They are not cross-platform, are heavily dependent on propietary protocols, and some of these are not even good enough (like the Sony BMG 2005 fiasco) 303. drm isn't interconnected, no matter what they say, mp3, ogg are not drmed, and mostly freely available and playable on lots of mp3 players. 304. They care about profits not my well being or "connecting" with the consumer. Lip Service at its highest form. 305. They're preserving their business model. 306. it seems to be a play to totally control every aspect of every piece of media in the world. 307. Seems to me they're working toward a seemless connected world of consumers who hate them do to their rediculous tactics! They force DRM on their users, and don't give them the freedom to do anything users may wish to do with content, even though they've paid for it! What good is a business where you can't use what you've paid for the way you want to! 308. Interconnected world? They have made sure that the world is NOT interconnected by locking down models such as AllofMp3. 309. That is exactly what they don't want - an interconnected world of fans would be able to talk about and swap music any time. 310. DRM. Enough said. 311. Only provided you conform to their expected norms (i.e. use Mac/Windows PC and replace all of your music devices with new equipment from Apple, never have a reason to burn numerous CDs, format your hard disk too many times, own too many computers etc.). There is no need for any "technical initiatives" from record companies to create this seamless, interconnected world for music fans, they just have to provide the raw digital content and let distributors sell it the way their customers want it. Precluding small technology companies, pressuring large technology companies and even manipulating whole governments into reinventing the wheel to suit their paranoid, technology-ignorant, misguided and unethical requirements demonstrates that the RIAA is irresponsible, ineffective and generally unfit for purpose! 312. Screwed 313. I'll believe it when I see it. 314. This world already exists, it's called forums, blogs, podcasts, p2p software. The RIAA is just hopping on the bandwagon, if anything. The RIAA doesn't take initiatives. It reacts. 315. They disturb this interconnected world! 316. Like what..DRM? Oh now there's a blessing! 317. If that's so, how do they explain DRM? 318. Yeah, iTunes. Their idea of a great way to buy music. On their terms. 319. These people prove time and again that they are living in the past. For them to imply in any way that they are on any sort of leading technological edge is laughable. Also, judging by their actions, they hold their customers in contempt moreso than any other business imaginable. 320. I have no control over the music I buy, that is not a seamless, interconnected world. 321. Seamless would mean support for all in the world, afford-ability for all, ease of selection choosing for all, allowing interconnected communications i.e. sharing. Unless the RIAA means putting all the music fans in the same jail cell together. ;) 322. Have they ever tried to play back DRM music? 323. see 23 324. It is not properly 'interconnected' when DRM-music can only be played on a selected number of devices. The RIAA has always opposed technological innovation that may require them to rethink their strategy. 325. Again, without taking a unified approach to DRM when it started (which should be abolished now), without taking advantage and adapting sharing and bit torrent type technologies, and without fostering the existing communities they have failed to do any of this. Shutting down start up initiatives and suing the pants off of everyone only serves to sever them from the already existing (not by their own doing) interconnected world of music fans. 326. Oh I'm sure that they are. They'd like nothing more than to have every music sale in the world run through accountants so that they can get their cut. 327. Goddamn it. Do you work for the RIAA???? SEE. NUMBER. 21. 328. The are working on an isolated world for music fans where we can only listen to what they choose, how they choose, when they choose, & where they choose. 329. What does that even mean? 330. Sure, as long as they 'own' it! Set the music free!!! 331. Only if you listen and use devices they approve 332. They are trying to FORCE people to only use the systems and methods that THEY find appropriate. 333. With DRM? 334. Well, they probably are, but it's a world they're planning on controlling top to bottom 335. DRM prevents cross platform playing. 336. Seamless? Interconnected? When you can't even play tracks bought from one online service on a rival brand of mp3 player? Please, give us some credit. 337. We've had seamless interconnected world for music fans for a long time - it's the very system they've been trying to destroy since Napster - P2P 338. More like annoyed them. 339. jk 340. This is simply a way to create a monopoly for the record industry giants to control markets once again. The record industry stifle talent. Just look at the Artic Monkeys the made because of the internet and not because of the record industry cartel. 341. 'Working toward' is another business term used to mean 'Pay us what we charge now with the false promise of lower prices in the future.' Oh and they hope we'll forget that prices were ever supposed to go down - much like oil/gas. I will admit they have a good backbone in place - with the potential to make a lot of money from it. But the cost is just too high at this point - and so this trend will continue. 342. The seamless, interconnected world for music fans already exists, but the RIAA has shown little no understanding of it. 343. That's hilarious! Does ANYONE at the RIAA actually believe that? The seamless, interconnected world of DRM protected, non-Beatles music, for example? Is it any wonder so many music fans (and even some recording artists) are against the RIAA? 344. Nonsense. Firstly music shops in general have been the same for 30 years, secondly these places dont offer the choice of samples, thirdly only supposed piracy offers the no nonsense oppertunity to hear music otherwise hidden behind plastic-wrapped cases on our shop shelves 345. I'm gonna say 2 words to you.... iTunes, iPod... not very "seamless, interconnected" with other devices are they now.... 346. then why are we being sued? 347. Says the RIAA: Technology initiatives of record companies and policy initiatives coordinated by the RIAA are working toward a seamless, interconnected world for music fans... that will get the record companies richer for doing less work and pumping out horrible, inane and ultimately the same music 348. THE SAME AS ABOVE 349. Ein volk, ein Reich, ein RIAA 350. RIAA totally passed on the mp3 format since it came to widespread use in the late 1990s. "Emerging digital formats" for the RIAA is DRM infested use-less crap. 351. The RIAA sue the band's fans. Everyone has downloaded a song - even the best of fans. 352. What I don't think so music just doesn't feel like music anymore 353. I only listen to independent artists, or buy their music. That's the best way to boycott RIAA. If I must by an RIAA artist, I go to Ebay. 354. The RIAA is taking credit for the actions of others. 355. MP3 and the internet is the technology, they have only hampered growth, protected outdated revenue systems and alienated cutomers and artists. Oh btw, fuck the RIAA 356. They are trying to divide music fans so they cant feed them whatever garbage they are promoting. 357. the plethora of programs i have to use to obtain and use music in the format i want speaks against this. 358. A good idea but the RIAA are going about it the wrong way. Suing people who don't play by the rules. 359. I guess they gotta try to find their place in the emerging NWO. 360. The RIAA isn't about doing things for its customers. It's just about suing people. They're going to lose in a big way. 361. "Interconnected world for music funs" means first of all possibility of exchanging music freely. 362. The RIAA (and the MPAA) are actually trying to create a disjointed, unreliable world with their DRM efforts. (See iTunes, HDCP etc). Fortunately their arrogance is exceeded by their incompetence, and such schemes are usually overcome. 363. Bullshit. 364. Technology initiatives by the record companies seek to invade music fans privacy (Sony rootkit), deny access to music after it has been legitimately purchased (Dual-Disk and other non-redbook compliant CDs), and limit purchasers rights to legitimately purchased music (suing 2nd-hand iPod sellers who don't format the hard-drive). 365. If you regard the industry as being fans yes otherwise no. 366. Question #1: How can they look at the current DRM morass and actually say that with a straight face? Question #2: Where can I get some of whatever they're smoking? 367. See above 368. Technology initiatives are in place to screw me at the first opportunity. The End 369. but don't forget about how the music needs of the fans. Without the fans, the artist is no better then a person with a voice. I feel that the music industry, along with MTV and the RIAA have shown how the artist and the fans not respected. I feel that a person who can put a few lyrics together in a song does not constitute make millions. I for one and I know I am not alone do not feel a person is entitled to make millions off me. I work very hard for my money and if I can share the music I purchased with my friends then so be it. Down with the RIAA and all of the money grubben people. 370. DRM is the most burdensome and restrictive initiative to be used against consumers. the RIAAs fear of sharing is creating a fractured and confusing mess of formats and rights. 371. yet to be determined. 372. New formats mean new profit from the same music as people buy favorits again and again. Album to tape to CD to whats next. 373. Yeah, they sure are. That's why we have to go to Russia to use what is possible the VERY best music-marketing model every created. The RIAA needs to pull their heads from their asses and see that they're not in the country's best interest. For them it's get all about the BIG $$$. If they sold the music CHEAP, I think a lot of priacy would go away. You're always going to have the guy who refuses to pay even 1 penny for a song but the majority would gladly pay if it was affordable. Software suffers the same fate. $399 for Windows? Yuck. 374. bullshit 375. Universal DRM everywhere. 376. Seamless, interconnected world for music fans? Come on, the RIAA is not doing this, we are. 377. If that was the case their would be a legal method to download music. The RIAA sues everyone 378. . . . seamless, interconnected world for those companies which dominate the music distribution oligarchy, 379. TA seamless, interconnected world of music fans is already here, and the RIAA is trying to destroy it. 380. That's ballocks too. 381. ... 382. Only if that world includes hyper-strength DRM on every track, and it is illegal to think about removing. 383. This is total hogwash. I can't believe anyone could claim this. 384. Working to a very restricted use of music based on DRM. Ignoring the person's rights to copy and use the music on what-ever medium chosen. 385. They work toward absolute control over how music is distributed (seamlessly...) 386. the RIAA are in a different world to music fans, the RIAA are a company, companies care about one thing, profit. music fans care only about the music, we dont care of the RIAA dont make money, in fact we all hope they dont, we hope they lose loads of money and close down their racket. maybe music needs to be governed by a non profit organisation, maybe it just needs to be fair ? allofmp3 for eg, millions of people use it because its cheap and offers various formats, what more can you ask for. file sharing introduces others to a particular artist or even genre of music that they might never have considered before whats next? are the RIAA going to subpoena people for having their mp3 player too loud that they 'share' the music with the guy sitting next to them? Do people think copying a music track is stealing? hell no, the copy didnt even exist before they copied it, how could they steal something that never existed before they created it? 387. only if you buy an IPod and do things the Apple way! Not a chance! 388. Again, I haven't seen anything of this nature. 389. Bullshit! Credit for that goes to the people who have shared music files on file sharing networks since Napster began. The RIAA is made up of sons-of-bitches who care nothing for artists, composers, producers, the AFM, or anything other than the profit margins of the major labels they represent. They've also done all they can to eliminate the little guys and run the whole damned show as Sony/BMG, UMG, EMI, and WMG. There used to be hundreds of record companies, but now there's only 4, and the only way to get your shit into Best Buy or Wal-Mart is to have your independent recordings distributed by the majors. The RIAA has done nothing but monopolize the U.S. recording industry. 390. Way too slowly...why wait for them in 10 years when I can have it now? 391. All roads lead to ROME (RIAA ONLY MANAGES EVERYONE) 392. The RIAA is merely building more walls to create a small channel of music distribution. 393. Music fans did that by themselves, the RIAA royally screwed it up and took credit for the copy that they formed. Sounds like some sort of rights infringement to me... 394. The RIAA fucks over the fans and the artists. 395. one word... DRM 396. RIAA's initiatives are panishment and slowing down new customer oriented technologies 397. They are working to obtain control and to rpofit from all forms entertainment above providing a usefull and fullfilling srevice to the customer 398. They are trying to restrict what the users want. 399. music fans don't always pay for there music 400. If that was true, the music industry would have adhered to todays demands in content and content delivery, as opposed to stuffing people with expensive DRM-ladden mass-produced crap. Lots of small bands never gets a chance of success with todys model form the RIAA-companies. Thankfully companies like e-music are starting to bloom! 401. controlled and owned by? 402. They're removing the connections by stripping us of our beloved torrents, file-sharing clients and torrent sites. 403. How seamless is this going to be for Linux users? I want my music in a high quality open format like Ogg. Open communities like Jamendo are giving this to me. 404. that's like saying that fords are not piles of junk 405. A: inteerconnected would = I tunes / msn / open formats would work and the ONLY way that happens is WITHOUT DRM B: seamless should = same content available in Canada / Uk / Australia / Asia etc it is NOT 406. All the record companies are trying to do is to maximize profits. 407. they are trying to devise ways encrypt and shut down p2p 408. they just take credit for what fileshareing and pirates have started and responsable for 409. The record companies are still too much into DRM, despite some new trends on selling MP3 music for a bigger premium. If they truly want to make the music seamless remove DRM and catch up with the future instead of living 10 years in the past. Stop treating each consumer like a criminal and start treating them like a partner. That might actually achieve this goal. 410. they just try to put taxes on filesharing... 411. They don't even know how to turn a computer, less building any "seamless, interconnected world"! 412. That's why they are suing the music fans. Still not seeing any effort(aside from RIAA rhetoric) to improve anything except their own bank balance. 413. We already have that. 414. if they did that was is music still being shared all over the place like on p2p networks then. 415. BULLSHIT. They're working together toward a bound, license-inhibited, disconnected world for music fans. 416. and why do we need RIAA for that? We are already interconnected ;) 417. Fuck em 418. . 419. No, that is what the consumers are moving towards. The RIAA through their litigation and lobbying processes are working as hard as they can to stifle the efforts of fans and consumers. 420. Ha! Well, we'll see how fast the other 4 labels jump on the non-DRM'd iTunes bandwagon... 421. seamless would be them getting out of it and letting it work itself out. 422. Only if the quality of the digital file is equivalent to that on an actual CD or record. The only place I can get that file is for free online through sources the RIAA will never get to. 423. There already is a "seamless, interconnected world for music fans. " Its called the internets, and the RIAA is definatly not helping it 424. How interconnected can we be if we are forced to buy instead of share? 425. RIAA and MPAA lobby Congress with a powerful and well-funded disinformation campaign. Ask Jack Valenti and Mitch Bainwol. 426. If DRM (Apple/Microsoft Zune/Microsoft Plays for Sure/Napster II et. al) is seamless, then the RIAA must be living in a different world than we do. This is one of the biggest reasons that p2p is so popular -- a MP3 downloaded off of Limewire, Shareaza, or Bit Torrent, can play on any MP3 player, computer, or can be burned to CD/R for playing in the car. The so called "illegal" product is a much better value than what the "legal" markets offer. The Russian web site allofmp3.com has one of the best technical sales models out there -- charge by the size of the download and let the customer pick the format they want. 427. What the RIAA is trying to do is impossible. The only way there will be "a seamless, interconnected world for music fans" is when the RIAA and it's members die. 428. FIRST !!!!! They scary I going for free ,new, not nown musician and artists.They like controll whot I gona be liked. 429. Again, this may be the industry's goal, but creating a consumer base which views the RIAA as an enemy and promoting policies which drive many artists outside the major label system certainly does not further such a purpose. 430. for which you have to pay overloaded prices 431. whatever dude. 432. DRM, anyone? How's that interconnected? It can't be more interconnected than the BitTorrent technology. 433. Again, by forcing drm, they are locking consumers into one hardware model which hampers any kind of interconnectivity and seamless integration that a consumer could enjoy without the drm files. 434. I don't trust anything they say anymore 435. Doubtful. If the record companies and the RIAA were really motivated to do this, they would have more to contribute to the global discussion. All they currently contribute is threats to consumers. 436. I think they just described bittorrent... 437. The RIAA's continued preliance upon lawsuits, cumbersome and unreliable DRM schemes, and a general contempt for their member companies' customers, has done more to prevent a seamless user experience than to foster one. 438. Seamless? I think these clowns have ripped the industry into pieces. Who pays for the high dollar lawyers? I wouldn't take a cd from them if they gave it to me.. 439. No, no, no, they're doing everything in their power to try and guilt-trip us into paying their wages. 440. Bullshit. 441. If they wanted a seamless, interconnected world there would either be no DRM bullshit at all or just one global open standard for it that would work no matter what platform/device/so on you were using and the user would never have to know more about it other than clicking ok to download it. 442. How in the world does a RIAA dream of DRM restricted music have any relationship to a "seamless interconnected world for fans"? The DRM dream is all about seperating us from our own rights, let alone from each other! 443. If anything they are working towards exactly the opposite: a world where media is never owned only licensed multiple times and fair use is stamped out 444. This can only be answered by: Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off. 445. and drm is being dropped by record companies. 446. it's funny to see world-wide music fans acting similarily toward the riaa and major labels in general : they'll lose whatever their repressive strategy 447. Making their profit is the only RIAAs goal. What did the CEO of the RIAA make last year? 448. Myself & others [international contacts] I know would die for file sharing. 449. Cant explain 450. What initiatives? Suing people? 451. Depends on whose interpretation we're talking about. As the consumer, those initiatives are putting me off - why should I buy 14 pieces of crappy music when I only want one - "piracy" is the alternative for me until the big 4 hears what I'm saying. 452. Connected world of rich record company CEOs 453. Did they really say that? "Seamless, interconnected world"? And they did it? Were they smoking crack at the time? The RIAA members have ruined music and the music business with their meddling incompetence and prevarication. 454. um, yeah.... then why all the DRM & non-compatible formats then? I want to be able to go to ANY site I want & get a piece that will play on ANY players I might have. I refuse to pay for a song more than once just so I can have the privledge of being able to play it anywhere *I* choose. 455. HA. 456. LOL 457. Once again, should be 'Technology initiatives of record companies and policy initiatives coordinated by APPLE...' 458. Shut up riaa. 459. I don't want any voodoo snake oil they are selling. Don't drink that kool-aid(R) 460. seamless?? RIAA doesn't know nothing about seamless, it only wants control. 461. They have been consistently anti-technology, going back to 1998 when they sued Diamond Multimedia to prevent the release of the first mp3 player. Oh, and let's not forget that awful Sony rootkit that their DRM-laced CD's put on people's computers. 462. they don't have a clue 463. Companies, the public, and the artist are doing those things. the RIAA might be working to do this, but are failing at every step of the way, they restrict, and everyone else is finally seeing the light of day and finding new ways to make money without the aid of copyright and drm technology 464. The RIAA is a joke. 465. I see limited evidence of this. 466. don;t tuch my music 467. Stop making me type in this box. For your stupidity for making these litlle text boxes, I am now forced to c&p this response in all the boxes. Bad poll making guy, BAD! What could have been a good poll descended into lunacy with these daft boxes. Try again without the slant - I'm anti-**AA all the way, but this poll is retarded. 468. The RIAA has absolutely no clue what "technology" is. All they know is that they want to outlaw it. 469. One word: DRM 470. Yeah, right. 471. hate to answer several questions with the same answer, but... The RIAA wants TOTAL CONTROL of ALL music distribution, pricing and control of all artists. They will toe the line or else. No indys, just RIAA "music 472. I hate music with 'copy-right protection' because it encourages me to download it instead in formats I can then put on my iPod and other portable digital audio format players. 473. keep on sueing people and you won't have any fans. 474. Interoperability of different DRM systems means fewer because consumers are not forced to buy the same song multiple times. The RIAA definately does not want interoperability 475. The RIAA seeks to control the means of distribution at a time when middlemen are no longer needed. Artists can record and distribute music without getting screwed by the major labels. 476. See 27 above. 477. Seamless should not have to mean low quality and strict time limits. 478. It's working towards an incompatible and DRM-laden world for music fans. 479. You can listen to their music when THEY want, how THEY want, on whatever device THEY want, for whatever price THEY want, as many times as THEY want. 480. The only thing they desire is their money. If they cared about us they would realize that we are going to sit here and pay extremely high prices for music that really isn't that good. I've found a better deal for music. I pay a much lower price that I believe is fair and download it. 481. Technology and policies are being forced in the direction where the labels control the music distribution. This is not seamless if they do not approve. 482. PERHAPS IN A PERFECT WORLD "SEAMLESS" WOULD BE AN EVERYDAY OCCURRENCE BUT "FUNCTIONAL" SEEMS MORE OF AN APPROPRIATE TERM BASED ON THE HISTORY OF THIS ONGOING BATTLE OF P2P FILE SHARING. 483. as long they maintain full control and maximum profit. 484. Technology initiatives of record companies are working towards consolidating and controlling revenue from music fans. 485. This statement doesn't seem to mean anything, it just sounds like a publicity line. There is nothing seamless and interconnected about the current music market! The digital music world is littered with competing formats and digital audio players with a lack of interoperability, CDs with DRM schemes will not even play on many CD players, Sony has loaded spyware onto consumers computers who purchase their CDs legitimately, etc. Again, the RIAA does not care about music fans, they care about consumers spending more and more money on their products while simultaneously giving them less for that money. 486. The only seamless interconnected world for music fans is one where files are unburdened by artificial locks. The RIAA is clearly not aiming for this model, although some of its members (notably EMI) have just started towards it due to 'popular demand' 487. the record companies and the riaa works for nothing but themselves and for furthering their money grubbing ways 488. The word I object to is "For." The illusion that abuse is being done for your own good is an old one. 489. i want my mp3s! just like i wanted casette tapes and cd burners and other things that ruined the industry by creating multi billion dollar markets despite their initiatives to crush the innovations. 490. Profit 491. Thats what Napster, Kazaa, Emule, Bitorrent, Irc etc have done. They have tryed to systematically undermine that at every turn. 492. They are working toward a world where all content is controlled by them. They would like to dictate how often you can listen to your music, or what devices you can listen to it on. Hardly a seamless, interconnected world. It's and Orwellian world at best. 493. Technology initiatives of record companies and policy initiatives coordinated by the RIAA are working toward a world where the only people benifiting from music is the record companies. 494. Maybe they are, but that's overlooking efforst made by those outside the RIAA. 495. having content that will play on one device but not on others is NOT a seamless experience 496. Seamless would be allowing file-sharing. 497. Haven't seen a shred of proof for anything like this yet... 498. Meaningless PR speak that amounts to nothing 499. they want money 500. In fact, because of the RIAA it's become harder and harder to use music in all of the legal ways a consumer should be able to. 501. DRM, copyright infringement claims, and combating file-sharing, all serve as examples that do the exact opposite of this statement. 502. Art belongs to humanity, no matter how hard they try to "coordinate" it. 503. Interoperability is still an issue. DRM-free emusic is the number 2 vendor, after itunes (DRM-infested). They have proven that a drm-free model whichr espects the customer works. 504. DRM? interconneted my arse i cant even play music ive PAID for on whatever device i choose 505. works to keep control 506. the riaa has resisted change persistantly 507. Holy Crapola Batman. The RIAA works only to constrict and control what/where/how you listen to music. Vista is one example of the NAZI DRM initiates rolled out. I can't copy my TV programs from the HDMI I/F now. I'm at the beck and call when the network will rerun a program. I don't like being CONTROLLED. This the the USA, and I feel like we've rolled back to Germany 1939. 508. If they are working toward this, they haven't reached it yet. I have a CD that doesn't work in a standard CD player. iPod owners can't buy music from anywhere other than iTunes. There are too many digital formats that don't seem to work on all players. This is not a seamless transition for music fans. 509. DRM is the ultimate stumbling block for an integrated music experience. 510. While that may be what they're working toward, they're heading in the wrong direction. At least their intentions are good? 511. No comment. 512. Their initiatives are working toward an Orwellian model of "art." 513. Technology will be the eventual demise of big records!! 514. it's all about the money. 515. prove it! 516. It is actually fairly true, however like all establishments, change is slow and difficult. They are being dragged kicking and screaming. Way too slow to react. 517. They aren't doing ANYTHING techinical. They are slapping DRM on everything they can find, and forcing people to buy the same thing for each device. If it wasn't for Apple's staunch stand, the music sold there would have cost more, and been even more tied-down than it already is. We know this to be a fact. 518. DRM, which the RIAA loves is primarily designed to create a world that is essentially "pay-per-play". In a world where everything must be purchased discretely, it's hard to quantify a seamless or interconnected experience. 519. They are working toward a tightly controlled, what the RIAA says goes, world for music fans. 520. Give me a break. The only thing they have done is stifle innovation and try to bury useful technology. They done more to hurt the music industry in the last 5 year then any time in their pasts. 521. They might have a download option. Fine, but its not seemless or friendly enough to ever get used large scale. They take too much power unto themselves, and doing that will never win over the Internet Public. In fact, it only pushes more people away from them. So they can continue to build their online options, but they will need to relinquish all their hostilities, and loosen the tight grip of their anti-customer practices. They clearly dont know what customers want, so they can't provide it and make the money they otherwise could have. 522. how can it be seamless if we're all scared? 523. Read the reviews on any new music technology and you find plenty of complaints about their lack of interoperability. The RIAA won't be happy until the public is forced to pay for every song they hear, every time they hear it. Period. 524. Screw anuone but them. 525. Again, there already was an emerging "seamless, interconnected world for music fans" before the copyright monopolists wanted their cut for doing nothing. The RIAA wants to justify its existence by acting as if it's a player in the creation and enjoyment of music, but again, it's just a parasitic monopolistic organization that wants money for existing. They do not do anything useful and in fact hinder the development of everything they want credit for. In short, they suck and fuck them. 526. Seamless and interconnected would mean no more DRM. There already IS a seamless interconnect world for music fans, and the RIAA is doing everything in its power to sue it to death. 527. Too many formats requiring too many players that don't play nice with one another. 528. no comment 529. They are cutting out and alienating large chunks of the "interconnected world for music fans" The seamless interconnected world for music fans is already there with p2p and its the RIAA thats standing in its way. 530. Interconnected world of music fans happens witout any help from RIAA. If anything - they stifle it. 531. If by seamless they mean to erect a tollbooth at every intersection of this interconnected world, than the answer is true. It's simple, if musicians want to make money from music, they should play in front of audiences and sell as many mechanical copies of their works as they can for a reasonable amount of time. If people share their "mechanical rights" among friends and networks, that fact simply enlarges the musicians potential fan base who would go see their shows. The greed stops with the emergence of our new technological marketplace. Musicians can now live like the rest of us on 30 or 60 or 100 thousand bucks a year instead of living like earthly gods. 532. Technology initiatives of record companies and policy initiatives coordinated by the RIAA are working toward a seamless, interconnected world for music fans, as long as the consumer pays what the record companies want, and nobody steps out of line, and you ignore those Indie labels. 533. their rich, use flac 534. They do work coordinated, but they don't strive for music fans... 535. They work against more than they work towards. They're only now taking 1 step forward for every 2 steps back, and they want to be lauded for their efforts? Bah. g2,pg2, p2p4life 536. You can't pigeonhole the whole music environment into one world. The term "underground music" excists for a reason. 537. They work for their own benefits not the artists. 538. This can be read in so many ways -- but as a fan I feel seriously left out and have for years, starting with the pathetic websites labels put up for their artists to a simple lack of access to the artists I'm interested in, especially with out-of-print works. 539. WHat technology initiatives??? 540. Please.... peddle the propaganda to someone who'll believe the BS.. 541. Money? 542. The record companies need the RIAA for nothing. The RIAA needs the record companies to follow it blindly, as the are at the moment, to keep the RIAA in business 543. I must live in a different world. 544. Things will be seamless when DRM is totally abolished. 545. Root-Disks on CD's are not a good thing for music fans. 546. DRM and licenses are not seamless. 547. riiight. Big Brother is here to help us all. We dont need him. The net doesnt need or want any chaperon. P2P also match the description "a seamless, interconnected world for music fans" and whatever defect it might have it certainly work better than commercial platforms. 548. The DRM systems of Apple, Microsoft and Real are incompatible. 549. what about the 'pirate' fans on the net. 550. They are working toward world for them to thrive from using artists as a mean to get money from their users. 551. Thier 'policies' are intended to fill thier pockets with more greenbacks. 552. out and out bull-they work for their wallet 553. yeah, sure they do, as long as there's a monthly fee for being connected, or even better - a per piece fee. 554. a what? a seamless, interconnected world of fans sued by those "protecting" the rights of the artist we once loved. well yeah.. 555. Bittorrent is better at it. 556. I have no idea what they're talking about. I know DRM sucks though. 557. Their DRM causes more inconvenience to honest customers than pirates, and in no way that is a "seamless world". 558. RIAA IS looking forward.. but fearing it like nothing else 559. it might be seamless and interconnected, but i'm sure they'd use this power for their own ends 560. RIAA wishes to establish a cartel for music distribution 561. P2P is an interconnected world of music fans 562. hell no, and if they are trying to, they need to stop suing people and start listening to them, stop telling us what we are doing and start asking what and why we are doing it....... RIAA to most people is a way to controll music artist and the moeny they make. 563. DRM is so incompatible with other DRM systems that nothing is seemless, or interconnected. 564. yea right, the only people that have been creating the interconnected world are the pirates themselves 565. I dunno how seamless means licenses and proprietary formats, i thought seamless meant that "it just works" 566. False indeed. The RIAA and the record companies did, by and large, everything they could to ignore and squash the online music market for a long time...until it reached a point where even THEY couldnt deny its looming presence any longer. Ever since then, instead of innovating, they have been playing a very disorganized, half-assed attempt at catch-up. 567. music is music and the fans will be fans therefore no matter what the case the fan will always support the artist in some form 568. It's destroying the music industry as we know it. It's sickening, it really is. 569. The only thing seamless about the RIAA is the wonderful public relations mess they have made for the record companies. They are the crooks and should be locked up. Funny how we never hear about their racketeering conviction. Why should I feel sorry for an ex felon still stealing from the public. 570. BS 571. Paying fans interested in what your pushing. I have two words for you people: Debbie Gibson. Your Fault, not mine. 572. DRM is anything but coordinated. Its restrictive and amounts to renting your media instead of purchasing it 573. They are looking a new ways that they can retain their business model that revolves around control. With the internet their is no longer a need for the big record companies, distribution is relatively free. In order to justify their existence they have attempted to lock down just about all open online distribution methods. They have also been large supporters of drm, and by its nature drm is meant to lock the users options. 574. greedy fucks 575. The record companies try to destroy everything they don't understand. 576. Where is this? When can I expect it? 577. Artists and fans are on one side and business is on the other. There is no way to change that. Business will always be the enemy. Young people need to learn that or they will be taken advantage of again. Young people are voting with their downloads! That is good. 578. Online Music Marketplace is very confused. Too many sites, too many licenses. 579. no copyright helps music fans 580. If I buy drm-wma I cant listen them on my Ipod. And vice-versa. Thats why I dont own any mp3 players. 581. You have to subscribe and you must follow their rules. How is that seamless or interconnected? Thats just another monopoly. 582. That's funny, I thought they were trying to get us to the point where it costs us money to just listen to a song, and disallow the song's purchase altogether. Maximize profit, minimize expenditure, marketing 101. 583. See above -- they have no clue about technological innovation. 584. I hear nothing of this but only who they are sueing next. 585. Pirates do that 586. Too little, too late. Step it up. 587. The RIAA works to create proprietary formats and ideas... 588. Filesharing already has created a very connected world of music fans and the RIAA wants to tear it down and charge people for it. That would decrease it's size exponentially 589. They don't want the internet to be involved at all. 590. it's doing the opposite 591. Again, REALLY ??? 592. DRM does not allow for seamless interconnected music. It prevents music from being played on different types of players. 593. They are failing to meet their "goals" and have a focus on policing the internet. They need to revamp their approach and realize the way things really are. 594. Unless you buy a cd, they don't want you to have it 595. no opinion. 596. paying fans only 597. Pure BULLSHIT! DIE RIAA DIE 598. ummmm DCMA, No device shifting etc etc... you know the story there... Very UN-interconnected. The riaa is disconnected from its user-base. 599. The "sue them all" campaign proves that they are unwilling to even change their business models. What would make them think that they would even change them to even adapt to the climate five years ago? 600. only if it put obnoxiously amounts of money in thier coffers 601. If they have been on top of this I haven't seen it. The best business model on the net is Allofmp3.com. Give the people what they want and allow them to decide if they just want to listen or own the music. 602. if this was true profit would not be a motivator...everyone would be happy about music....webcasters would not be affraid to streaming no name artist...and I would not be taking this survey...... 603. looking to make a buck...do it free then 604. The fans and the public will dictate what they want from the music industry and if they comply the future will be bright indeed...!! 605. Due to it being more occupied with its won profits, it does not need to innovate, just stop progress. 606. Append "to keep paying through the nose in more new ways" to make this statement true. 607. working towards new methods of making a profit to exploit the art that is music. 608. no they want you to buy only from them at artificially inflated prices 609. you can't interconnect with DRM 610. Riaa if anything are opposing alot of the efforts that would better the current music situation. 611. No. That's what silicon valley is doing. You are limiting that, Mr. RIAA. 612. Do they really think they work for Apple ? I don't buy music from the RIAA I buy it from Apple or Napster. They must have the Record companies fooled to believe that line. 613. They would like to eliminate all technology but cds. They would get more money if the only way to listen to music you like, would be to buy expensive cds. 614. No - "seamless" would mean eliminating the middleman, which would mean eliminating the RIAA, which would mean that our favorite old white men in suits would have to sell their multi-million-dollar estates. 615. They are developing a RIAA controlled environment to control and dictate content to the consumer. 616. My ass does more towards seamless, interconnected world for music fans than the RIAA 617. Everything that the industry has done iin that area has been fuelled by users getting there first. Their technology has done nothing but stifle fans' enjoyment of the music thatthey have paid for. 618. Wrong. It's working towards a world where children and grandmothers are sued for enjoying an artists music. 619. They left out the last part: "...that the RIAA controls in every detail, and where no unapproved artists have the possibility to reach any music fans, and where the RIAA makes sure to take a reasonable revenue portion (about 97%) for this service that we think the world should be enjoying." 620. They are building a new barn for a horse that has died.. 621. take a look at Sony's DRM issues. How does that possibly make anything more seamless? 622. I'm just not seeing this. Someone point it out to me. 623. How long have we had the internet? They sound very reactionary versus revolutionary. Its sad, everyone else saw the technology whip coming, but they failed to recognize that shift. Anything built out of reaction will surely fail. 624. Yes, where we all can pay them once to listen to a song on our computer, once on our iPod, yet again if we want to burn a copy for our car's CD player.... 625. I like my world diverse, thanks. Everything is interconnected anyway. This is just marketing twaddle. 626. If they are working towards a "seamless, interconnected world for music fans," then it will be 2020 before we get what we need as fans. 627. drm <> interconnected 628. The DRM they insist on makes the process far from seamless. 629. More like a prison... 630. it's what the general public would most probably want, which is why the riaa would like to stamp it out as soon as possible, how long will it be before the riaa start clamping down on people doing podcasts, mark my words they are probably thinking about it at this very minute 631. i joined frostfire last night it will not let me down load says my computer is not compatiable please email me i want to cancel my membership margaret gerald 632. a "seamless, interconnected world for music fans" would be p2p 633. working towards? nasa is working towards going to mars and i am working towards world peace, so what? its not like they are going to happen anytime soon or ever 634. They are alienating people that may have decided to purchase songs online and see it as a viable alternative to downloading music for free. 635. It is working toward the diametric opposite. 636. its the opposite of this! 637. ha ha ha ha, I've just pulled my stomach muscle 638. ...interconnected world for music fans... where big business tells fans what to listen, when to listen and with what to listen it with. 639. So why are they killing the webcasters? 640. they just want the world's music so they'll have more power and to get richer. these guys need to be stopped. 641. The above statement is true only if it includes several toll booths where consumers are forced to pay multiple times for the same recordings. 642. If one does mean bullied, arm wrestled by police force against catholic moral values and then sued into obedience with recently purchased by RIAA in parliament laws, then maybe one could have right in the above statement, but not otherwise imho. 643. Their initiatives are only isolating their fans and chasing them away with their extortionate practices. In their view, everyone is stealing music from them and are all criminals. 644. No matter what the fans will always find cheaper faster better ways to get what they want. 645. bs 646. That world already exists ... the RIAA is its sole villain 647. And I suppose the lawsuits against music fans are part of this solution? Regardless of whether or not they are true customers, few can argue that they at least enjoy to some degree (or perhaps hope to enjoy) what they are looking for. The Internet and music sharing (either through the Internet or in the physical realm) has fostered interconnectivity in a why that the RIAA never could, and never will given the current circumstances and their feelings on the subject. 648. They are trying to destroy a perfectly legal and legit p2p system because they can't controle it and that scares the hell out of them. 649. DRM C.R.A.P. != seamless 650. dint i read somewhere 76% of support calls to music distributer are about problems with DRM. 651. without the RIAA, there would be no barrier to a seamless, interconnected world for music fans (the internet) 652. Doesn't seem like that from where I'm standing... 653. they are working to charge us for every time we listen to a song ... it wont be long untill you have to PPL (Pay Per Listen) of a song ``Night_raid 654. it cannot be seamless if some people can not get access to the music due to fileformats, pricing etc. 655. They want to keep control. From producing, from advertising to selling music. All in one benevolent hand :) 656. They're driving a huge wedge between the fans and the industry. They can take their DRM and Micro$oft can take the DRM in Vista and shove it up their asses. 657. DRM is anything but seamless. EMI has just recognized that. 658. driven totally by money 659. Bullshit. They are being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the digital era. The only reason why they even allow sites like iTunes to exist is because their traditional business model is being threatened. 660. I cound'nt load songs onto my sons ipod when he came to visit us 661. they dont care about the fans thats why they sue them and try to scare them into buying the music. 662. I don't see any technology and policy initiatives (apart from the introduction of harsher DRM and fighting against Net Neutrality) coming from them. 663. Their technology initiatives involve trying to stifle new technologies and prevent anyone else from competing with them. 664. "Technology initiatives of record companies and policy initiatives coordinated by the RIAA are working toward a seamless, interconnected world for music fans." Replace the word "world" with "monopoly". 665. Oh theres a seam, infact its a rip, and the cause? the RIAA. Oh and allow me to translate.. Technology Initiatives to the RIAA = DRM 666. completely opposite the above 667. Did I mention that they are freaking the s**t out of people? They don't know what they're talking about. Oh boy, so many idiot people on this planet, and so many believe them... 668. Get rid of the DRM and use openfile formats I.E. get rid of ACC and WMA and use OGG or like formats. 669. It's already been done. It's called THE INTERNET. 670. clearly not, with DRM everywhere, i think things are going in the wrong direction. Apple though has a nice though about DRM. 671. money money money 672. This is just a front. The only interconnectivity i see is between the riaa and music stores(not music online). 673. I now I understand the Sony rootkit. What a crock. 674. the same ones there suing ? 675. N.W.O 676. Whatever is that crap supposed to actually mean? 677. unless its "product" only-no online movement of music 678. How did Sony's copy-protection rootkit contribute to a "seamless, interconnected world?" And what the heck does that mean anyway? 679. Ever more restrictive technology DRM, music which will only play on an approved player, stores which think that the internet is only for people in the USA ..... If they had from the start made product available to anyone with the credit card to pay for it most of us would never have taught ourselves to file share in the first place. How many other people I wonder got sick of not being able to buy the product we wished because we don't have a USA credit card and discovered the world of sharing? 680. I think they work against this. 681. I'll believe it when I see it. 682. read #24 and the rest of the survey. 683. BS. They have no initiatives in place. They're scared and want to go home to their mommy where it's safe, and good little consumers buy up their worthless crap and allow label owners to buy their multi-million dollar homes, while the artists that got them rich have to work at McDonalds. 684. If that were true, the RIAA wouldn't be suing people into trying to make them buy CDs still. Independent computer programmers have done more for me in terms of exposing me to new music in the last three years than the big labels have in decades. If they realized this instead of pretending it was still the 1970s, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. 685. There already exists an interconnected world for music fans through P2P communities. If the world they envision is so seamless, why do I always hear the same shit on the radio and see the same shit in the stores? 686. again, drm seamless? riiiiight.... 687. Only if interconnected means everyone financially tethered to them. 688. Sure they might be working towards that goal. But is it for the music fans or for themselves. RIAA wants money, plain and simple 689. Only true if you translate this to mean that the RIAA wants all radio stations around the world to have the same 100-song playlist, no internet radio, no internet music sales. 690. Not when the end user has no control of the music. 691. In many ways thats what music sharing is all about in the first place. Also if they want to do that maybe they should stop suing people who are music fans, (remixers sharers etc.) that only creates seams and disconnects everyone. 692. BUll 693. In thiers dream yes. In reality NO. "Technology initiatives" That they dont now the meaning of. "coordinated by the RIAA are working toward a seamless, interconnected world for music fanss" As in how can we make the suckers pay way more 694. iPod and any proprietary provider don't provide open source material. These formats are kept secret and restrict user freedom. 695. All music controlled by the big four 696. You cant sue customers! 697. DRM 698. Everything the RIAA says is false. 699. The technology initiatives of the RIAA and its members have only served to stifle the seamless development of emerging digital music technology. 700. They missed every industry attempt to get their product online. They sued when we implemented what they refused to. Evil greedy bastards. 701. All or most of the RIAA's actions are the antithema of this. 702. The record companies add NOTHING to the music that is worthy of the monetary penalty they heap on consumers. I believe, and the facts DO appear to bear this out, that artists themselves would be MUCH BETTER served financially by marketing directly to consumers over the web. The Record Companies are simply middle-men who act to PREVENT the free and easy exchange of artistic product. The RIAA is a dinosaur who apparently didn't receive his own copy of the memo -- the dinosaurs died out 65 Million years ago when an asteroid or comet struck what is now part of the Gulf of Mexico. WAKE UP -- YOU'RE DEAD ALREADY! 703. They want the opposite of interconnected, instead making you pay for ever instance. 704. Just a few examples: Music purchased from Itunes (until very recently) may only be played on Ipods without a great deal of effort. Music purchased from the Zune music store may only be played on Micro$oft's Zune player. Neither stores (until recently) provide music that may be played on other third party players.