Occasionally, people say that fighting the RIAA is a waste of time, that you will never destroy them. In Texas, there is a saying..."Never a horse that can't be rode, and never a rider that can't be throwed."

The RIAA has been around a long time. It was born the same year I was, 1952. In 51 years, they have had plenty of time to develop contacts in Congress, law enforcement, in the Federal court system, in big media and entertainment, and to amass not only large "war chests" to fight court cases, but also to develop strategies of intimidation of so called "infringers" (in the their bizarro and improper rhetoric, "piracy" [as we know, not born out by federal law, which defines piracy and pirates under Title 18, Chapter 81, Section 1652).

Now, in the cutthroat world of music publishing, the RIAA wouldn't have been around over five decades if it didn't provide some benefits and have some reason for being.

What does the RIAA do?

1) The lightning rod function. The RIAA does act like a lightning rod for the large record labels. It does their dirty work, and hence, draws the ire of the public toward it, and away from the labels who really direct what it does. Even the name of this site indicates how well this works...it is not named "boycott-Sony" or "boycott-big-5"....thus, it seems this lightning rod function works well.

2) The attack dog function. Primarily, we are talking about the function of the RIAA to look for, identify, and bring legal action against alleged copyright infringers.
I don't think that it was a big coincidence that an intellectual property attorney, Cary Sherman, was in a leadership position prior to the launching of massive numbers of lawsuits against citizens. In order to properly perform this attack dog function, the RIAA outsources certain investigation work to other people and other companies.
Although I don't have a complete list, it is believed that their main toadie, er, "partner" in the detection of alleged copyright infringement online, is BayTSP of Los Gatos California. We also know they use Audible Magic software in the analysis of files believed to be unauthorized copying. It is also rumored they may have used black hat hackers in the past to create viruses and dummy files to flood the networks with. In order to go to court with "evidence" of so called infringement, they can't get around using these outside firms, and this may be problematic eventually, because these outside toadies apparently have violated terms of service contractual arrangements with the P2P networks they enter, in order to get evidence. Sharman Networks has won the right to sue them on this account, as well as for use of unauthorized software to access their network.

3) Their PR function, or public relations. At first glance, most of us would say, "Yeah, right...they really do a bang up job with that one." But, most of us would be surprised how well the "piracy" rap they do, acts in fogging and clouding people's minds into believing that people are actually "stealing" songs. Time after time, I have heard CNN news people actually say someone "illegally" downloaded songs, without that person making an admission of guilt, without a trial, etc..

The same newsperson would be careful not to say that someone killed someone if there was an ongoing trial, but they seem to have been so brainwashed by the rhetoric of the RIAA, that they have no qualms in saying someone is guilty, just because the RIAA says so. Another example is that the RIAA has gotten so many people to adopt the term "piracy" to the point that one rarely ever hears the term "copyright infringement" any more in the media. It's become, "music piracy" or "movie piracy" if the MPAA is involved.

So, their PR has worked to some extent.

4) Political action function. Clearly, this is one of the important functions from the big music label standpoint. The ability for the RIAA, as its "trade organization" to find ways of establishing PACs, to make contributions to certain key Congressmen and Congresswomen, has enabled them to help push through things like the DMCA. There are of course, questions as to the propriety of a 501 (c) (6) company acting as a political lobby, but there are obviously various mechanisms by which the RIAA has enabled them to maintain their status , and still, lobby politicians.

They also dispense gold albums and that kind of nonsense, but that is more of a ceremonial function, and less a function that draws much attention.

EVALUATION-
The RIAA is first and foremost, a lackey, a servant of the big music labels. To say that it would exist if the big labels felt it was more of a liability than a benefit is to fundamentally miss the whole reason the RIAA exists. They exist completely at the pleasure and whim of their greasy corporate masters.

So, is it possible they can be done away with ?

The answer is yes, but it will not be easy. And, the unfortunate fact is that, the big labels , beleive that the functions of the RIAA are necessary, and if you got rid of the organization, it is quite possible that a new organization would arise, phoenix like, from the ashes, with different faces and different letters, but with the same mission and same function.

If their ability to perform the functions listed, is lost, so is their use to the big labels.

Guilt by association should be stressed. In other words, blame Sony, EMI, and all the other labels for what the RIAA does, because, they are the knife blade, and the arm that wields it...and the big labels are the brain that tells that blade whom to slice. Hold the companies that direct the RIAA's actions, responsible and accountable, and let them know that you know the real people and companies responsible for the draconian acts of Cary and the gang.

Call for congressional investigations of the RIAA. We've seen what happened after a little fuss was made about CBS airing part of a breast of one performer. Remember that fecal matter makes a circular motion describing a gravitometric course conforming to a decreasing altitude and slope differential ("Sh*t rolls downhill").
Clear Channel, seeking to avoid a potential FCC fine, and congressional heat, cuts Stern lose to avoid potential liability. If the RIAA comes under criminal, congressional investigation, you can bet the big labels will not only burn rubber distancing themselves from the RIAA, but cut funding of them as well.

The point is, the RIAA can be deconstructed, and defeated, but you cannot just attack the snake's tail...but go after the head, which in this case, is corporate big media.

When they do fall, it will probably reflect a number of events which come together, including but not limited to bad luck for them, congressional investigation, adverse decisions in court, record companies losing money secondary to the outrageous lawsuits and actions of the RIAA, and something like congress passing compulosory licensing. Of course, boycotting the record labels, means they have less money to give to Cary Sue and company. Thus, we should each continue our efforts and remember the old adage..."Everything comes to him who waits."

Some additional links and info...
http://www.digitalproducer.com/2001/09_sep/features/09_24/cdlaw2.htm
"The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is a trade association whose member companies create, manufacture, and/or distribute approximately 90 percent of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States. The association's 250 members include such familiar record companies as Warner Brothers Records, Columbia, Motown, RCA, Geffen, and Capitol, as well as many lesser-known record labels. The RIAA was founded in 1952 and among the items in its stated mission is the promotion of strong intellectual property protection and the prevention of music piracy.

According to Cary Sherman, the senior executive vice president and general counsel, the RIAA takes the position that any copying of music to CD that you perform on your computer is copyright infringement. Whether the source is digital or analog, whether the disc is a complete copy of a CD, tape, or LP that you own, or whether it is a compilation of songs from various sources that you own, the RIAA considers making such a copy to be a violation of the right of reproduction granted to copyright holders by the Copyright Act of 1976. They also recognize, however, that Section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992 gives those who perform such copying immunity from copyright infringement actions, provided that the copying is performed on a digital audio copying device as defined by the AHRA The RIAA's ultimate goal is to require CD-R and CD-RW hardware manufacturers to look at the copy-protection bit on an audio disc and refuse to copy if that bit is set to "on." "
----------
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.08/dl_timeline.html
[check this link out for a "multimedia timeline"]
"1952 Recording Industry Association of America is founded to represent interests of record companies" (Notice, not to represent artist's interests....recording company interets-Ed.)
http://www.iipa.com/memberassociations.html (bad folks)
"Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) RIAA is a trade association, founded in 1952, which represents several hundred companies that create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90 percent of all legitimate sound recordings in the U.S. The U.S. recording industry employs hundreds of thousands of workers at a variety of levels and produces a foreign trade surplus. RIAA maintains a legal and investigative staff to fight against all forms of music piracy and is associated with local recording industry groups around the world to extend this fight. One of its principal missions is to ensure that copyright legislation remains adequate in light of a rapidly changing technological environment, and that appropriate conditions exist to foster creativity in music through increased investment, production, and distribution. "

~Code

Nice article as always. Thanks Code;keep them coming.

Like I said in the "RIAA says they can track you no matter what " news bit. Guerilla warfare. If you fight someone on enough fronts, you will eventually find the soft spot. The biggest one I have seen so far is picking off these companies that track users on P2P networks (BayTSP, ect ect) so that the RIAA dosn't have them to hide behind anymore. Then the DMCA is teh next step, start using it against them, and make them regret ever buying it into law. Another big front to poke for weakness' would be to get their joke of a "non-profit" tax free status rescinded.

One day soon we will find the "soft spot", and we can finally get this blanket of defence removed from the major labels. Then we will have a better chance at the future, instead of the future that they want forced apon us.

Codewarrior, your article has made me wonder how it is that the RIAA can sue file sharers at all. Shouldn't one of the member record labels be the one filing suit against an "infringer?" On what legal basis can this "nonprofit" organization sue anyone? It does not own the music rights--the member record label does. I wonder if lawsuits can be dismissed on this basis alone?

The record labels are actually the ones whose name appears in any suit for alleged infringement....

Nice one code, takes this whole issue to the next level, well done.

The RIAA was formed in 1952 to administer the RIAA equalization curve, applied to vinyl records during cutting and playback.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/RIAA_equalization?PHPSESSID=9450c38b9d4287d705ad8bb43349eeb0

Perhaps when I registered the name, I should have registered boycott-riaa-membership, but it seemed kind of obvious at the time. I've been saying for FOUR YEARS that its the membership, not the RIAA that needs to take the heat. IGNORE CARY and the boys, concentrate on the record labels (the people who fund the RIAA and you can win, perhaps Feldman will spring for 2500 or so more domain names, so you can hit each and every member. Just have fu-dog direct them all to here....

Yeah, that's how the Feds do it. Forget those meetings between all of the label owners. Forget those people who lie to the public, the media and Congress. Pay no attention to the sleaze behind the curtain.

Let's break up our effort into thousands of tiny little ineffective pieces.

The RIAA *is* its membership.

of course, the RIAA affiliates are not the only 'villains' here. They are the ones filing the lawsuits and pushing for obscenely long copyright life, but the radio stations contribute as well by expecting huge donations by radio promoters to get songs aired. Of course, such expectations may be par for the course given the limited number of broadcast licences in high density metropolitan areas. So perhaps the FCC itself is also part of the problem of high priced commercial music and lack of exposure for indie music.

The point being is that the RIAA is the one getting its name dragged through the mud, not the labels, which is its intention. I keeps saying it the best way to make them die is to make them irrelevant. Buy indie, ignore artists on major labels, less income, less percentage of sales that goes to the RIAA, less they have to fight with.

As George has pointed out, why download their crap? Seems too many people want it both ways, they want the RIAA music but want to destroy the companies that produce it. Don't download it, don't buy it, don't share it. Get the crap off of p2p networks andwatch them scream. During Napster's heyday as a p2p source sales were climbing, the second they started filtering sales dropped.

"the radio stations contribute as well by expecting huge donations by radio promoters to get songs aired"

No! Say it isn't so. That would be illegal, wouldn't it?

Regarding the article, I want to quote part of it below. Pay special attention to this. Cary's statement is carefully crafted to make a distinction between a computer generated copy of media vs. a home entertainment system copying of the same media:

"According to Cary Sherman, the senior executive vice president and general counsel, the RIAA takes the position that any copying of music to CD that you perform on your computer is copyright infringement. Whether the source is digital or analog, whether the disc is a complete copy of a CD, tape, or LP that you own, or whether it is a compilation of songs from various sources that you own, the RIAA considers making such a copy to be a violation of the right of reproduction granted to copyright holders by the Copyright Act of 1976. They also recognize, however, that Section 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992 gives those who perform such copying immunity from copyright infringement actions, provided that the copying is performed on a digital audio copying device as defined by the AHRA The RIAA's ultimate goal is to require CD-R and CD-RW hardware manufacturers to look at the copy-protection bit on an audio disc and refuse to copy if that bit is set to 'on.'"

Did you see it?? These statements are interesting in that I recently came across something relating to this in a lawsuit by A&M Records vs. Napster in 2000. I was poking around the fbi website looking at their new copyright banner which eventually led to the DOJ website and some pertinent hyperlinks. This main link will list several computer related court cases. If you read the one about Napster, you'll see part of the case dealt with the AHRA, and a determination was made that the AHRA was designed with DAT recorders in mind, not computers. In the end, I believe they implied computers didn't apply. I strongly disagree!! A computer makes a copy on the Hard Drive, that is a fact. The device shouldn't make any difference at all!! Anyways, this brings up another thought. If it's OK to copy with home entertainment equipment, then why do we have CSS and Macrovision?? I mean, why did manufacturers put in the circuitry to recognize it?? Were they gun shy due to Sony and the DAT recorder?? I assume the reason it's legal to put Macrovision and CSS into DVDs is because copyright law didn't protect our ability to use the AHRA. Here's the DOJ link:

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ippolicy.htm

Lowrey Mays from Clear Channel said in testimony last year in the Senate that Clear Channel doesn't accept payola..The next day Clear Channels lobbyist in DC said it would cost CC $15 million a year, the RIAA said they would save $100 million a year in payments..:HUH?: Those three comments on the same topic are confusing...

yes good article thanks codewarrior

Don't download it, don't buy it, don't share it. Get the crap off of p2p networks andwatch them scream. During Napster's heyday as a p2p source sales were climbing, the second they started filtering sales dropped.

This would be the first real step to tipping the RIAA and big 5's hands. If there wasn't any, or at least very few, Major label songs left on teh networks, then what would they do? Cry about no one liking thier music enough? Because, I would bet that if not even one RIAA label song was being shared their sales would continue to waver, and probably even drop faster. So, why not let them filter out RIAA music? It's is just less garbage to wade through to get to the real (and so much better quality) music.

"But, most of us would be surprised how well the "piracy" rap they do, acts in fogging and clouding people's minds into believing that people are actually "stealing" songs."

This is disappointly and frustratingly true. Ask a completely random person about the lawsuits, RIAA, etc. They don't know what is going on except "downloading is illegal, or arrogantly and ignorantly proclaim "I buy the CD. I like to support the artists."

This is why intelligent people are insane. The average skull is about 14 inches thick.

One of the most useless things in the world is a copyright registration to something nobody wants.

RIAA...keep your crap....I have better ways to spend my bucks...and better uses of my bandwidth than downloading or uploading your crap

Capt-n-Jack -- There is a surcharge or tax of some kind on blank CDs. You can put anything on them that you want. You have already paid the royalty.

Interestingly enough, only 900 artists share in that pie.

That tax that George mentioned is on MUSIC CDRs only in the US. Standard blank CDRs are not taxed or surcharged that the RIAA receives. This was created in 1992 under The Audi Home Recording Act. See http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm

The media and recorders mention must be designed specially for audio. You PC CDR recorder and standard CDR blanks are not taxed.

NOTE FOR INDIE MUSICIANS: If you are using DAT tape, and DAT recorders you are paying the RIAA for that. Do it at home or in a studio that uses hard drives to record the tracks and you avoid this added expense.

NOTE FOR THE LAWYERS: Perhaps that last tidbit could be used in a restraint of trade class action against the RIAA and their members. Being you as an indie have to pay the RIAA to record your music on DAT tape. I beleive LEFLAW owns a DAT recorder if memory serves..

Say no to more cheezy MS paint hijinks, say yes to more inspirational factual information.

whatever!

Since graphics brighten up the page....I'll continue to provide them, and if you think I produced that with MS Paint, you don't know diddly about graphics programs !

lol.

Thanks Sherm...

you know, I get tired of this one person on this board, making these little snotty comments....they are always directed at me, and it gets old,...
everyone else here is cool...
and you know, it is always easy to make snide little remarks in the same way it is always easier to tear down rather than build.

Know what I mean?

lol...I outta just fill the page with "cheezy MS paint hijinks"...
howzabout a "cheezy MS paint hijinks" thread and invite everyone to upload cheezy MS paint hijinks...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOLOLOLOLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

!

cheezy MS paint hijinks FOR EVERYONE ....
A ROUND OF cheezy MS paint hijinks ....BELLY UP TO THE ADOBE PHOTOSHOP BAR BOYS AND GALS....

put a traget on my forehead, i gotta drive to columbus ohio tommorrow!

take care sinai1....drive careful my friend....
peace...
~Code

haha.

Code,

I'm not completely following what's going on, but I'm still laughing.

I do like the images, however. There was one day where there was quite a few small images - looked a bit chaotic. Otherwise, they're fun.

I wasn't sure at first who you meant when you said they make 'snide little remarks.' I've been known to make the occasional.. sarcastic comment. Just sometimes tho =)

To svensta: I challenge you to provide evidence that since Code began putting up images for the site that the amount of "inspirational factual information" has declined.

I say it has increased, since the most inspirational article in awhile considered the woman suing the RIAA. There were numerous images present at the time.

Perhaps a printer friendly version of this site for those who are upset by bright colors, little images made for fun, and probably sunlight...?

Thanks Sherm...you musta known who I was talking about

Thanks my friend.
Have a great Friday...
take care, Peace.
~Code

PS...Sherminator..I always enjoy your comments...always articulate and well thought out...and always welcome by me!

You are always welcome to be on any board I am on.

What "cheezy MS paint hijinks "?
I don't see any stinking cheezy MS paint hijinks ...
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLoLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLoLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLoLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Thanks Code. That means more coming from one of the most insightful, passionate, and best writers/members here.

Ya I know who you're talking about. He still owes me two answers

"Kill the head and the body will die"

"Ya I know who you're talking about. He still owes me two answers "

He is talking about Sventsa, doofus. I don't make snotty comments directed at Code. And btw, I don't owe you anything. 1. Yes 2. No. : )

"I say it has increased, since the most inspirational article in awhile considered the woman suing the RIAA."

Let me add that I am surprised that you would consider a shyster lawyer taking advantage of a poor woman in order to get his name in the papers and increase his client base "inspirational". Very odd. : )

Btw, interesting article Code. But there is only one thing that needs to be done to hasten the demise of the RIAA labels - end independent promotion. That is the key to the entire ball of wax. As long as independent promotion exists and gives the big labels a virtual lock on the major radio stations then the RIAA labels will remain dominant.

My apologies Code. I miscounted. There's two pricks.

"Let me add that I am surprised that you would consider a shyster lawyer taking advantage of a poor woman in order to get his name in the papers and increase his client base "inspirational"."

Let me add that mroop the lawyer lacks evidence to support this assertion.

Hey, I read articles almost daily here, but never comment, just read everyone else. Finally thought I should voice my opinion.

I haven't bought a CD in 3 years, and am proud of it. I've always felt that the "Big Recording Companies" were the evil persons here. There are a a select few bands that I enjoy that are under the big labels, but I just can't get myself to spend money which goes to the labels. I just can't see how we can "attack" them. The RIAA is such an easy target. Oh well, I hope somethings happens soon, for the good of us all.

Oh, by the way, whenever I read the articles here, I always listen to a few of my older downloaded songs. Sometimes I can hear the lyrics even better when doing so. Here are some I heard today.

I won't back down
I will not fail
I've come to bring you down
I live again
Things you did
I've come to bring you down

That's my mentality when it comes to the RIAA. She is the dragon, we are the peasants. One will rise up to slay the dragon. It's inevitable...!

Thanks,
Freedom-Will-Come

PS - I have many more opinions and views on all this stuff, many of which I guarentee will come out in time.

To clarify: svensta is #2 (you're always #1 for me, mroop).

He must not post that often. I haven't read much by him.

Freedom-Will-Come

...if more like you make your voice and thoughts known.
Welcome aboard!


Hey mroop, you have said it before, that thing about independent promotion being the achilles heel and all... I would love to hear how in hell we are supposed to stop it. As I see it, most of us have totally given up on getting indie music on the commercial radio stations. They are all owned by a very small number of companies, the same situation as with the labels. If YOU knew something we could do that would kill payola and were holding it back, I would be very pissed at you for not sharing that tidbit.

I agree that it IS a problem, but the internet lessens the importance of radio.
We have a strong foothold on the web and virtually no chance to touch radio.
I think the RIAA and the labels will cruble BEFORE we can do anything about corporate radio, not the other way around...

Radio does not have the labels bent over a barrel... it is more like the other way around!

but if I am wrong, PLEASE, don't be a dick and TELL US HOW to kill payola between the labels and the stations...

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!
(Clearchannel and Infinity and Cox sure as hell don't... let me guess, that leaves 3 or 4 other individual radio stations in the country.)

mroop...we differ on issues, but you never make personal attacks on me...
and I appreciate that....

I have no problem arguing issues, but I do have a problem with these little personal attacks from only ONE member on this site....

Can't we all just get along

(mroop...please don't call people idiots and doofuses....)

.. what is the problem.. youiswhoyouiswhoyouiswhoyouis, is all..
I think one has to have a thick skin if they are going to post on the internet.. and a fire-proof vest would't hurt, either! . Code will add whatever he is, and to me it is much read and appreciated, the other elders also hold a high standard here, which is .. and occasional flamers really stand out on these forums, which is also good. As for the topic.. given the current economic climate around here, if the RIAA crumbles, would not another snake arise to take its place??

"As long as independent promotion exists and gives the big labels a virtual lock on the major radio stations then the RIAA labels will remain dominant."

This sounds like drivel from the Future of Music and Jenney Toomey's self-motivated here's-what-we-do-but-my-band-opens-up tripe.

Who gives a fuck about radio? The major artists. And who gives a shit about them any more? No one.
We're talking about the future here, not the past.

"Who gives a fuck about radio? The major artists. And who gives a shit about them any more? No one.
We're talking about the future here, not the past."

Sorry George, but you are dreaming. No one cares about major artists? They are the ones who sell records, so by definition they are the ones that the majority of people care about. As far as talking about the future, talk all you want. The way to sell records is still radio play. P2P, internet, blah blah blah. Tell me about it when an unknown artists rises out of the P2P system to sell records without a major label. Guess what? It's not going to happen. You think you are going to boycott the RIAA out of existence? Have you checked the sales this year? They are up drastically. So keep claiming that no one gives a fuck about radio when you don't have a clue what you are talking about. Every artist who wants to sell records wants to be on the radio. The only way to damage the major labels is the break their lock on the radio. That is not some utopian future that you dream about. It is reality today.

"Who gives a fuck about radio?"

I just want to repeat that again because it is so freaking funny. Talk to any artist who doesn't have a day job and actually pays their bills with their music. Ask them how they felt the first time they heard their music on the radio. Who gives a fuck about radio? Ha ha ha!

And thumbtack, "The point being is that the RIAA is the one getting its name dragged through the mud, not the labels, which is its intention."

But here is the crux of that bisquit. The US Justice Dept tried to ask for documents in 1994-95 when they were investigating antitrust. Every label responded that they were a foreign company and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the DOJ.

The RIAA is a US organization, as it clearly claims on the RIAA "About Us" page.

They ARE subject to the jurisdiction of the Justice Dept. They are the vehicle for collusion, as all the major labels are part and parcel. If they have a meeting, it is similar to having a meeting of the heads of the five crime families. If they're all in the same room at the same time talking about anything to do with the music business and making a concerted decision -- like to sue children -- that's anticompetitive.

Focus on the individual labels and you'll waste your time examining a foreign interest with no reason whatsoever to comply, care or consider.

Radio is so 100 years ago.

The Internet is the place to be. I put all my music on the web and P2P. Radio is for losers and slaves of the labels.

Only a complete fucking moron would hang on to the illusion that it is possible for real people to get on the radio.

"Have you checked the sales this year? They are up drastically."

Where? Mongolia?

Not in the US, you dumbass. Didn't you read the Neilsen reports?

"Only a complete fucking moron would hang on to the illusion that it is possible for real people to get on the radio."

That is exactly what I am saying. And the reason for that is independent promotion. Take that away and any label with a record that sounds like a hit to the PD will be able to get on the radio. That opens the door to independent labels. Once they get on the radio they can sell records. When artists realize that they can get on the radio and sell records with indie labels then they won't have to sign away their lives to sell records. Thus, the major label grip on artists is broken. Then it goes back to like it was in the 50's when an artist like Bobby Fuller or Ritchie Valens can come out of nowhere on a label like Del-Fi and have a big hit.

"Radio is for losers and slaves of the labels."

You can call artists who want to sell records and have a career without a day job losers all you want. That doesn't make it so. You might be happy with your day job and side career as a musician, but the kids still dream of being rock stars. And that will never change.

"Not in the US, you dumbass. Didn't you read the Neilsen reports?"

Sales are up in the US this year.

"Radio is so 100 years ago."

Tell it to the people who make their livings selling music. Radio is still the way you sell records. That is why radio stations receive millions of dollars in independent promotion money - because radio sells records.

Radio sells RIAA records.

"Sales are up in the US this year."

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0404/soti.php

Exactly how bad a year did the music industry have in 2003? It depends who's asking. According to Nielsen Soundscan, American labels sold 687 million units (including 19.2 million paid downloads) last year—a drop of less than 1 percent from 2002. A widely cited survey from the Pew Internet & American Life Project suggests that file sharing has plummeted since the Recording Industry Association of America started threatening traders with lawsuits. The percentage of Internet users who download music, it claims, fell from 29 percent to 14 percent between May and December.
----------------

A total of almost 763 million albums were sold in the US in 2001 - compared with almost 785 million in 2000, Soundscan statistics reveal.

-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/1741941.stm

You mean "up" as in "not as big of a decline as last year"?

That's not up.

NEW YORK (SoundScan) - A relatively healthy holiday buying season pumped up the volume of CD sales, but 2002's total dropped by an alarming 8.7% from last year's figures.

CD album sales through Dec. 29 amounted to a rounded-off 649.5 million, compared with 712 million in 2001, according to Nielsen SoundScan. The decline follows a 2.5% drop in 2001 - the only two declines the music industry has experienced since SoundScan began tabulating sales in 1991.

-- http://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=4354


From 2001 to 2002, Nielsen SoundScan estimates that 62.5 million fewer were sold -- a 9 percent drop to 649.5 million. (Sept 2003)
---http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/09/03/cd.future/


"According to Nielsen SoundScan, CD album sales slid from 712 million units in 2001 to 680 million in 2002.
--- (May 5, 2003) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030505-447204-1,00.html


Unit sales in 2002 barely topped 681 million, down from 762.8 million in 2001, according to Nielsen-SoundScan. The number of new CD releases has been on the decline as well, to 33,400 last year from 35,500 in 2000. Sales per title in 2000 averaged above 8,350 in 2000, but dropped to below 8,000 last year, based on Nielsen-SoundScan figures (April, 2003)
-- http://www.forbes.com/home/2003/04/11/cx_ah_cz_pk_0411applev.html

And why do you think that is? Because of independent promotion! If the RIAA was not permitted to pay off the radio stations then the radio stations would not be beholden to the RIAA labels. If radio had to rely solely on advertising dollars then they would have to play what they thought people wanted to hear. Then the door would be open to any label in the universe. Voila - competiton!

And I suppose it depends on where you get your statistics.

Pick a number, any number.

"You mean "up" as in "not as big of a decline as last year"?"

No. I mean an increase over 2003.

"If radio had to rely solely on advertising dollars then they would have to play what they thought people wanted to hear."

If it was 1988 this might matter.

Oh, I see. Like 2000 was an increase over 1999. Before Napster was shut down. Let's see, what's different this year?

Not the radio. Off topic. Irrelevant. Just like Clear Channel.

"If it was 1988 this might matter."

It doesn't matter what year it is. If radio had to rely solely on advertising dollars then they would not be beholden to the labels who pay them independent promotion dollars in the millions - the RIAA labels. That means if the PD at a big station heard what sounded to him like a "hit" on Saddle Creek then he could spin it for a couple weeks to see if it generates a response. If the masses like it then wham - a hit for Saddle Creek! The big reason that the RIAA labels have the lock on big hits is because they have a lock on big radio. If all the labels had the possibility of getting on big radio based upon the quality of the material (not the amount of payola) then all the labels would have the ability to have hits and sell records based upon the quality of the material. RIAA labels don't pay millions of dollars to lock up radio for nothing. They do it because they don't want to compete based upon song quality.

This is exactly why we quit listening to the radio, which is why it is now irrelevant.

You think by making a new law against payola to replace the old law against payola that anything will change?

You must be smoking crack.

I agree. There's not a damn thing we can do about radio... not while the RIAA exists. The labels will die off first, and only then will we get back radio.

Shmoo