I need to find out definitively the status of the RIAA's tax filing status.
I believe they are a 501 (c) (6) classification...and NOT a 501 (c)(3).

Also, I need to know if they are able to lobby legally as a non-profit
501 (c) (6) [I don't believe they are, but I need a citation ].

Thanks in advance for all who try to research this.

~CodeWarrior

For question 2: http://www.irs.gov/charities/business/article/0,,id=96107,00.html

As a 501(c)(6) I found:
No limit on legislative activity as long as it furthers the exempt purpose; legislative expenditures may limit the deductibility of dues (But not in an IRS Doc).

501 (c) (6) first result while searching for 'riaa tax filing status'.

501(c)(3) Cannot participate in politiical agendas (Again not from an IRS Pub):
Absolute prohibition against political activity

"Participating directly or indirectly, or intervening, in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office does not further exempt purposes under section 501(c)(6). However, a IRC Section 501(c)(6) business league may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. "
Go get 'em. Code.

Report em to the IRS! The RIAA is illegally taking advantage of tax exemptions!

Page 35/66 prohibits influencing legislation: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicl03.pdf

The RIAA never ever influences legislation.

Go get 'em, Code.

thanks George!

"The RIAA never ever influences legislation. "

If the RIAA never influences legislation, then how come they're always schmoozing the legislators into doing their bidding??!!!?!?!!?

That is an answer I've been trying to track down for 3+ years. But forget the 501 status, since the majority of the RIAA sales are from foregin companies, are the registered as a foregin lobbyist? If not why? Are all of the Reps and Senators who are taking campaign donations guilty of taking money from forgein lobbyists? Inquiring minds want to know.

This would be a fine route, get a movement going to have people report them to the IRS stating the facts of the matter in each report. It helps our cause, slows the "legit" industry's efforts to slander and criminalize us, and gives the IRS possitive recognition (which they LOVE, so they might not ignor the reports for long also).

Actually thumb, I think they were claiming that they were the wrong party to brieng court cases against, because they were only representing their member labels, and the the member labels themselves were exempt because they were the foreign parties. I don't recall ever seeing the RIAA itself cliaming that they were the foreign party, but I could have missed it of course...

As I understand it, the RIAA professes to be a "trade organization" and as such, like other trade organizatons, has filed as a 501 (c) (6) . The RIAA itself is based in the US..it's leaders are apparently US citizens, and Mr. Sherman, in the past, apparently has made contributions to political leaders...as has past CEO Hilary Rosen.

The "Big 5" such as Sony, BMG, EMI etc. , ostensibly, in the past, have claimed to be beyond US jurisdiction, as they claim to be foreign companies.

Now, the Big 5 are the movers and shakers, but they are not the only members of the RIAA, but they are, I believe, the usual suspects, when it comes to filing against alleged copyright infringers with the current batch of lawsuits.

There are a LOT of smaller labels which do in fact seem to be members of the RIAA, and who are in fact, American companies.

So, the major labels want to claim they are beyond American laws due to their foreign ownership, but the RIAA wants to be the attack dog here in the US, influence legislation, lobby like crazy, threaten 12 year olds, and wants to do all this without paying taxes.

Givent the millions of dollars they seem to throw around, I think most citizens of the US, would have a BIG problem with this group enjoying "non-profit" status, when the hardworking Joe Blow is paying his taxes and barely getting by.

yeah, on teh court filings it is usually one of the big 5 labels that are named as the plantif. But if they want to claim that they are all foreign, I still don't see how it exempts them from having legal action brought against them (they did it to sharman networks, and other companies that are foreign). If they are able to be reguarded as foreign, and yet sue persons that are not their claimed nationality, the door can swing both ways. Who were the labels that were named in the suit that birthed teh settelment checks? They obviously were able to have legal action brought against them, and felt the need to settel at a point (probably the point where they were facing down a court loss).

Hi Code,

As a 501(c)6 -- they area fforded the same consideration as a "chamber of Commerce" only in this case they are a "specialized" business trade association (Recording industry).

There really are three separate issues here. One is that each member is a "Corporation" in that they are afforded the same legal rights as a living "person" but in this case they are usually chartered as a Corporation "in perpetuity" or forever, wehreas a living person will die at some point.

The second issue is that they have joined together as a trade association which would appear to be monoplistic in nature in that, accroding to their own claims, they control nearly 100% of "legitimate" music (what a joke) produced in the US. Most certainly the trade association status does give them "clout" as they have "pooled" their resources.

The third issue is that the big five are known as MNCs (Multinational Companies) which gives them them the geographic scope of being "Global" in reach, hences we have the "Globalization of the Music Industry". There are intricate trade agreements between the various MDCs (More Developed Countries) that often shield companies like the big five beause each may be, in fact, part of a larger conglomerate which may weild massive political and economic power. (Study Sony and Mitsubishi for example). Often times the Recording Industry portion may actually be a "loss leader" or write-off economically -- but a major asset politically -- in this case very dramatically since most -- if not all of the the big five also are either owned or own Mass News Media outlets as well.

For the record, a trade association can participate in political activity (this is why you have heard the term "political action committee") but only for the purposes of furthering the specific business cause of their entity. Individuals of an organization or coprporation are free to make personal campaign contributions as they see fit. This is a loophole but one that apparently the principals of RIAA use. The difficulty would be to trace whether or not the funds given by a private individual actually are laundered through the trade association, or vice versa.

The achilles heel here is the corporate status of the corporations, themselves. Actually the problems begin with the power that this country and other countries have accorded to "Corporations". It is obvious to me that there needs to be major corporate law reform in order to level the palaying field. This is a monumental task but is precisely the reason why some LDCs (lesser developed countries) have "nationalized" foreign corporations in the past (during political revolutions) that operate within their boundaries. The balance of power has been upset and actually "Globalization" is an actual term to describe "international corporate power" that influences the economic balance of countries on an international scope.

The problem has become much deeper than you might imagine and impacts much more than just the RIAA as far as the United States is concerned. What we are witnessing is an "outsourcing" of labor talent from the US to foreign countries, most notably in Europe, where labor is cheaper. The net effect is higher unemployement here and workers working at sub-par wages in other countries such as the "Asian Tigers" -- Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, Hong Kong.

I don't know if this information helps or coulds -- but it is real. Talk to any University Economics Professor and they will mostly agree that there is a major event happening right now in the world economy and much of the confusion and activity is occuring as a direct results of MNCs such as the RIAA's big five.

On outsourcing of labor I wrote "most notably in Europe" -- I really meant for it to say "most notably in Asia" -- sorry

In short -- you really want to hurt them... determine the actual state that they have the mother corporation incorporated in as far as in the US (Even foreign corporations have to file in a state) and get that state to amend its corporation laws to limit their corporate powers substantially. Corporations have been given way too much power and this is why we find that corporations feel they have police power and are performing like they have more clout than the government itself...

Thanks fossil...much appreciated...
~Code

Fossil, I just read your posts. I've been coming to this site since September, 2003. You explained the power of corporations in our country and in our world so well! Thank you. Now we must find out where this trade organization is incorporated. We have to try to change things for the better.

The "living person" at law is a "natural person".
Corporations as persons, are "persons" or "legal persons"
and are legal fictions really...

Each of us is a natural person, but no corporation can ever be a natural person.

And this was a salient point in what Fossil said I think....
"For the record, a trade association can participate in political activity (this is why you have heard the term "political action committee") but only for the purposes of furthering the specific business cause of their entity."

To me, the real question is how, is whether anything they do, can be reasonably said to violate this legitimate interest, rhetoric aside.
If they go beyond their advocacy for the specific business cause, then this would be problematic for them, but they probably assert that the very nature of the "recording industry" gives them latitude to try to operate in various areas.

And, of course, as previously noted, Sherman has made contributions, as has Hilary Rosen...but they may claim they are personal contributions.

I have a problem though, with the hiring of toadies, which routinely have violated the end user agreement of Kazaa and other P2P software companies, and have sent threatening e-mails, again in violation of the EULA/TOS agreement. These kinds of shading dealings with agents of the RIAA, seem to violate any sense of "legitmiate" expenditures to further their business interests...in the same way that hiring a hit man to knock off your competition would be seen as not a legitimate business expenditure.

"The "Big 5" such as Sony, BMG, EMI etc. , ostensibly, in the past, have claimed to be beyond US jurisdiction, as they claim to be foreign companies."

BULLSHIT!!!!! They do business in the United States, so they're under US jurisdiction!

Code, lobbying is one thing. In this article about the California Atty General's letter about p2p, a " lobbyist with the Motion Picture Association of America confirmed that Lockyer's office had crafted the letter with the trade group's help.
"They sought our input. We didn't write the letter," said Vans Stevenson, senior vice president for state legislative affairs at the MPAA.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4534016/

They are totally involved with legislation and prosecution.

i tought the record companies are the ones getting consumer's money from CD's and music. And, i thought the record companies give RIAA a small nominal fee.

and riaa is just a support group for the recording companies and lobbbyists for the music industry

axxis...I agree, but I've seen their responses to Justice Department inquiries about their business....they actually do claim to be beyond US jurisdiction....and I agree with you completely.