The RIAA and MPAA are trade organizations, and as such, arguably, their purpose should be to promote the image of the companies they represent, and to protect them from harm. They are like the skin on the body if you will. But, the irritation of these lawsuits has not made that skin glow and healthier, but has in fact, produced a raging case of chloracne. In short, they are doing more harm than good, and in pursuing their second goal, they are failing the first goal.

When the RIAA started this nonsense, at that time, they were saying in their own statistics, that around 52 percent of the "heaviest downloaders" were still buying music (48 percent were not). Thus, the majority of those who they said they were targetting (I know, they were targetting uploaders...but they have failed to make this discrimination in general, in public statements), were in fact their own customers.

If their first goal is to promote the sales of, and the image of the companies they represent, they have failed miserably. The association of a record label/album, with the RIAA, is the kiss of death for any purchase by many, if not most of us. One need not think too long or hard to intuitively grasp why a company suining thousands of its own customers around the country is a bad idea.

With regard to their second goal, the "protection" of sales and artists, they have apparently failed miserably. Cary, Mitch, and the rest, have become analogous to the gang who couldn't shoot straight. Their record in court cases is laughable, as they rack up loss after loss in the times they have actually gone to court.

In all this time, I cannot think of one case against an alleged infringer, that has gone to trial and been tried. When you think of it, that is amazing given the thousands sued. Their stategy has been legal bullying, or as some of us have asserted, extortion (I'm not arguing the extortion point now, so if you disagree, fine, I don't care).

Since Cary Sherman, the figurehead of the RIAA in many ways, is a copyright attorney, I expect that during his tenure, the RIAA will continue to "sue 'em all", in, as the RIAA likes to put it, an effort to "blanket every jurisdiction".

Although some may feel this is an overused or tired comparison, I still feel that the comparison with the Prohibition of alcohol, established through the 18th amendment and the Volstead Act, is quite apt. The era generally referred to as "Prohibition" spanned around thirteen years. They were trying to make millions of people stop using potable alcohol. As a result of Prohibition, organized crime in the form of the Mafia, went from being small potatoes, to spreading nationwide, and becoming a thriving, money making business, and probably nothing enabled this more , than Prohibition. During that time, there was to some extent, also the technology race between the Feds, and the rumrunners, especially with regard to the speed boats they were using to smuggle booze. Often, the same mechanics that souped up boats for the Feds, was also souping up boat motors for the rumrunners, but intentionally giving the rumrunners the edge.

If millions of people are bound and determined to do something, they will do it, and you will not stop them by selective enforcement and trying to make an example out of a few. When they were hanging pickpockets in England, they found that it was one of the busiest days for pickpockets, who roamed through the crowds, picking pockets while the people were busy watching the execution.

The RIAA will continue to sue. The MPAA and BSA, like children hollering "me too" will get on the bandwagon. They will get the DOJ to be more aggressive in doing stings and filing criminal charges, but ultimately, it will be a show of sound and fury, signifying nothing (with homage to the great William Shakespeare).

Read more on the history of Prohibition at:
http://www.geocities.com/athens/troy/4399/

~CodeWarriorz Thoughts

If they truly are the "gang that couldn't shoot straight," then why haven't they just once made the mistake yet of suing someone with nothing to lose, who'd be glad to let the case go to trial?

As you say, not one of the thousands upon whom papers have been served has actually been tried in the legal system. Isn't that mind boggling?

It seems to me they have been very careful in picking the people to sue. But even then, they aren't infallible, and I cannot understand why not one has fought back. There was one on this website, maybe still is, who claimed to be mounting a countersuit of some sort -- racketeering was it? I don't know the status of that one. The way things work in lawyerland it could be years before it actually goes to court.

That said, I won't risk hanging to download music. But I love my MP3 blogs.

"As you say, not one of the thousands upon whom papers have been served has actually been tried in the legal system"

A certain Pepsi commercial said otherwise.

The RIAA is basically financing their war with the "we will settle". They are building the war chest to pay for court cases, is my belief. Now, again they will have to pick carefully which cases should appear in court and which should wait for a later date.

Should they continue to pick those without resources to pay, should they win, it will take from the war chest. It seems that from looking at it the idea is to make it pay its own way. Therefore they will have to take someone to court that they have carefully researched to establish that there is something there to take, should they win. You won't see poor Joe on the dockett till it is well financed.

Already the 8th circut court has told them either present cases from those you have not settled with or quit bothering the court with unproved allegations. Until they do, the 8th isn't allowing any more issuing of supeonas for John Doe identifications.

The courts are starting to notice the behavior of the RIAA and its unfair advantage over the single citizen. The MPAA and the BSA won't be far behind in being lumped in the same mold.

*I should make a clarification, the 8th isn't allowing mass issuing of John Doe requests. They are still able to do single requests.

Problem with comparison to Prohibition:

Prohibition was an actual law specifically banning a behavior. Also, Eliot Ness and his cohorts, empowered by an actual law, raided establishments where "crime" was in progress, and took people to court.

The RIAA only "thinks" (if such a thing is possible) that there is a law banning the behavior they wish to stop. They have threatened 7000 people with a court case, but tried no one. The RIAA keeps questionable books and, though the government has been after them for years, always manages to slip free with a settlement.

So if you are going to place the RIAA in the context of prohibition, the character they most resemble is Al Capone.

One last thing, I look through this article and I see many familar themes. Ideas that have been put to paper before here.

For them to return, in whatever fashion means that there is something there. Some appeal to the readers, some very close to true (if not true) ideas. Things that some of these "love to hate" organizations would rather not have surface. As long as they don't have to answer questions and can pick and choose what to answer by way of responces to news organizations they can continue to pretend everything is above board.

Funny thing, that the RIAA should call to have investigated the practice of payolla once again, long after it was ruled illegal. The only way payolla exists is if there are two willing parties. Saying that if we don't the other will gain unfair advantage is hardly a defense. What is really said in such a statement is that yeah, we did to do that and still do. So why was not the majors pulled into it as a participating party? Because they filed a complaint against it? lols.

wet1 -- These themes are familiar because we have been saying exactly the same thing for several years. There is an annual news cycle, as well as a monthly one.

The RIAA will announce a new set of lawsuits at the end of the month. We will remind everyone that no one is ever taken to court.

Last month the Nielsens came out, which required me to point out that the Nielsen numbers bear no relation to the RIAA's numbers. This will be repeated in late Feb. or early March, when the RIAA finally finishes its manipulation of the figures.

The Grammys are coming up, which will require a long essay about the lack of NARAS to ever consider the "recording arts and sciences" in its selections.

Every week or month that exceeds previous year's sales will be touted in the press. But you won't hear about the first week of 2005, because it was down about 28 percent.

The p2p community will always be prepared to take drastic action... in a few months.

The RIAA will appear before a governmental hearing, most likely in the Senate, where they will falsely claim that they:
a) represent the U.S. recording industry;
b) produce virtually all "legitimate" product;
c) are tremendously concerned about the fate of the "copyright owners," while simultaneously trying to pretend that this means the artists;
d) pirates are stealing their stuff;
e) produce erroneous statistics to support their hypothesis.

Payola -- The record labels could have stopped writing checks to deejays and "independent promoters" in 1970. They are not complaining about the practice, merely the price.

Talent -- Is not, never has been, and never will be a factor in any decision ever made by a record label. When talent appears in the Top 40, it is mere coincidence.

Radio airplay is no longer the Holy Grail of musicians.

DRM does not, has never, and never will work. If you can hear it, you can record it.

According to the RIAA, the compressed inferior audio you find on Kazaa is crap; the same compressed inferior audio with DRM attached is worth about $2.50 each and we should be glad that Apple takes a loss to sell them for a buck.

There may be a couple of issues I missed. Part of the RIAA's strategery is to change the subject every time you directly challenge their propaganda.

Their faulty logic never changes, almost never agrees with what they said last year. Facts have no effect on the RIAA's position.

good post George...

But, I still like my Prohibition analogy

No prob, Code.

Here's one I forgot. Singles.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1392092,00.html

I have a solution for the RIAA that will stop p2p-ers in a heartbeat.

Instead of putting fake files out on the network filled with high pitched white noise, put them out with loops of ashlee simpson songs. That would stop any p2p downloader in their tracks

RIAA's strategy is a failure because they are attempting to stop bands from getting free promotion on the internet. Bands make their money from fans buying stuff & and going to shows. Bands get fans by having the greatest number of people hear their music. There is no cheaper way to get music into the hands of millions of people than to post mp3's on the internet.

The reason the RIAA puts fakes on p2p is because they fear the power is in the hands of the consumer, on the other side of the coin is the issue of DRM aka (crippleware) let them feel so mighty about it because as I posted earlier I've been a victim of their so called DRM scheme got a DVD for Christmas and finally got around to watching it and guess what it wouldn't play in the new DVD player nor my old DVD player but guess what I got another surprise voila' it played in the computer just fine so I got mad and took it back they gave me in store credit i wanted to watch it on the big TV with surround sound but it just wouldn't let me.
So I've got a message for all you Ding Dongs who work for the RIAA/MPAA it's only a matter of time before Joe public or Jane gets fed up with the your so called DRM scheme that makes DVD's and CD's incompatible and non-playable this is just the beginning for I now know just what will end the business as you know it and it's not p2p it's your way of thinking thats gonna end it for ya and I can't wait for the day So keep on investing in your great DRM schemes and what not to your hearts content lock it all up there will be a new start for independent musicians as well as up and comming independent film makers to take your place.
AND I can't wait.

£3.99 for a CD single in a CD shop in Britain? Yikes! And they say the US record business is greedy.

Why don't they just ask for a pint of blood?

They did, mosquitos are in a fight with the RIAA and its equivalent in Britian, over fair use of blood.

"In all this time, I cannot think of one case against an alleged infringer, that has gone to trial and been tried. When you think of it, that is amazing given the thousands sued."

The explanation is very simple.
These guys are a pack of big balloney and like all bullies they are coward. So fare they are leaving alone anyone that show the slight sign of resistance and are terrified by the more agressive one. Also they are inflating the amount of people who actually settle. As fare as suing the right guys they don't know what they are doing. Among those they are trying to intimidate there is few potential dangerous people. Personally I think this is foolish.

Seeing as 52% are still buying music, it seems odd to still prosecute them. After all, I am willing to bet that the music they are downloading is tracks they either

a) can't get anymore
b) are too expensive to import
c) are unable to import.

The thing that hurts the music industry the most is most definitely the pricing of it. I know here in Australia that it is ridiculously expensive to purchase music via CD. $20USD will get you an album here, and around half that again for a single.
The truth is, music is expensive, and importing is more so. This and that music execs are so interested in making money they cancel the reprinting of excellent pieces of music in favor of 'popular' music only further sees that people who like underground music have to download as it isn't anywhere else but on the net.
The RIAA is being like every other govt dept ever made to stop anything. They will only force it further underground until they think its 'gone'.
Sorry to rant :< I just think its stupid.