You asked the question. We'll field the answer for you.

The RIAA as you may or may not know has filed suit against thousands of named, unnamed or "John Doe" defendants. Only one of which has gone to trial (Jammie Thomas). She lost, but recently the court reversed it's ruling issuing a mistrial with a new trial date sometime this year. But that's old news; onto the NEW news.

The RIAA issued a "cease fire" if you will to these lawsuits in mid December, now refocusing it's efforts on ISPs. Here's the catch; though they are not taking THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS to court anymore, they ARE instead making the Internet Services Providers (ISPs - re: Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner, Road Runner, etc...) be their "infringement enforcement."

It may sound like a great event for us all to cheer, but hold your applause 'till the end, because it may turn to picket fork and torch riot soon...

Law: is a system of rules, enforced through a set of institutions, used as an instrument to underpin civil obedience, politics, economics and society. (Wikipedia)

Forget everything you just read about "Law" because the RIAA could careless about it when it comes to 'stopping the infringers.' They "learned" (haha, yeah right) through their fear-mongering of their OWN CUSTOMERS, perhaps fighting an uphill battle against people much smarter and more capable people (us, the customers) wasn't the best idea. They THOUGHT (haha, yeah... right) suing was the best form of action to take to stop all this "infringement and illegal file sharing." File sharing and the like have actually increased under their stunt to sue their own customers, so FAIL #1.

Now since the courts have turned against them as have many lawyers, legal minds and anyone with a sense of dignity, they are changing course.

The ISPs are expected to police infringers; in fact, the RIAA will submit CLAIMS (not factual, not truths, mere assertions) to the ISP. The ISP will then under the good ol' DMCA pass it on to the user. After an undefined number of these CLAIMS, the ISP then "cooperates with the RIAA" and cuts off internet access to the individual customer.

Great?! Heck no. There's no fact of law, no appeals process, no oversight, no NOTHING. [Sounds a lot like what's in the RIAA's head eh? Hint: NOTHING is in their brain]. They SAY you infringed and your internet should be shutdown. Whether paying for a service you no longer have access to is unlawful is beyond me; we'll let the good attorneys of the USA figure that one out.

What matters most is how this is all going to pan out and affect the customers. All in all, let us hope this can be the beginning to the end of the RIAA (perhaps that much closer to our dreams of an RIAA-free world!).

In the meantime, if you desire, try to convince your ISP you do not want them taking up this plan (not because you like to download, but because it's wrong they should use their resources to fight for an illogical industry).

What good is it to live in a world where neutrality, fairness and due process are lacking?

Stop the RIAA before their disease of Music Industritus spreads (it's very contagious)!

Except that they ARE still suing ALLEGED
infringers without evidence or proper
due process.

As you said, they are trying to move to
a method that totally avoids due process,
while making the ISP the heavy, taking the
spotlight off of themselves, while CONTINUING
to bring new suits of their own.

The announcement was simply another
puff piece to feed a media that no longer
bothers with silly little things like FACT CHECKING.

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html#9063850363809101639

RIAA serves summons and complaint on December 26th, 8 days after it said it wasn't bringing any new lawsuits

The media has NEVER fact-checked the RIAA. Neither has the Senate.

The Racketeering Industry Association of America is a bunch of heartless fascists who will lie to the public. Of course those corporate thugs are still suing people even though they lie to the public that they have stopped!!!

I'd rather see them sue people than use ISPs as their BS enforcement because at least with lawsuits, judicial relief can be found. I think they will keep suing unless every ISP submits to their plan.

ISPs are only in the game for their own sake so if some ISPs feel it's better for themselves to not be the RIAA's puppets, they won't be. But if every ISP did cooperate exactly how the RIAA wanted, lawsuits may cease, but let's hope we never see the day that happens. Plus, lawsuits are so much more fun than regular DMCA notices or takedowns :-\

All the lawsuits began as an effort to find out the identity of the owner of an IP address.

These are no longer necessary. Apple is including the e-mail address of the purchaser in iTunes Plus files (the ones without DRM). For all we know, other digital retailers are doing the same thing.

The relationship with the ISPs is just to identify the owner of an e-mail address. Of course, they could just send you an e-mail.

So, if you share these files, the RIAA gets your identity AND proof of distribution, the one thing they could never prove in court.

The serious file sharers rip their own. The RIAA will still never catch any of them.

So the next generation of lawsuits will be about personal responsibility. The lesson remains the same. Stop sharing RIAA songs and you won't have a problem.

That's the only thing to do. But even after almost 6 years of lawsuits, suggesting this as either a course of action or as simple common-sense advice still gets "we can't possibly do that" as a response.

The RIAA got tens of thousands of people to pay up on threats to legal action for which they had no evidence at all. The next phase will be even easier money.

The college kids are already in the process of seeding a digital trail that's got their name all over it. By the time anyone (besides me, apparently) realizes the extent of the no-win situation they're putting themselves into, it's going to be far too late to save any of them.

Ziemann: I must respectfully disagree with you slightly here. I understand many frequent visitors to this site and other sites (like Dmusic) are Indie artists, but I think you [and other Indie artists] see things from a different perspective.

Mainstream music is a whole different ballgame than Indie music. There's more synthesis, sound effects and overall it's a totally different beast. People like the music they hear mostly on the radio, in stores shopping or elsewhere, because that is what their ears adapt to as well as their brains.

Unfortunately, you guessed it, most music played on the radio and most other places is NOT Indie music. I have the feeling that many artists who ARE Indie and get popular end up signing with a "Major record label" in which case, the process is repeated...

I am young and still in school (college) where it is very clear most people enjoy the major record labels songs even if they do not like the major record labels.

So in all fairness, maybe it's a good thing people share this music. Perhaps we should condone their sharing and see if enough people can do it to make a real dent in the music industry's wallet.

Just my take on it; I'm slightly distracted now so maybe not the best response .

Mainstream music is a whole different ballgame than Indie music.

Indie is not a genre. Crosby, Still & Nash are independent. So are The Eagles, and a host of other acts that only use the labels for distribution. Some artists work for LiveNation now.

Unfortunately, you guessed it, most music played on the radio and most other places is NOT Indie music.

This has nothing to do with choosing to share files on the Internet.

I have the feeling that many artists who ARE Indie and get popular end up signing with a "Major record label"

That is correct. Conversely, many artists who have had a major record label deal end up going it alone -- McCartney, NIN, Radiohead.

Again, this has nothing to do with sharing files on the Internet.

I am young and still in school (college) where it is very clear most people enjoy the major record labels songs even if they do not like the major record labels.

So do I. I'll pay for concert tickets, I've paid to hire bands. I just don't buy anything where the money gets funneled through the RIAA. But that's not the point, either.

Listen to all of it you want. I don't expect anyone's tastes to change. Listen exclusively to RIAA music. Download it all from P2P. Don't widen your musical horizons by finding good independent bands. I don't care. Just don't share it because your e-mail address will be inside it.

It has nothing to do with your musical tastes. It should be on the list of common sense information that the school likes to remind you of incessantly anyway.

• Don't Drink and Drive
• No alcohol in the dorm rooms.
• No males in the women's dorms after 10 p.m.
• Use a condom
• Don't post drunken videos of yourself in the womens' dorms after 10 p.m. on MySpace or YouTube
• Don't share RIAA music because they'll sue you.

I see the potential for a second generation of lawsuits that is more damaging than the first. I felt obligated to share this information for reasons I felt were obvious.

So in all fairness, maybe it's a good thing people share this music. Perhaps we should condone their sharing and see if enough people can do it to make a real dent in the music industry's wallet.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of "boycott" at all. In fact, you consistently argue against it.

Good luck with that.

" • Don't share RIAA music because they'll sue you. "

This is true, but the one point that always seems
to go past a lot of people is ....

You don't have to share anything to get sued.

The RIAA have sued a whole lot of people that have never shared files .. ever.

They have sued those without computers.

They have succeeded without any proof at all.

so the advice, Don't share RIAA tunes
to avoid getting sued isn't in any way a
guarantee you won't get sued, ESPECIALLY if
you are a college student.

an IP address is not a magic bullet.
An IP address is not always right.

These fuckwits neeed to be forced to show
PROOF.

Somehow, they manage to get away with
what they are doing without showing any
proof that the people they sue are guilty.

No , George, simply not sharing RIAA
tunes is not enough to stop them from
suing.

You might get sued anyway, and still
end up paying.

" You don't seem to grasp the concept of "boycott" at all. In fact, you consistently argue against it. "

I do still wonder at that.

" So in all fairness, maybe it's a good thing people share this music. Perhaps we should condone their sharing and see if enough people can do it to make a real dent in the music industry's wallet. "

Thus, proving to them that they are right ?
That file sharing DOES hurt them ?

There is already enough proof that file
sharing has no effect on their sales whatsoever.
They sue on the falsehood that sharing
somehow hurts them.

Why on earth would we want to create
the situation where they are correct ?

They are losing money from crappy
cookie cutter 'product', competition from
other types of entertainment media,
and a boycott which IS affecting them,
although they will never admit the fact
of a boycott at all, preferring to blame
all of their woes on the false premise
that file sharing hurts them, and that
every download represents a lost sale.
A premise which is utterly false.

There is no reason on earth I can see to
create the situation that demonstrates they
are correct.
In fact, this would be VERY detrimental
to everything those boycotting stand for.

That's one reason George says, and
most of us agree, don't buy, don't share
RIAA. Give them the vacuum they want,
and show them what obscurity and
irrelevance really means.

I don't understand you sometimes Garrens. No hard feelings, no disrespect
intended, but I still don't think you fully
understand what is really going on, and
what the RIAA members are really after.

*sigh*

Sorry to triple post, but I suppose
I had better answer my own question,
I know it's going to be asked.

" but I still don't think you fully
understand what is really going on, and
what the RIAA members are really after. "

The RIAA members have enjoyed total
control of terrestrial media ( radio, TV, etc. ),
for a very long time.

Nothing got heard or seen that wasn't owned
or controlled by one of their corporate members.

The internet has changed that.
Any one can be seen or heard, and they
don't nee a million bucks or a contract to
be seen or heard.
They can bee seen or heard RIGHT NEXT TO
corporate product.

This frightens the shit out of them.
They need to lock down and control
the internet, as they do the other forms
of media delivery.
They will achieve this by any means
necessary.
They will use every battle cry from
'think of the children' to 'Terrorist get
rich from it' to get the government to
play along with public support.

They will lie in court, mislead through
the media outlets they control, literally
ANY tactic is ok to get control, ultimately
corporate CENSORSHIP of the net.
The end result will be, only the wealthy
will be able to have useful access to
get themselves seen and heard, only
those with label support will use these
'tubes'.

That's what it really is about.

All else is smoke and mirrors.

Are you buying it ?

I was wrong.

First of all, never expect to understand me. It takes the fun out of it. Plus how can you understand me when all you see is what I write. You know little about me.

My comment above which y'all are commenting on was misconceived. It should be clear that aggression was implied. I was not condoning anything RIAA, more or less finding any way to further enrage them.

I have not always been a "good guy." I used to be on the "dark side" if you understand what I'm saying. Enraging is something I did well years ago, but I have since grown up beyond that intent, though some of my comments have contained hints of it.

The one thing I think you are still missing terribly is this site does not cater to most people, it caters those who likely already dislike the RIAA.

You remain stubborn to believe everyone should find a "good Indie band" and that's just great, but it's something that is unlikely to overthrow the RIAA. That's like trying to get smokers to smoke weed instead; it still has chemicals, but the sensation is different.

This site and many other ANTI-RIAA motions seem to miss the point. It's not about converting users to other bands and other recording industries (like Canada's Nettwerk Music), it's about fundamentally destroying the RIAA. If you want to try and convert people to non-RIAA music, good luck, you'll need it, because it's "too difficult" to many people. However, if we break the very foundation of the RIAA (their propaganda, etc...), we can turn RIAA music INTO non-RIAA music by fundamentally removing them.

How could this possibly be accomplished? Definitely not by "Finding a good indie band" for EVERY person. Instead, fight fire with napalm. They get their news published without issue on the news sites which means the propaganda machine continues. We need to get lobbyists, everyday people, and news outlets to care about OUR SIDE. We need to get the TRUTH out there, not their propaganda, but that element is definitely lacking thusfar.

Larry had talked about getting lobbyists, but obviously they require money and money is difficult to come by when information is lacking and news outlets consider us irrelevant.

We need media attention to gain momentum AGAINST the RIAA. Every other strategy will backfire and be worthless.

" You remain stubborn to believe everyone should find a "good Indie band" "

No.

Some of us feel that way. Not all.
Some of us see the difficulty in that
approach. Narrow the brush just a little.

" They get their news published without issue on the news sites which means the propaganda machine continues. We need to get lobbyists, everyday people, and news outlets to care about OUR SIDE. "

Absolutely right. Complete agreement so far.

My only difficulty is with giving them EXACTLY what they want ( ie .
money for nothing in an ISP tax, downloading them
into oblivion . which justifies improperly
their campaign ..etc .. ).

I can't get behind options that give them
more power and money that they didn't earn, and
ironically, DON'T share with the creators of
those works.

That's where my befuddlement comes in.

You got me right up to the point where
you pitch things that the RIAA would really
love to have ..

Free money, and a legitimate axe to grind.

Attention is so hard to get because they
own the mainstream, so any press negative
to them gets buried ( lawsuits they lose )
or ignored ( the boycott, too inconvenient for
them to acknowledge ).

I am really not trying to bust your chops,
as you said, I don't know you or your
experiences directly as a musician, but
I wonder, sometimes, where you really
stand on this. And giving the RIAA ANY
leeway causes me to wonder.

That's all.

For starters, I have ZERO (0) experiences as a musician. Unless of course Guitar Hero or random banging on an old drum set years ago counts...

Some of my aggressive ideas don't make much sense boycott-wise, they merely satiate my inner desire to enrage the RIAA that much more, which does us no good. I agree we should not do ANYTHING to promote them, their BS campaign or anything good for them.

What's good for them is horrible for everyone else.

Random thoughts, as usual:

Paul McCartney and George's Band, while both being "indy", have nothing in common. Its like calling Zimbabwe and India "non-aligned. "

Its like calling Mother Theresa and Hugh Hefner "celibate" because they are both too old ( or too dead) for sex.

While this might be a cute literary conceit, i can't think of any band more damaging to what I thought was the "indy" movement, then say, the Eagles.

There is very little to learn from a band that is too big for the majors, compared to one that is too small ( most of them).

People who listen to music and don't play it have very little in common with those who play it for a living or hobby, when it comes to the internet.
For the listener, free music means free, as in free beer. For the musician, it means no musical auswitz.

Now a days Im an ideot witha guitar and a PC. I get some nice clear results from my home recording expiraments. If Tia and I can sit down one morning while drinking coffee and get such nice results a professional bar band can do much better in their own homebuilt PC based recording studio.
Years ago I played bass in a bar band, maybe a 40 minute set of original music in our 4 hours ona stage every weekend. We went from Detroit to Grand Rapids to Chicago and many bars, clubs and what-nots inbewteen. An Astra rep pushed a contract in front of us, Steve (God rest his soul) didnt like the deal and thankfully we didnt sign.
What if we had the 'net, home recording and Dmusic back then?
I agree, The RIAA's mainstream IS very differant from the truely independant world. The RIAA is only interrested in big, nationwide selling bands and has been useless for a "statewide" band.
This is the "middle class" of music I enjoy
Rock N Roll was born in the bars

If Metallica had never signed an RIAA contract NOTHING in their lives would have been differant before the release of their "black" album. Because of the RIAA loving suits filling thier heads with lies about P2P Metallica turned against their fans and are now know as Sellouttica and are boycotted by me for the rest of my life.

meh, Im rambling and I dun have no spel chek

Paul McCartney and George's Band, while both being "indy", have nothing in common.

Excellent point. Indie is not a genre. It just means "not working for the RIAA."

You remain stubborn to believe everyone should find a "good Indie band"

No, I remain stubborn in my belief that sharing RIAA music is a stupid thing to do, especially now that sharers are giving out their e-mail address, which will solve the "suing the wrong person" issue.

I really don't care what you listen to. Just don't leave the RIAA tunes in your shared folder. If you do, don't whine when bad things happen. I'll have no sympathy.

This site and many other ANTI-RIAA motions seem to miss the point. It's not about converting users to other bands and other recording industries (like Canada's Nettwerk Music), it's about fundamentally destroying the RIAA.

No, YOU miss the point, which is about fundamentally destroying the RIAA, in which case every band would be independent. Then how will you know what to listen to?

We need media attention to gain momentum AGAINST the RIAA. Every other strategy will backfire and be worthless.

Have you seen their sales charts recently? Have you seen any RIAA press releases run recently as news, other than "We're stopping lawsuits now"? They're not even pushing the "everybody give us $5 a month" plan now, since they already dropped the threat it was offered to prevent.

Since they got the support of the entire Senate, and now a seat on the Justice Dept., they don't need to sell their case any further.

Ignoring that, the problem is that if you drop the fundamentals of the boycott, promote the sharing of RIAA music, or discount the alternatives as inferior, then you're just someone else that wants free RIAA music.

What is the great truth that you're going to take to the media?

I've always liked "hundreds of thousands of musicians who have been getting screwed by the cartel's domination of retail distribution."

But that's fixed now, so I'm trying to figure out how to sell a few copies, and not just for myself. I figure that every dollar an independent artist earns is one dollar the RIAA didn't get.

If the artists abandon their record labels, their income from digital sales increases substantially.

If the RIAA has no artists, they are done. If listening to independent music (which would require a simple awareness of branding) became what the cool kids were doing because the RIAA is a bunch of morons who would sue you and mute YouTube videos, that would help get things rolling and start to erode the major labels' market share.

Maybe next year.

I have to wonder if Kmart knew they were boycotted?
Since joining this site I bought Tool's CD and I bought AC/DC's newest CD. Considering Angus' comments on filesharing ("It doesnt stop us from having breakfast in America and lunch in France") and it seems the Brother's Young are keeping the price of their CD down..
otherwise, I dont deal in RIAA backed music and havent in years

I dont buy it
I dont file share it

I'll catch ya'll down at the bar

Ziemann, I am not one who wants "free RIAA music." I see no point of the RIAA's existence. They do nothing beneficial except try to enforce their draconian and unethical policies on everyone, restricting everything so they can gain more money.

I stand by a quote that I forgot who I heard it from, "An artist without the RIAA is like a fish without a bicycle." There is no need for them in our society.

We both want the same thing, we have different ways of getting there. You would like Indie bands to become more popular by helping them gain market share. I want to take the market share the RIAA HAS and convert it TO Indie bands. As in, find ways to get the artists to go against their labels and ditch them completely. After all, big bands do not need the labels anymore; it's quite the opposite, the big labels NEED the big bands to make money.

If the biggest bands/artists separated from their labels and went Indie, that is what I would rather work towards because then 1) No more RIAA and 2) Artists get compensated fairly. 3) No worrying about getting people to modify their habits because their same favorite artists are independent OF the RIAA.

I listen to music; I do not create it. If that in and of itself makes me an impossible candidate for this website administration, that's too bad because many of you are glued to your same beliefs that frankly, seem to have done very little in movements except maybe united yourselves.

I am a different type of person. I know little about music, how to make it, but I do know some ways of accomplishing goals are superior than others. Plus, I have a fair share of real-life non-music creators and even musician friends who do things differently. For example, if a friend likes Metallica, I never condone buying anything of theirs. But the chances that same friend would find an Indie band they like JUST as much is slim without spending countless time looking and likely never finding one that fit what they wanted.

There are a lot of problems we need to tackle, but we have different ways of accomplishing it.

My way is trying to essentially DISSEMBLE the RIAA rather than make people change their habits. I focus a lot of my energy on understanding thought processes and I can assure you, it's very difficult to convince people to change their beliefs. Not everyone cares about the anti-RIAA like we do; that's what makes us different so even if we say "don't buy that song, it's made by an RIAA band," I assure you, most people would still buy it...

There is far too much to be said that my own brain cannot translate into words, but I do think we believe in the same goals. If my comments are not indicative of that, understand I don't believe much in proof-reading (instincts are good) and sometimes things just come out wrong or there's too much to say. Typing is something I like doing, but it's hard to express thoughts fully; a video or audio conference would in this case be superior.

Ziemann, I am not one who wants "free RIAA music."

That was in reference to your quest to go to the media with the TRUTH, because that's what I used to get accused of when I tried it. Again, what truth are you going to take to the media?

You would like Indie bands to become more popular by helping them gain market share. I want to take the market share the RIAA HAS and convert it TO Indie bands.

If the biggest bands/artists separated from their labels and went Indie, that is what I would rather work towards[/i]

Good luck with that. I could never get them to return my calls.

Your unwillingness to even consider finding an alternative to RIAA product (even though you claim to hate them) seems to indicate that you rely on the record labels as the best judge of what is worth listening to.

Are you still so young that you've never stumbled upon an awesome performer that you've never heard of?

I don't know who your perceived audience is -- mine is musicians. Musicans are the only ones who can change the course of the music industry by not being part of it.

Since most of the audience is oblivious to what is going on, they cannot be expected to help. In fact, by refusing to even offer yourself to the cartel, a substantial portion of the audience will immediately decide you're not worth listening to.

The audience wants to listen to the radio (WTF??). The labels control the radio. They don't like the RIAA. The RIAA sues tens of thousands for sharing their stuff. But that's the only music they want to share. It's the only music they listen to.

The audience isn't big on cause and effect.

"Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
"Well, keep doing it then. And start giving them your e-mail address."

My entire pitch to the general audience is this: Do you know you can turn file sharing off? Do you know it installs itself with "On" as the default? Do you know the RIAA sues people for sharing their songs? If you answered "no" to any of those questions, you might want to check into that.

It doesn't involve changing what you listen to or what's on your iPod. Just what you put on the Net with your name on it. It's back to the whole cause and effect thing.

If you don't want to stop sharing RIAA music, then don't. Turning off file sharing (or just moving the RIAA songs somewhere else) won't change anything except your personal liability. That's the only thing I'm warning you about.

In a club, I'd tell you to drive safely and remember to tip the waitress. I don't expect anyone to listen to this advice the way they jumped on "Last call!" ten minutes earlier, but I'm gonna say it anyway.

I believe you slightly underestimate me. Scratch that; you underestimate me greatly.

I have looked for good Indie bands and have found some though to be frank, I don't listen to music all that much. In fact, when I do play music, it's not for me, usually for friends and the like... I do not share, I do not download nor do I condone the sharing/downloading/using of anything RIAA.

I take Wierd Al's song "Don't Download this Song" to it's real meaning of actually NOT downloading that song or ANY other RIAA-backed song, let alone buying their CD.

Not everyone is the way you are either Ziemann, because we don't all scour the internet or elsewhere for non-RIAA songs. I have found several bands I like that are not RIAA-related at all (yet).

Let me explain this with History. There were Nazi soldiers in Germany (Soldaten) that fought for Nazi Germany in that era. Does that mean they thoroughly agree with the beliefs of Hitler and the Reich? Absolutely not. [You should see Valkryie but maybe you won't because after all, the MPAA is just like the RIAA - though leflaw felt last time I spoke with him, the MPAA is more justified in their works because it's more "creative"]

So just because an artists distributes and publishes through an RIAA label does NOT indicate they support what the RIAA stands for. After all, this is a capitalistic society and when faced with two choices: 1) Sign with an RIAA label and make millions or 2) Sign with an Indie label and struggle to make ends meat, I believe many artists would choose #2. It would be a better world without the RIAA, yes and you can say "those Indie labels need more marketing/support" but until action is taken (more money flowing into the labels and more recognition given - sadly, this means fighting fire with fire to get more recognition), things will remain status quo.

Look at Kid Rock because that is a prime example of an artist not necessarily following the instructions given to them.

What could we do to remedy this situation (re: ridding the world of the RIAA and/or increasing Indie label publicity)? I don't know and if I did, don't you think I would have done it?

Maybe the best thing to do would be the "silent treatment." Ignore everything they do, not downloading, buying or sharing anything they publish. It's like siphoning gasoline out of a running car. Eventually it will die and need something changed.

The worst thing that could happen is people continue buying and/or downloading/sharing their music but "ignore their message."

"I believe you underestimate me. . . greatly."

We'll try to be fair and patient and give you the benefit of the doubt.

In perspective, there are some people around here who are seldom wrong, and you've been communicating with at least two of them on this webpage, so the current dialogue provides good benefit for the readership as well for yourself.

Truth be told, you've made some good points.
As you may know, George and Dredd been involved with the music scene and its periphery for qute a long time, and their accumulative knowledge and communicative ability are substantial. (In the case of George, almost LEGENDARY... particularly to those who have been avid readers of his own interesting, informative website.)

It's somewhat fascinating that you don't listen to music much, and you're not a musician per se. And you're candid enough to admit to sometimes not being articulate with your thoughts.
But you've been chosen as an administrator; that alone tells me you've got something going for you, and new blood can sometimes be very helpful. As I've said, you've already made some good points, and your heart seems to be in the right place. So, that's not a bad start for a newbie admin — the potential limitations you've already admitted to notwithstanding.
As far as you being "greatly underestimated" . . . well, we're willing to let time be the judge of that. Fair enough?

"Maybe the best thing to do would be ... not downloading, buying or sharing anything they publish."

In regard to the RIAA itself, that likely IS the best thing to do. (Incidentally, most of us, especially George and Dredd, have championed this approach for years.)

"The worst thing that could happen is people continue buying and/or downloading/sharing their music but ignore their message."

Agreed on that one, too.

Not everyone is the way you are either Ziemann, because we don't all scour the internet or elsewhere for non-RIAA songs.

Actually, I don't do that either. I also don't prowl Kazaa or LimeWire to hunt for the latest RIAA tunes. I listen to very little other than what I'm producing. That's why I keep asking for a filter for the indie stuff.

For like the fifth time, I don't care what you listen to. I don't expect the public to do a damn thing that's helpful.

Maybe the best thing to do would be the "silent treatment." Ignore everything they do, not downloading, buying or sharing anything they publish.

I'll let you answer that one yourself: "...it is very clear most people enjoy the major record labels songs even if they do not like the major record labels."

[/i]The worst thing that could happen is people continue buying and/or downloading/sharing their music but "ignore their message."[/i]

No, the worst thing that could happen in another 30,000 or so college kids have to fork over their tuition to the RIAA, go back home and work at McDonald's instead of getting their degree because they didn't have enough common sense to turn off sharing or move the RIAA files somewhere else.

What people listen to (in general) and whether or not they file share will not have an effect on me either way. The only reason I even have an opinion is because so many people came here (or wrote to me) crying that they got sued.

I gave up telling people not to buy RIAA music. The RIAA's music has been sufficient to get the public to do that.

The only reason I tell people not to share is that they're going to get hassled by the RIAA, one way or another.

"An artist without the RIAA is like a fish without a bicycle."
I said that
at about a buhllion differant blogsites
copyright infringement! where's leflaw when I need a million dollars?!?
yes, Im so full of shit my font is brown

oh oh oh and search thur where I said Id buy music videos fer $2... and how much is iTunes sellin em fer?!?

yes, the RIAA is stalking Dmusic, other keywords from here are abound...

first convince bands to go without RIAA-backed labels
then get some music fans to buy stuff from these truely indie bands..
ignore the RIAA and those dinosaurs will bury themselves

dinosaurs! yes! copyright calling the RIIA that fer me!