RIAA -- Repent, The End is Near

By George Ziemann (March 12, 2003)

In my opening argument on the subject of RIAA statistics, I made a distinct point of not questioning the validity of the organization's data, although I did question the conclusions which were drawn from it.

Today, we examine the 2002 numbers themselves and answer the riddle I posed to some readers:

Now that all of the furniture has been cleared out of the room, can anyone see the elephant hiding in the living room?

Remove the Dead Wood

Let's make this easy and just talk about the last 5 years, 1998 to 2002. Scratch off the DVD Video entry because it's already part of the Music Video number. Finally, I'm going to roll together all of the CD singles, cassette singles, LP/EPs and Vinyl Singles into "Other."

The first RIAA data that I am going to dispute is the " Dollar Value" of absolutely everything. Through all of the data I have read on the RIAA site (when you can find it), there is no basis provided for the dollar value or how it was arrived at. Ever. It certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the retail price.

Manufacturer's Unit Shipments
In Millions, net after returns.................................Source: RIAA

	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002
CD	847.0	938.9	942.5	881.9	803.3
Cassette	158.5	123.6	76.0	45.0	31.1
Music Video	27.2	19.8	18.2	17.7	14.7
Other	91.2	78.3	42.5	23.9	10.5
Total Units	1123.9	1160.6	1079.2	968.5	859.6

In fact the entire chart is pretty much useless other than the last line. Why? Because these are units shipped, not sold. They are still out there somewhere and may come back, as the cassette single data indicates. The record companies had more returned in 2001 than they sold in 2000. In 2002, they were still coming back.

The Elephant in the Living Room

The total units shipped is of interest, but only when compared with the units sold. The RIAA never really discusses the retail numbers, preferring to go with percentages and other vague comparisons based on shipping data.

So let us look at just the total units shipped and sold, then determine the average retail price.

Source: RIAA -- All data in millions except Avg. Retail Unit Price

	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002
Total Units Shipped	1123.9	1160.6	1079.2	968.5	859.6
Total Retail Units	850	869.7	788.6	733.1	675.7
Total Retail Value	12165.4	13048.0	12705.0	12388.8	11549.0
Avg Retail Unit Price	14.31	15.00	16.11	16.90	17.09

Judging by these numbers, the industry is going to add $1 per year to the retail price, whether we actually buy their stuff or not. The number they're pushing this year is $18 for 10 songs, a price that is pretty much consistent with the new pricing structures of Rhapsody, PressPlay and AOL. Sales are down, prices are up. It's just poor business.

But here's the elephant.

Units Unaccounted For (Units Shipped minus Retail Units)

All data in millions except Avg. Retail Unit Price

	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	Total
Total Units	273.9	290.9	290.6	235.4	183.9	1,274.7
Avg Retail Unit Price	14.31	15.00	16.11	16.90	17.09
Total Retail Value	3,919.5	4,363.9	4,681.6	3,978.3	3,142.9	20,086.2

Well, looky there! $20 billion dollars. Divided by 5 years... that's an average of...

$4 billion a year!

Exactly the number Hilary has been telling us that pirates are responsible for. Mysteriously, this is the first time I have even come close to this $4 billion figure I and landed right on it. But wait. Let's be fair. Let's look at those piracy numbers again... 6 million units (yeah, go ahead, count the labels as units)... $18 each (I'll even give you the new price)... Gee, you only found a maximum of about $110 million in "piracy" during 2002 and that's with real generous rounding.

The Bottom Line

There are several conclusions to be drawn.

• The whole piracy story has been pure unadulterated bullshit from Day One. Yeah, you may have caught a few assholes running off CD-Rs, but no matter how you twist it, there is no way you are ever going to gain any real credence with this approach because...
  
• You're giving away, losing, or shipping into outer space 25 to 30% of your annual production. I don't know where it goes, but it doesn't count as retail and it wasn't returned. Most manufacturers and retailers call this "shrinkage" when they're being nice; "theft" when they're not. I don't know of any other business that would tolerate more than a one digit percentage before the factory turned into a maximum security prison.
  
• It would be more profitable to pay the pirates than try them in court. How much money did you dumbasses spend tracking down the pirates this year? How much more in attorney fees? There was some television advertising, too, if I'm not mistaken. I'd bet you spent more on TV ads alone than the value of everything you seized in 2002. And for what? To prove a point?
  And that would be....?

To Hilary Rosen, Jay Berman and all the rest of the "Pirate Crusaders," I say, why don't you all just shut the hell up and go away? All of your capital-lettered acronyms together are doing more to ruin the music business than any of the people you have branded as pirates. We'd all be better off without you, and apparently, so would the record companies, if one compares your propaganda with their ads.

I mean, come on, the only people bitching about the record companies five years ago were the artists who had contracts with you. Now everyone hates you and what you stand for. Why? Because the more you tell us, the less sense it makes.

It's NOT About the Money

I think this is the big hurdle that most people's minds will not allow them to leap over. When the RIAA started this whole "evil consumer" game, I didn't understand at first, either. It's got to be about the money, doesn't it? Isn't that what they keep talking about? Royalties? Isn't that what the big fight is all about? As a matter of fact, isn't that what ALL those hearings and committees have been about? Isn't everything about the money?

Obviously not or they wouldn't let $4 billion in product just evaporate each year. This has nothing to do with money, royalties, mp3s, P2P, CD-R, pirates, counterfeits, bootlegs or any of that. Each and every one of these issues has been carefully plotted and introduced by the RIAA, then perpetuated by our brain-dead media and several addled members of Congress.

The RIAA could care less if Sheryl Crow, Tom Petty, Don Henley or any other artist gets paid for mp3 downloads. If half of the artists out there would step forward and admit their true perspective, we would discover that they don't care either. In fact, I would go so far as to say an overwhelming majority would actually be for downloading, were they honest enough to admit it.

Why? Musicians do not play, write and record music so they can keep it to themselves. They pay the radio stations to play their music, even though it's against the law, because that's the only way they can get airplay. I would do it if I thought I could afford it.

The first time I heard an artist trying to explain why it was a bad idea to listen to their music, it set off alarm bells that drowned out almost everything they said. However, in deference, I now always turn off the radio when a Metallica song comes on. In fact, I don't even turn it on anymore at all.

As consumers, we have watched you raise the price of CDs, year after year. And each year the quality of entertainment on those CDs declines. Did you like Britney Spears? Here's Christina Aguillara. Want a guitar with that shake? Here's Shakira. Send in the clones.

The consumer is also much more aware of how badly the record labels are shafting the artists, a process which is going to escalate logarithmically in the coming months, if I have anything to do with it. The RIAA has apparently forgotten that deep-down, most music buyers (and downloaders) really want to support the artists whose music we buy.

Why do you think it is that we'll pay $300 for a concert ticket but are reluctant to part with $16 for a CD? Part of it is because we now fully understand that if we buy a CD from our favorite band, they'll be lucky to get a buck. Tom Petty would be better off if his fans DIDN'T buy his album and sent him $2 with a Post-It note that said "Rock on, Tom" instead. They'd save $12, too.

It's not about the money. I'd pay $20 for a CD if I knew the artist was getting $5. But since I know they're not, I'm not buying anything. It's the principle, not the price.

It's not about the money. You guys are paying more in payola than you'll ever recover in 50 cent or $1 downloads. And ever since you took over mp3.com, you are openly employing the same illegal activity. Other than the recording industry itself, there aren't any pirates out there and if there are, you couldn't find them with a map. Even if you DID manage to find them all by some miracle, it's nothing compared to what you're giving away.

It's not about the money. Sony probably makes more on CD-R and DVD burners alone than the entire recording industry makes in CD sales. Burn all you want. They'll make more.

What IS it about then?

Okay, Hilary, the smoke and mirrors are all gone now. No more bullshit.

What IS your agenda anyway? I've shown you mine, now show me yours. And I'll issue the same challenge to you as I did to the rock stars. Confess.

Just who do you represent anyway, other than yourself? It's not the artists. It's not the companies that own the record companies.

I'll tell you who I represent -- about a million musicians across the country who are tired of having to deal with your garbage rules and restrictions every step of the way. You guys have ruined everything.

From the first day I tried to sell my first CD, you have been in the way. It was the RIAA that imposed CD-R restrictions at eBay and someone even accused me of copyright infringement -- when I was selling my own product. Hmmm. Who could that have been? Then I find out that you've done your best to infringe my freedom of speech as well. Keyword spamming? Try censorship.

Frankly, Hilary, I am not going to rest until the RIAA is closed down. Orrin Hatch promised us a Judiciary hearing on payola and we're not going to let him forget it. When that house of cards falls, you know what they're going to find.

So do I. And so do hundreds of thousands of musicians across the country. So it won't be enough to silence me. I've even had one "insider" offer this bit of wisdom -- "What I'm hearing is that everyone knows the system is fucked, but they won't dare to do anything until something equally lucrative for the few is in place."

Sorry, heroes, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. We're tired of waiting for the few to get off their ass.

So Hilary, are you going to tell the public what your agenda really is? Or do we have to do it? I already know the answer to that, too, but I'll give you a chance anyway.

And will you PLEASE lock the back door?

Geroge is rounding third base on this one, and the RIAA still can't find the ball!

i think there doing this not for money but to have control over the system so it will be the elite system again...

Id like to point out that a large part of that £4 billion figure you came up with would be unsold media - probably returned. So this would include excess units being distributed to stores to make sure they dont run out, and singles / albums that have flopped in the charts. I dont think this is anything new (from the data it doesnt look to have changed), and I dont think it is avoidable - except by axing the number of artists for which media is produced. (Which would definately be a bad thing)

Once this is returned, it doesnt cost the company its dollar value, just its production costs. Which are probably no more than a couple of dollars per CD wasted, resulting in a much smaller figure.

However, I agree with the dollar value comment. In fact, I believe the dollar value of music is decreasing - everyone now has any number of cable / satelite channels which they can watch music on - with pictures, for which they are already paying. Also, as you say, music tends to be crap these days, even though I do sound like my dad.

Elementary Supply / Demand therefore results in a huge wharf where these profits are dissapearing.

davepike is right,

I've been saying it for a long time. The music today is not very good. Those were some great examples in the reading. Britney Spears, Cristina, Shakira, they all are made to look like real muscicians. I don't get it, it seem like you can give anyone an instrument and make them popular as long as they look good. Well, I don't like their music and neither do the people who really care about it and that's why sales are dropping. Go to places like Kazaa(legally), or audiogalaxy and you will find good music for free download. That's where it's at

Hail Mp3!!!

Nice article bill. This should be someplace where more could see it than just in archived news. Maybe an "RIAA Truth" link or something?

The thing is, that, most of the kids I know, can't afford a lot of CDs. That's why sales are down. If they can't download them, they wouldn't be able to buy 'em either. Raising the prices is making it worse, they're drilling themselves into the ground and blaming it on the closest victim.

Hail MP_C_!

(I had to )

Wow, this is a magnificent article.

What i rember from Econ 1, is that when there is a resession, or drop in sales, pirces dont rise. People figured out a while ago, that raising prices dose not increase profits. (Example: 1 CD for $18 V 2 CDs at $12 ($24). CD are like $0.50 to produce?) Maby RIAA should go back to school.

Figures are net AFTER returns. RIAA numbers. Look at the original data.

that was one of the best articles i've ever had the pleasure to read; on or offline and you didn't cheapen it with bias, no matter how easily you could have. keep the fight going! and no i'm not being sarcastic

wonder how much the RIAA's assets might sell for when they finally do go under. i could use a new desk and money counting machine myself. oh, and that leather chair... that'll look great with the desk

GREAT WORK!!!

I'm so glad you guys liked this one. I'm not done yet.

And get this...
If I'm right about the next part, every recording artist in the country gets a significant raise (major or indie, at least the ones who truly deserve it). In addition, the record companies start making money again and the RIAA goes away.

I was looking through the financial sites tonight. Lot of gloom and doom forecasting. No one knows what the recording industry should do. All the financial gurus don't have a clue.

No wonder the economy is fucked up.

EMI is at about $2 a share right now and they are actually the only true record label left in the world. They are the only one not irrevocably tied into AOL/Time-Warner or Sony.

What if the realization of one simple fact would enable them to reduce their largest expenses by 75 to 90 percent? Immediately.

What if that same fact exposed that for the past two years, the RIAA has been, well, not exactly forthcoming in front of Congress?

If I really wanted to, I could fix the entire business in a week. But that's only because I type slow.

And I DO want to.

And then there's the little matter of the RIAA (and, for that matter, the entire wheel known as the multinational entertainment-media complex of which the RIAA is but a spoke) using the whole "piracy" argument as an excuse and a justification for their ongoing, long-standing campaign to destroy the Internet, destroy the technology industry in this country, impose (or, at the very least, openly advocate) socialist-style Big Government controls over all types of digital media and the manufacture, distribution and / or transmission thereof, and reduce our standard of living (and overall status, for that matter) to that of a Third World country, self-serving socialist regime, and / or tin-pot dictatorship. Not to mention how the major news media reporting these developments are controlled by the same large corporate interests that also control the film studios and recording companies that favor such an agenda that would end up hurting "we, the people" big-time.

Hey bill.. nice job! were you pissed when you wrote this. I like it!
Nice of you to answer those "riddles" tho, I for one was wondering. I'm glad you did the research, cuz I wasn't even coming CLOSE.
Thanks for a GREAT article and post. Hope all the RIAA boys and girls read it and took at least some of it to heart, besides being called assholes!
ttmmm

Like davepike1 said, most of the units in the final chart posted by Bill were probably returned to the company. When a store gets a shipment, they are able to return unsold units. It's logical that not every unit produced and shipped will actually be purchased.

For Bill's calculations to really be complete he'd have to figure out how many units were shipped to retailers, subtract how many were sold from that number and then subtract how many were returned. Once this is done the total lost from missing inventory would fall below the $4 billion annual figure given. The $4 billion number is not an accurate or true representation.

Awesome article... Have you considered submitting this to any editorial columns in music magazines, newspapers, etc.? Also, if you need any help at achieving your goal, SIGN ME UP!

I remember watching a Backstreet Boys concert in the old days when they did concerts... There was one point where they put on or otherwise got in front of instruments... What most of the audience didn't see (unless they had a video camera with frame advance) was that the volumes were turned down WAY low to make it LOOK like they were playing... The soundtrack was still playing in the background to fill in... In any case, great article

HAIL MP3's!

I jus tposted the article, George Ziemann wrote as noted at the top. He's a member of the group Haydenswall.

Thanks Thumbtack.

And apparently some of you missed my note above. THE NUMBERS ARE NET AFTER RETURNS.

Don't try to throw in what you think they are. And don't try to tell me that they just haven't come back yet. If so, sooner or later, the semis would roll up and drop them off.

These numbers are AFTER returns. The missing records from 1998 and 1999 NEVER CAME BACK.

And now that I reread Doug77's post again, I dispute every word.

Look at the RIAA's chart. http://www.azoz.com/forms/2002yrendshipments.pdf

The main data is MANUFACTURER's UNITS SHIPPED.

The very bottom of the page is RETAIL UNITS, which I would assume (but this is RIAA data) how many were actually sold.

" For Bill's calculations to really be complete he'd have to figure out how many units were shipped to retailers, subtract how many were sold from that number and then subtract how many were returned. "

That is EXACTLY what I have done. This is just what's missing.

If it is not an accurate representation, then the RIAA is lying about even more.

Oops, sorry but it's late.

Let me rephrase. The main data is
Manufactured Units Shipped -- NET AFTER RETURNS
RETAIL UNITS -- Sold? Yes. Not just shipped. Ask SoundScan.

The RIAA did 90% of the work for us and put it in our face, thinking we were too dumb to spot it.

my opinion on the numbers in cd sales and profits slump can be summed up as follows:

If given the chance, I would almost definitely do Shakira.






*end of random stupid comment*

You almost got me there before I found your mistake. In your final table you had calculated the total loss by taking the average price of units and then multiplying that by the total number of each unaccounted individual unit. You can not do this because not all media costs the same amount of money. The average price misrepresents tapes, singles and other media because they do not sell for the same price as a CD. In order to get the true total lost you must add everything. You can find the total value of units shipped and the total retail value of units on the RIAA’s website. I took the shipped total and subtracted the retail total to come to a number representing the total money lost from missing units.

The numbers I came to in millions are as follows: 1545.8 in 1998; 1536.7 in 1999; 1618.7 in 2000 and 1352.1 in 2001. The totals in 2002 are not included because the full year report for 2002 was not posted and I was only able to access the 2002 mid-year report.

Once I totaled these numbers I came to a total loss of $6,053,300,000 from 1998-2001. Since you divided $20,000,000,000 to arrive at the figure of an average loss of $4,000,000,000, I will post my average. The average annual loss, according to my numbers, is $1,513,325,000. My total annual loss figures are 3.5 billion dollars a year less than yours. This is a significant difference.

What’s the main point of this? You can not multiply the average price of a unit by the total number of unaccounted units and then post that number as a true total of income lost for missing units. In your final chart you followed this formula: Total Unaccounted Units x Average Unit Retail Price = Total Monies Lost. My formula worked like this: Total Shipped Unit Value (after returns) – Total Unit Retail Value (of units sold) = Total Monies Lost. Weather or not it was done purposely, it could have been a mistake, but your mathematics produced a number that is incorrect and deceptive.

In conclusion, I will say that not even my numbers are 100% accurate. This is because I simply don’t have all of the information, just like you don’t. None of these tables had a number stating the total number of lost inventory. We’re assuming a number for unaccounted units instead of having a factual number. We run into another problem; the chart stated total value of units and total retail value of the units. Since a unit cost more at retail, the retail value of units is more than the value of units shipped. Just like your formula is messed up, so is mine, because I again, do not have all of the proper information. You and I are both making assumptions and there is no room for assumptions in mathematics. Both of our numbers are inaccurate. Until a hard number stating how many units were lost and how much all of those units cost is made available, there is no way that we can come up with a truly accurate number. Your mathematics is flawed, the industry is not watching 4 billion dollars a year in units just disappear and neither of us know what that number is by using the RIAA’s charts.

By the way, all of my numbers came from the RIAA’s website and their numbers in the Market Data and U.S. Market sections.

That was a great article, i just wish that we wouldn't resort to the "music sucks now anyway" arguemnt all of the time.

Brittany and her ilk are pop music, a brand of music that has been around since at least the fifties, pop music today does not suck any more than it did when "Tie a yellow ribbon", "How much is that doggie in the window", or "Louie Louie" were popular.

Pop music is not meant to be consumed by wizened musical sophisticates like some of us, it's directed at giggling pre-teenagers.
When you see the kids at the mall shopping for music what are they buying? They don't have to buy Brittany, they could buy some Tom Waits or Radiohead or a John Coltrane re-issue, or whatever you consider to be GOOD music, the good music is there staring at them on the racks.
If you want to blame someone for the state of pop music, blame your kids not the record companies.
"Yeah, but the record labels put all of their marketing muscle behind the crappy pop music and leave the good artist to gather dust in the back row", you say.
For the average pop consumer, no amount of glitzy adverising will make them like complicated, dissonant, or un-dancable music.

Think of it this way, when I was a kid, I only wanted pepperoni and cheese on my pizza, nothing else, I liked it simple, familiar and unthreatening, I had to grow into the extra toppings, some people never grow out of that simplistic mindset.

When I started to read, I read comic books and the seventies-equivilant of Harry Potter, my parents could've forced me to read Dostoyevsky, but I wouldn't have understood it and that might've turned me off of reading altogether.
You get the point?
Unless a person is into music in a real way, they want their music the way kids like their Happy meals, simple, familiar and flashy.

Record companies do not impose the insipidness of pop music on us, the consumer imposes it on them.

Imagine what the world would be like if everyone had your musical taste, you couldn't feel smugly superior to them any more, let the teeming masses have their Christina Aguilera.
Despite the record industries many glaring faults, they still manage to put out some good stuff from time to time, often losing money in the process.

My only complaint with pop music today is the increasing sexuality and violence,(now who sounds like their parents?) especially in hip-hop, and I grew up listening to Zappa.

That is by-far the BEST article I have ever read on attacks against the RIAA. I am glad you are so determined George. I will spread the word, I have already been organizing people to boycott the RIAA in my area, I have already over 100 peole who have signed and swore they would not purchase another CD by one of the 5 major labels. Instead, they are downloading off KaZaA or other p2p sites.. just like we all should be doing.

Spica.. your comment was very lame.

Doug 77

The "value" provided for units shipped is a fabricated number. It is not justified or explained anywhere.

And if you look at the RIAA's units sold, all of those other formats don't add up to enough to effect the price. If anything, the presence of the other formats should be dragging down the average price.

We are assuming nothing. There is a number of units shipped, which is the net after returns. Then there are the units sold; the retail numbers.

Your calculations are based on a seriously flawed mathematical point of view because you are basing it on the only number in the chart that is not explained.

If you're going to use that value, with no knowledge whatsoever of where it came from, then your conclusion is moot.

Unless you do know where it came from.

"For the average pop consumer, no amount of glitzy adverising will make them like complicated, dissonant, or un-dancable music."

I disagree with this. There's many people that i know that love poppy things, but have shown them that there's better music out there and they liked it just as much, if not more. Granted there are going to be some like that, but I don't feel it's as big of a problem as you make it seem. Maybe it's just different where I live.

Finally, the numbers are in to prove that they are dieing!
The boycott is finally starting to take a toll on them evil

Before I start off, I seem to remember dismissing my own numbers as false. Why did that have to be restated again? If someone is going to make a counterpoint against something I said, shouldn't they at least read the entire post?

You assume a lot because you don't have a number for how many units were actually lost. Isn’t it reasonable to think that there are units that have been shipped that are still unsold and in the possession of the retailer? This means we would be talking about a number that does not appear on the chart. We would be talking about units that are still on the retailer's shelf waiting to be sold. It is logical and expected that units are going to be lost every year, it's just that you and I don't know what that number is. To find the number representing units lost, you have to do a whole lot more than just subtract “units shipped after returns” from “retail units.” How are you going to make a final conclusion when you don’t have all the facts? You've made an incorrect assumption and used that assumed number as a factual figure representing units lost. That is only flaw number one.

Flaw number two is just in the way you did your mathematics in calculating the money lost. Multiplying the number lost by the average price of a unit skews the whole thing when you’re trying to come to a final total. Averages are used for statistics, not for calculating totals. Even if you had a factual number representing units lost, you’d still be wrong because you messed up on your mathematics.

Your mathematics are flawed and you have no idea how many units are missing. Until you find a number that says "missing units" and a total dollar value to go along with that, you won't be able to calculate anything. If you ever find a factual number stating such information from a credible source, I’d love to see it because this actually interests me. Unfortunately, this entire article is flawed.

If we're still talking about a number that is waiting to be sold, what happened to the missing units from 1998?

They weren't returned in 1999, because that number represents net after returns, too.

They didn't come back in 2000 or 2001 or 2002 either.

The retailers don't have enough shelf space to hold all of this.

Face it. They're gone. They were not sold. They're not coming back. Ever.

As further proof of my last statement, look at the CD singles on the RIAA's original chart.

It's been a negative number for two years.

And as far as "not reading the whole post before I respond", you ignored the originally stated fact that the numbers were net after returns at least twice.

Face it, you and I have no idea how many units are missing. I'd be willing to bet my life that unaccounted inventory exists, but you and I sure don't know how much that is. No matter how much you try to make yourself believe you do, you don't. On top of that, you still screwed up on your mathematics.

Your 4 billion dollar number was the product of assumption and incorrect mathematics.

I don't see what's wrong with his "units unaccounted for" total. The name says exactly what it is, and there's nothing wrong with that math. This means units that weren't sold, stolen, etc... I don't understand your discrepency with it.

I do.

The entire concept of downloading mp3s as theft is a lie. It's free promotion and marketing at virtually no cost. The mp3 is an advertisement for the real thing.

That's why we all post our music here at DMusic. People from all around the world can find it, and we don't have to send out $4 billion in free merchandise to reach the public.

All we've gotta do is put a no-cost mp3 on the net and we've bypassed the entire industry, which exists solely for the 3-7 percent of the country's musicians who are part of it.

So they lied to criminalize the Internet, suing the very people who actually chose on their own to listen the the labels' music, when so many of us have so many more songs available on the net.

For every three of them, there are 97 of us.

If they can criminalize digital music, or extort a uniform high price for music access, they can keep us out of the digital music world as well.

We're just not going to let that happen.

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

**If they can criminalize digital music, or extort a uniform high price for music access, they can keep us out of the digital music world as well.**

Or, to put it in one word: DISENFRANCHISEMENT. (Alt: DISEMPOWERMENT.) And then one wonders why I point out that, in their general behavior (if not in specifics), they are almost like self-serving socialist states or totalitarian dictatorships?

Also, doesn't this whole business smack somewhat of a "class war" as mounted by the rich against the poor? Seems like it to me . . .

@dougie Sunset Strip – HEY DUDE:

…the cosign of the integer… yadda yadda yadda… multiplied by the figures… blah blah blah…

HEY DUDE! The R.I.A.A. is the point organization of a cabal of 5 fat old men, an oligarchy (read monopoly).

…and if you add the multiplier of the divisor… yadda yadda yadda… the comma… blah blah blah…

HEY DUDE!! The R.I.A.A. is the point organization of a cable of 5 fat old men who have twisted and corrupted the lawmakers for their own narrow greedy purposes.

…further your figures… yadda yadda yadda… billion… blah blah blah… billions…

HEY DUDE!!! The R.I.A.A. is the point organization of a cable of 5 fat old men who threaten to choke intellectual freedom for all time.

…so the number point zero four… yadda yadda yadda… point zero five… blah blah blah…

Oh well, it was worth a try; I guess even fleas have their place in this world, so why not cheap industry shills?

Enforcing copyright is not choking intellectual freedom. There is that word, "Free" again. There is a mass of people who are cheap and want everything free. Stop mixing up "intellectual freedom" with copyright infringement. You make it sound like enforcing your copyright is violating the First Amendment or something. If you hate the RIAA enforcing their copyrights, you're going about it all wrong with this little boycott. Instead, write your congressman and tell him you want copyright abolished.

Before closing, I will give a definition as stated by the Webster's Dictionary.

Monopoly: A commodity controlled by one party.

Well...look at that. I guess that means we have to have one major label in order for a monopoly to exist. Since there are five major labels, I guess that means we don't have a monopoly.

Yadda Yadda Billions, Yadda Yadda Corruption, Yadda Yadda DMUSIC, Yadda Yadda MP3, Yadda Yadda free information.......

Wow...I can do that too.

Yadda Yadda Yadda.....Opps...sorry....
I just couldn't help myself.

"I guess that means we have to have one major label in order for a monopoly to exist."

Thanks for bringing this up.

According to the FTC ruling which is forcing the RIAA to send me a check, not to mention the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the definition of a monopoly is a little less restrictive than that.

Collusion between "competitors" is sufficient.

ß 2 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ß 2
Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony

Dear Doug77,

I'd like to express my sincere thanks for helping me solidify my case against the RIAA. I promise to use each and every one of your arguments in the report I am preparing for the Federal Trade Commission and every member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees.

You have saved me so much time and research.

If this is the best argument the RIAA supporters have, this is going to be very easy.

Get ready. Independents' Day is coming.

Why would we care about RIAA claims? What part of "time to go out of business" did the RIAA did not understand?

I think the policy we are using against Iraq is actually better suitef for the RIAA:
I dont give a shit what the numbers are; it is time for you to die - because I said so.

(*better suited)

(fuck typos, you know what I mean)

“Wow...I can do that too. ”

Cabal: a small group of intriguers - a secret plot; conspiracy - a clique.

Oligarchy: government by a small group of people – (chiefly U.S.) a small clique of private citizens who exert a strong influence on government.

Dictionary (which see): a book that consists of an alphabetical list of words with their meanings, parts of speech, pronunciations, etymologies, etc.

DRM: digital rights management,
1) Hardwired – an ability to make useless lawfully purchased goods, denying any enjoyment whatsoever.
2) Softwired (software; cd’s etc.) – an ability to make useless lawfully purchased goods, denying any enjoyment whatsoever.

“Wow...I can do that too. ” …yeah… but apparently… not well.

Let's not bring global politics into this. If we do, the first casualty would be French-owned Vivendi/Universal. A majority of American people are already prepared to boycott all things French just for general purposes.

If someone were to just remind everyone that Vivendi is French...

"boycotting" french things... I guess we'd have to send back the statue of liberty then, wouldn't we?

It wasn't my idea. CNN said 70-some percent of Americans support the idea on general principles.

See, I said not to bring global politics into this.

as you wish.

...but I still enjoy my daily FuckBush Fries.