Recently, the so-called Recording Industry Association of “America” (RIAA) has made up its mind to treat all of its actual and potential customers as second-class citizens, if not even worse, with its win-at-all-costs, ends-justify-the-means strategy of flooding our “just-us” system with a gaggle of on-the-surface frivolous (but in fact, very insidious) lawsuits against consumers, and its hate-mongering and incitement against peer-to-peer (P2P) computer users which, in turn, have brought some David Duke-wannabes out of the woodwork (notably Eminem, who when last year he incited violence against P2P users, got a free ride from the very same media lapdogs who’d condemned his incitements against women, gays and minorities in his rap music).

It is known that in the context of the never-ending pattern of job exports and wage reduction (44,000 jobs lost this July alone), the decimation of the middle class in America, the continuing reduction of our standard of living, and a further widening of the gap between the haves and have-nots (not to mention the correlation that some have made towards rampant piracy and countries based on slave-wage economies), the RIAA’s vengeful, vicious, mean-spirited “sue-’em-all” strategy is a thinly-disguised attack and war of disenfranchisement against the poor, the indigent and the downtrodden (take, for example, the case of the college student who’d been cleaned out by this self-appointed extortion racket, and is now regarded as something of a folk hero; some media outlets reported that his father had been unemployed for about a year aforehand).

But in light of a recent report that suggested that a slightly higher percentage of Blacks and Hispanics download music off the Internet than whites, there will be some questions in the future as to whether the RIAA’s strategy is, to some degree, racially motivated as well (the implication, in such interpretation, being that the poor and minorities have less respect for copyright law than whites and the well-to-do). It isn’t a matter of if such questions will come up, but only when.

I.M.H.O., it is a tough call. On the one hand, this strategy practically screams “Political Correctness,” in the same way as the policy in U.S. airports to screen every single passenger at random at the gate, as opposed to zeroing in on the very group or groups that, say, were involved in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. After all, to go aggressively after physical piracy rings which, at least in part, are run (on our borders) by certain ethnic or minority groups or immigrants (legal or illegal), may invite the inevitable charges of racism. But on the other hand, the RIAA’s stance does smack of the condescending crypto-racist attitudes manifested in the pro-segregation press of the 1950’s and early ’60’s towards the civil-rights movement. And the visceral reaction among some people, notably within the radio industry, towards this issue (one message board dealing with radio in a major-market city called the recent ruling ordering the RIAA to back off on its witch-hunt against MIT a “victory for thieves”), it could be said, is reminiscent of certain “law-and-order” types who condemned the crusade to “end racial profiling” (and, on the West Coast, the drive to put the brakes on high-speed police-car chases) as a “victory for criminals” and lamenting that such crusades would “enable more and more violent offenders to escape justice.”

On a more personal level, this writer is also reminded of the so-called “urban-renewal” planners of the 1950’s through the ’70’s (most infamously, Robert Moses in New York) who saw low-income tenants in certain buildings they sought to level to make room for certain building projects, or parking lots, or high-rise luxury housing, as “animals” who deserved to have their lives ruined, if not outright terminated. The Moseses of the world, and the greedy real-estate moguls who sanctioned, or at least coddled, deliberately-set fires in low-income houses (also manifested during the mass abandonment of housing during the energy-crisis days of the 1970’s in areas like The Bronx), had much more value for property over human life in the same way (if not the specifics) that the RIAA views copyright law as taking any and all precedence over anybody and anything else. This writer had grown up in one such house in Manhattan (New York City) where arson was a regular occurrence at least three times a year. Which shows that greed, disregard for human rights and human life, and ends-justify-the-means tactics, is universal throughout the ruling elites of all stripes in their selfish pursuit of profit$$$.

Well one thing is for sure and that is that we will look back at this golden age in p2p sharing and remember how luckey we were to have any song we wanted at the touch of a button

Well, they're still out-numbered.

For all I know, this may all be true, but I don't think it's a winning argument. The notion that the RIAA is rascist and anti-poor, though probably true, is going to be a tough sell to political leaders, judges, and the public. There are stronger arguments we can make along the lines of due process, "cruel and unusual punishment, privacy issues, "fair use" statutes, and changing technology.

That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

To 'IFeelFree': Well, let's just say that there is more than one side to a coin, which was the point of this article. Which I'd consider an "add-on" to the points you've raised. (Just as the points of free trade and international precedent are add-ons to the points about the gutting of fair use, the subversion of our Bill of Rights, and so on.)

I'm not necessarily saying they are or aren't, but given the points and contexts noted here, it sure gives the appearance of same.

Well, this country loves the concept of "victimhood". If we can get some mileage from this, so be it. I think the public will suck it up, if it's spun out properly.

I hate political correctness, but maybe it's time to use it to our advantage. I won't discount ANY strategy that will help us nail those arrogant, thieving bastards to the wall.

Somebody please tell Jesse Jackson that the RIAA is racist...he will jump on it. The RIAA deserves all the trouble it can get.

This is a very good point! I thought about this very same subject but could'nt put it together. I'am working on a letter to some senators and congressmen about similar points in this article. For example 3 million jobs lost since 1992 to countries like China Korea Mexico and so on. I have been put on lay offs several times in the last 3 years. my wages are down ever since NAFTA was forced upon us. DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE OVER MY LOSSES? How many people have you seen put in jail for cooking the books? You don"t hear much about that do you? A lot of people lost their life savings when all these companies went down. How many of these assholes have actualy served time or even got subpoenas? When you think about it there should be a HELL of a lot more noise generated over that then the courts wasting their time on these RIAA lawsuits. White collar crime does seem to pay! I think this guy is on the right track and we should chew on this a bit. We are getting walked on all over and im about tired of it! Yes these buzzards have no care of who they destroy.....they will prey on the weak and feast on their flesh and then spit out the bones. IM MAD AS HELL AND I WONT TAKE IT ANY MORE!!! STAND AND FIGHT !!!!!!!!!!DO WHAT EVER IT TAKES!!!
Write you congressmae....senators and President!!!!ITS TIME TO MOVE OUT!
AND DONT YOU BUY ANOTHER PRODUCT FORM THE SAME BUZZARDS THAT WILL EAT YOU FOR DINNER!!!! GOT IT?

Everyone contact your local chapter of the ACLU, they love this shit. Any attack on freedom is a challenge. Not only that, but the Keywords that the RIAA are looking for being downloaded, such as Usher, and Busta Rhymes go to prove that they are most likely targeting young blacks. Sounds pretty damned racist to me.

Considering they have no knowledge of the people they are issuing subpeonas for...hence why they are having to go through the ISP's. I'm going to say that this is stretching it a bit thin.

Plenty of white people download rap, too. I know I've downloaded Busta Rhymes off P2P.

I gotta agree with Tim on this one. Don't try to Johnny Cochranaize this fight. It makes it look like we can't win any other way. There are plenty of great reasons to fight being made on this site daily without having to play the race card.

True Mr Tim im not so sure about the whole racist thing myself but there are other points between the lines. Like the Job loses, exports.. Theres not much left of the so called "middle class" today if thats what you want to call it! so where does that leave the rest of us? on the bottom ! are we targets? most likely do they have an idea who buys most of the CD's im sure they have a good idea!

As much as people despise playing the ol' race card, when the situation pops up where it can be employed; You can betcha they're going to use it.
I don't think the "RIAA is Racist" ploy is going to fly. My main reason behind this is that people who aren't too familiar with P2P and filesharing (as well as the record execs) often associate the latter with "rich white suburbanites".

On another note, the RIAA can't sue you for sharing songs that they do not own the intellectual rights to (Think Indie!). DL DL DL DL! ^_^

FUCK NAFTA FOR SENDING AMERICAN JOBS EVERYWHERE ELSE, FUCK CLINTON FOR SIGNING IT, FUCK WHOEVER INTRODUCED IT TO CONGRESS, FUCK BUSH FOR......WELL DAMN NEAR EVERYTHING THAT'S GONE DOWN IN HIS ADMINISTRATION EXCEPT FOR 9/11, CLINTON BLEW THAT TOO, INTELLIGENCE WISE.
Whoo.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, the race card has to be the last resort. If played before then, it makes the whole arguement look childish and stupid, and most judges will see right through some hotshot defense lawyer trying to rhyme his way to a win.
However, if a lawyer wants to use a rhyme to win, here's one: "You can't sue a kid for downloading a song, throw this case out, Judge, cause I feel a dump coming on." All rights reserved, Stevie G The Dance Machine Quote Creations and Corpse Cremations, Ltd.

This article is ridiculous. I've seen racism and the "sue em all" tactic is far from it. Anyone that thinks it is racism is either blowing smoke, or they have no idea what racism is.

Sounds like we're reaching a bit, here folks. It's kind of like trying to figure out why a serial killer kills people. If it isn't going to help you figure out a way to stop them from killing again, then one must stick to the forensic evidence.

Does the RIAA hate the lower/middle class? I would say so, especially now that they aren't making as much money off of them as they used to. Kids, students, grandparents, doesn't matter to them, they'll sue if they think they might make even a little bit of extra money.

Do they hate black and spanish people? I would say no more than they hate white people. These numbers are probably just coincidential (spelled completely wrong, I know, but it's gets the point across).

As much as I hate the RIAA and enjoy accusing them of terrorism, restraint of trade, violation of our right to privacy and monopolistic market domination, lying and failing to fasten their safety belts, along with everything else I can think of, the race angle just doesn't make any sense.

They are equal opportunity oppressors. They'll sue anyone. They want it all, not just a segment. Trying to fragment this fight into racial, demographic, age or any other segment is counterproductive and will only blunt the point of our argument. It's about justice, the purpose of the copyright law, and antitrust.

Just like Microsoft, they're targeting everyone for total world domination. We're ALL victims of their terror tactics, not any one specific group. They are attacking America as a whole and it must be stopped, just as if it was a physical invasion of a foreign military force. And it must be fought with the same "not in OUR country" force that the United States would apply in such a situation.

Because they ARE foreign terrorists -- French, German, Japanese and British.

I would have to say while I do like some of overal points made in the begining and end of the article I don't feel that the race issue is one at all. From the sound of it most of the people here are of the same mind set. If we dont buy it than no one else will.
The talk of placing humanity under the value of selfish profit is however very valid. Much of what the RIAA is doing is evil justified by the abuse of what is legal. There is no better way to do evil than to do it in the name of good. Sueing people and bleeding them dry over a few dollars worth of music is insane. It will only serve to spin this county into ruin by destroying the live's of people that would otherwise be productive. The RIAA and like company will cripple the backbone of this country. Placing the value of entertainment and the right to profit above is very own people.

doesn't really apply to this but I found a good article in the BBC. check it out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3117505.stm

ok maybe it does apply here. good article about music piracy that gives a genuinely unbiased account of the big picture. Of course, it's not from the American media so naturally it's a little more respectable.

At this point, I'm in favor of anything that will bring the RIAA down.

I don't care what legal tactics it takes. The enemy is not constrained by these concerns, why are we?

If the race card works for the ACLU, I'm all for it.

I agree, it is difficult for the RIAA to tell initially who the downloaders are until they get names from ISPs.

Let's see who they target once they have all the names. The problem with that: the RIAA reads the same stuff we do, so they may avoid targetting minorities just so the race card is null. So, "the rich white suburban kids" angle may become reality.

We're going to have to develop strategies on the fly, don't take ANYTHING off the table yet.

Extremely thin at best .
If we , who embrace technology , can be considered a "race" of beings , then perhaps they are racist .

It does seem that they (RIAA and affiliates) have made it very clear that they despise technology , at least that they are not allowed to have full control over .

So in a sense , although abstract , they are being racist by trying to rid us of the freedoms found on the internet. They wish to keep the net and other technology down , so they can force feed us whatever crap they see fit .

As far as they're concerned , we had better just "shut up and like it" , or better yet ask them for more.

I ,for one , refuse .

So , brothers and sisters of tech ,
down with the RIAA AND THEIR CRONIES .

BOYCOTT everything RIAA
WABBITMAN

Unfortunatly any attempt at accuseing the sue-em-all campaign of discrimination would be pointless. The RIAA, when decideing who to go after, know almost nothing about their potential victims. They know what they have shared, they know roughly where they are but not precisely, and they know what time they were online when caught. Thats it. They cant be racist because they dont know the race of the people, at least until they meet them in court

The RIAA hates technology. Simple. In fact, the entire copyright industry has a history of resistance to change, ever since a piano players guild tried to ban player pianos. When the first libraries were being built the publishers went crazy, imageining what effect free books for all would have on their profits. (ironicly, increased literacy actually increased sales). Public radio stations were criticised by performers, through not as much as you would expect because radio at the time was strictly headphone-only. Cinemas panicked at the thought of television, and television in turn panicked at the idea of color television, and the costs of all that new equipment. More recently, in the famous Betamax case universal studios attempted to ban consumer video recorders, thinking with horror of people recording movies and lending them to friends. In a similar case, a UK label sued Amstrad electronics when they manufactured the first consumer dual-casette deck. Most recently of all, the RIAA (and just as much but with less publicity, the MPAA) are spending unimagionable sums fighting digital music technology, knowing that, just like the dual casette deck, if its not banned it will destroy their industry

The RIAA actually came very close to banning portable music players entirely, in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. If the RIAA had won, we would have no portable MP3 players and the digital music revolution would be considerably slower.

This is a fucking joke.

RIAA or not, could we PLEASE not turn everything into a bunch of politically correct garbage? They're suing people who are sharing files on P2P networks. You can't tell someone's race from their IP address.

That article is a bunch of moronic liberal bullshit and taints the boycott IMO.

They hate us all equally!

I hate to make long posts, but I'm still suffering from the effects of two cases of Killian's red so I plead insanity. I tried this once before, but I'm posting it again because I'm still drunk and it needs to be said. I sent this letter to my congressmen about a week ago. My hope is to get an artist petition going. Details are always workable but the concept needs to take hold.

Respected member of Congress:

I am sure that by now you are aware of the legal situation regarding the Recording Industry Association of American and their self declared “war” on the file sharing community. Everyone can understand the need for copyright protections and it is my belief that nobody wants to cheat the artists out of their rightful compensation but making felons out of 60 million Americans is not the answer. As an elected member of the governing body of America surely you above all others can appreciate the gravity of the public outrage these actions are creating.

The RIAA claims to be taking a hard line approach here to protect the interests of the artists it serves. Reading the average recording contract however paints a much more clear picture of whose interests they are really protecting. In all other types of copyrighted media the artist owns the work and it is published, printed or viewed by their permission. Not so with the recording industry. The record labels own the works, the rights and the royalties. Artists who do the lion’s share of the work receive minimal compensation and almost nothing in the way of future royalties from their work. Now, to further inflame the situation the recording industry claims that file sharing is causing irreparable harm to these same artists stating among other things that “illegal downloading” is taking money out of the artists pockets. This accusation is as unfair as it is untrue. Peer to Peer networking, file sharing whatever name you wish to give to it, is an advancement in technology. Like other advancements that have come before it, has it’s critics and detractors but it also has its’ supporters. No one in their right mind would claim that radio took business away from record sales. Yet its’ modern counterpart, Peer to Peer networking is single handedly responsible for the downfall of the industry if you are to believe the RIAA.

FAIR USE

Would it be fair for a person to buy land, collect materials, put those things together with a lot of work and time and build a house, only then to be told that someone else holds the rights to the house so they can never own it? This is the position most artists are in now. They create the work but they can only perform it by permission from record labels and they can never own it. That is correct. They cannot own their own work. Nor do they see the vast majority of the profits made from the work. How is this fair? More importantly since the rewards are not shared with the artists in any equitable way, How is it that file sharing is taking money away from the artists.


I respectfully submit to you that there is an alternative to the all-or-nothing approach that the RIAA is pursuing. The copyright laws as they exist today are inadequate and outdated. They favor corporations to the extent of choking out any reasonable competition or improvement. Since the problem is with the laws, the solution then has to come from legislation which is aimed at creating a fair environment that can make room for technological advancement and still ensure that those who do the work recognize some reward for their art.

I would like to see a system that would not allow for this kind of abusive behavior by record labels. I don’t begrudge a company the right to make money off of its’ investments but there is a difference between enjoying a return on an investment and taking someone’s soul.

Here’s what I see as fair:

1. Under no circumstances should it be legal to take the rights to an artist’s work forever. A three year law would grant ample time for the label to gather a return on their investment. After that time the rights to the work should revert back to the creator of the work. This will allow the artist some hope of long term benefits from their work and at the same time pressure the record labels into exploring and developing new talent and regional markets.

2. While any work is under the control of a record label it should be allowed for sharing so long as it is of a bitrate of less than 192 Kbs. That way, music can still be shared over the internet but the sound quality is inferior and thus anyone who wants the cd quality copy must purchase a cd or go through a download service and pay the prescribed fee for that. This model has a number of good points about it, not the least of which is it allows consumers to exchange and evaluate but still allows for legitimate purchases. This is what radio used to do, now it is time to move on to the next level and allow the internet to have it’s chance.

3. After the three year period, the artist gets the rights to their works back and can then decide whether or not to allow continued sharing of their works on line. My bet is that most artists would be happy to have the exposure and the chance to own their own work.

4. Record companies can still make their money from initial releases and promotions in addition to various marketing strategies but then they would be forced to move on and promote fresh talent and give the public the diversity it craves There are billions of people in this world. I refuse to believe that the market for this doesn’t exist and I refuse to believe that the indentured servancy program that is currently in use is good for anyone’s creativity.

I understand that writing legislation such as this is difficult and possibly even unpopular with certain special interests right now but right now is the time to act. Peer to Peer technology isn’t going to go away no matter what the special interest would have us believe. It may go underground or otherwise covert but it is here to stay. Blanket prohibitions, unlimited litigations against consumers and other hard line approaches will only cost us this opportunity to create meaningful and fair laws that serve the people not make felons out of them.

Sincerely,

Here's what I think is unlikely about this article: that the RIAA has the ability to determine what race is using which screen name/ISP. However, I do think that if they had that ability, they would probably milk such a tactic dry.

See, the industry is operating on a "Quick Fix" mentality, based entirely on grossly faulty assumptions.

Did not the RIAA try to pin the whole "downloading = declines" on the supposedly obvious assumption that teenagers made up the majority of downloaders, and thus the majority of sales decline were attributed to delinquent computer savvy teenagers?

That was a faulty assumption, as an NPD Group study based on 100,000 participants concluded that 25-and-younger demographic, while making up 70% of downloaders only contributed an 8% decline. The 36-50 age bracket made up *18%* sales decline and the 50-and-over age bracket made up a *16%* decline in sales. Their reasons for not buying music were overwhelmingly "music today sucks" and/or "getting expensive."

On top of all that the older groups represent 45% of all overall sales while young downloaders represent a third of all sales. Someone’s not paying attention to who’s really bringing home the bacon.

So if the RIAA can make unfounded assumptions about age groups and the affect of downloading on sales, I wouldn’t put it past them to target minorities and lower-class citizens if they could, and if they thought it would serve their typical "Quick Fix" approach to resolving a problem that is actually a result of *their* unethical practices and disregard for the factors which are actually affecting sales.

~*EazyR.

To Mr. or Mz. M1,

If you don’t agree with the issue of race in targeting downloaders, that’s fine. However, I don’t see the relevance in calling any of this "politically correct" or "liberal." It’s yet another hackneyed dismissal, closely rivaling others like "downloading is destroying the music industry."

If I followed your lead I could just as easily say that a bunch of people complaining about the freedom to download music as a new marketing tool/demanding for adequate protection against digital monitoring and dubious lawsuits filed by the RIAA, is typical "liberal garbage" too.

As for tainting the boycott, I would hope that in our attempts to reveal the irresponsibility and unfounded claims of the RIAA that we would at least avoid adopting their mentality.

Yes easyride very true and they will use your (the tax payers money) to pay for their bad management by lobbying some of the blood suckers. It does'nt matter what color or race u are as long as they get their money to keep the empire alive! thats been the trend today? Lie cheat steal! who cares! Why do you think you see so many CEO's & Corporations going down the toilet? The worse thing about it is there lawyers are going to use any spin they can to make you out as a criminal and smear it all over the media as in the past. Until the copy right laws are brought up to date they will use any angle thay can. Many People that have no knowledge of computers let alone p2p will listen to the spin from the media and agree that your a criminal! So I say "spin the spin"....." wrangle the angles"...
Like someone said fight fire with fire!
Its a dirty world out there times are quickly changing

Yes ISP-Piracy, this is essentially all a mater of spin doctoring, isn't it?

What is scary is that a lot of the BS spinning is not only passing off as truth to regular citizens, the government is fast asleep at the wheel and eating it up as well. How many times have copyright periods been extended after intense record/movie industry lobbying?...too many times --- and the government just allows the intended purposes of copyright to be completely defeated! Imagine, what else the higher powers will allow the industry to do to citizens with the alarming amounts of growing power the RIAA has...How frightening indeed.

~*EazyR.

Easy, please. In-fighting will not work in our favour. I think this article was trying to draw a correlation between the majority of the financial and racial background of the targets the RIAA is going after. I don't necessarily agree with the racial aspect, because as others have pointed out, you can't tell what the race of the target is until after you've seen them. However, there may be some validity to the financial points outlined in this article. Yet, this tends to run in conflict with another link posted somewhere on this site (in the comments, I believe) about the RIAA actually targeting those well off or in high positions just to get "sure win" cases.

Frankly, if they do target low income individuals and families, it's going to backfire for them. Speaking from experience, there's nothing you can take from me. There's no wages to garnish or anything. I'm attending a community college, with the fees being waved. If I were still downloading and they targeted me, it would wind up costing them money, and not seeing anything but maybe a guilty judgement on my record (though I'm pleaing innocent). That's it.

As to the question of "fire againt fire," water works better, and too much fire turns into an inferno. Just as their sue-em-all campaign will undoubtedly blow up in the RIAA's face, if we as consumers trying to fight against them resort to similar tactics, it could very well blow up in our face as well, which in turn works for the RIAA. I don't think any of us wants that.

While the article brings up some interesting questions, I don't believe it shoudl be taken as a plan of action to try and take against the RIAA. The information will no doubt prove useful in another form, just not necessarily in that regard.

Apologies for the length of this post.

Hi captdunsel,

That is a great letter. Do you own the copywrite to it or does this site, or what????? I would really like to send it to my own congressmen, who although they have responded to all my e-mails, have basically ignored what I was saying. The second time around I was not quite so nice, but still polite and respectful.

I don't know if the people on this board just don't read all the posts or are more interessted in just sticking in their two cents, but I am sorry they mostly ignored your letter. It is a gem!

Captdunsel.....I like your letter ! It was very well said and I think there is a lot of good possibilities to your suggestions thank you for sharing this with us. And as for "fighting fire with fire" talk to the forestry people. Im sorry if I offended but I've been a fighter all my life and I don't lay down easy when someone steps on my freedom or invades my privacy!

Captdunsel:
Capt: I really liked your letter a lot as do others. Is it okay with you if folks cut and paste and send that to their reps/sens in congress at congres.org?
Again...great letter Capt!
~code

cut and paste at will. I don't hold any copyright and the ideas expressed have come from lots of people. (sorry I took so long to respond, I was hung over.)

We should close the Libraries. They violate copyrights. The Author's gets nothing from lent books. Our rights are about to be violated. Enron,Tyco, Global Crossing exec's stole hundreds of millions and not 1 arrest. Not even a night in jail.

meh, I don't think that'll fly. Political correctness, and the jump to claim anything "racist" or the like only leads to more trouble. Case in point, Mel Gibson's movie about the last days of Christ. It's in Latin and Aramaic only, and probably only a handful of folks will see it, but the ADL, ACLU, and all those other acronymns are all over it claiming it will increase anti-semetism. All over one two hour movie.

It's even hard to prove financial demographics, as everybody from the poorest of the poor to the richest of them all probably owns, or has access to, a computer. You can't even accurately claim age discrimination, since I'm 34, and download, my mother is 60, she downloads, and my nephew is 13, and he downloads. Heck, my 90 year old grandmother probably would, if she wasn't still scared of the computer she has.

Let's just keep in mind, the RIAA is a private industry, NOT a law enforcement or government agency. Everything they do has to be approved by a judge, so if we put a fight up, things won't go easily for them.

But all that's been said before, I'm just working on a good bottle of wine, so I'm feeling talkative. Be glad you're not my girlfriend.

The RIAA doesn't care about white black yellow or red. The only color that matters to them is GREEN. $$$$$$$

Just so you know, the RIAA arent human-- more borg-like I would say-- so I don't think they give a hoot about people. =)

You could say this, the RIAA represents some very backwards thinking from some a very mediocre mind collective mindset.

As an artist, I was unfortunately subjected to maliciousness and sabotage based off my ethnicity, which constantly overshadowed any real appreciation for the amount of talent and charisma I have or inspiration I brought to my craft. I would literally be assaulted by small-minded music industry marketing puppets screaming with thier maloderous dragon breath "what ethnicity are you??!!? what ethnicity are you!!?!!" As if it was a determining factor in some kind of race-plot.

The RIAA supports mentalities and companies that definately have no issues supporting, promoting and proliferating racism, sexism, and master-slave type business situations.

IMHO it's thier fault they are so disfunctional as an industry.

The racism aspect, I suspect, is one of the secondary infections of thier industry. The main source of illness is thier total lack of thought when it comes to making thier business structures viable and adjusting to the needs of thier consumers...

They'd rather just rely on thier old tricks, which in a new world, seems pointless and wasteful.

If people really want to stand up and make a statement ala Martin Luther King style, I would say this...

Stop downloading thier crap altogether. Period. Only download independednt music or music that has been cleared for that type of transaction.

I'm thinking if enough people completely ignore thier products altogether, that would be something pretty profound --a real civil rights movement.

I am an independent artist who has woken up to the fact cds arent exactly a good profit source, but I still find benefits, on a longterm scale, to distributing my music freely.

If people boycotted thier music altogether then a. they wouldn't have any legal ground to stand on and b. it would send a wake-up call to the mind-borg of the music industry that things need to change cause then they's really be in a monetary bind.

I mean, the Jolly Green Giant can't sue you for growing your own vegetables, right?

There are ways, although it may take sacrifice, to really take a bite out of the crimes to the Constitution and humanity these people are committing.

Is anyone down?

heh I'm already there, ambzk. I hear ya on the racial part, used for a marketing tactic. Black folks ONLY like rap, White folks ONLY like country, kids ONLY like whatever the flavor of the month is. If you're rich, you like jazz. If you're old, you like classical. You didn't say what kind of music you do, but I'd be willing to bet that if you'd taken a contract with a RIAA based label, you would have been forced to "ethnicize" your music to fit in with the demographic they think you'd fit into. Nevermind if you're a young black kid that likes to play country, you'll wind up with something they think is right. Old, old story. Heck, that's everywhere in media. Look at the hype Tiger Woods gets.....yeah, he's a great player, but for the longest time, his main claim to fame, forced on us by the media, was that he's a black kid. Big deal.......so he chose to play golf rather than basketball. How's his performance?

Even Elvis had that problem. He was a white boy who wanted to play black music, and the industry wouldn't let him, for a number of albums, until the fans finally won. The leaders of the RIAA, as well as the rest of the industry, are still stuck in the Elvis era. Nothing we can do will change THAT, but you're right, and most of us here are boycotting RIAA labels and the artists that support them.

The boycott does make it tough for bands who are stuck on an RIAA label, and don't support the current RIAA movements. They're stuck for at least a couple of years. I don't like taking down the innocent with the guilty, wish there was a better way.

The RIAA undoubtedly thinks of us as second class citizens, at best. However, I wouldn't go as far as saying they do that because of racial issues. This is money, they would treat us the same if we were family.

I agree with ILUVELPEES about the RIAA and their love for the Color of Money...they love power/control, too. I will say that it is my experience that their is a LOT of people out there in the P2P world looking for ethnic, folk, and historical type music in various languages...not everyone is looking for rock, pop, and rap. My advice to them is to download Free Agent or some other news reader and check out the alt.binaries.music groups...TONS of ethnic and other stuff out there, much of it probably is no longer under copyright as it is from 78's or were recorded by long-defunct companies. Still, I doubt that the RIAA is especially targeting "minorities".