By George Ziemann
To help the public fully understand the revolt against the recording industry that is about to take place, one needs look no further than the "About Us" page on the RIAA's own website, provided it's available today. It provides the most succinct synopsis of the root functions of the organization and its motives that is available anywhere.

Personally, I find this to be the most offensive page on the organization's pages. It is also illustrative of the RIAA's willingness to stretch definitions.

About Us (from the RIAA web site)
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.

In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conduct consumer industry and technical research; and monitor and review - - state and federal laws, regulations and policies. The RIAA also certifies Gold®, Platinum®, Multi-Platinum™, and Diamond® sales awards, and recently launched Los Premios De Oro y Platino™, a new award celebrating Latin music sales.

What could I possibly find offensive about this?

"RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States."

There are tens of thousands of independent artists in the country who take issue with being classified as not being legitimate, some with careers longer than the life span of some recent "chart topping performers".

No one represents the tens of thousands of the country's independent artists. Not ASCAP or BMI, not the radio, not Congress, not the musicians' union or AFTRA. Not even the copyright office. None of the debates give any pause for concern for the independent, their royalties, their rights or their music.

If the RIAA gets its way, we never will.

I.M.H.O., it isn't just this mission so blatantly spelled out by the radical Bolshevik RIAA that's offensive; it is the RIAA ITSELF that's become so offensive, as well.

nice way to explane it George it really puts every one in power in to a lite

"RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States."

They are saying their members account for 90% of legitimate sound recordings sold in the US. That means they are not counting pirates and bootlegs. They are not saying the other 10% of sales are not legitimate. There is nothing in this statement that implies independent artists are not legitimate.

You're right. You have to take their actual behavior in consideration to understand that truth.

I disagree. Define legitimate.

I didn't even go into the lies.

"The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry."

I guess they mean the French U.S. recording industry (UMG), the British U.S. recording industry (EMI), the Japanese U.S. recording industry (Sony), and the German U.S. recording industry (BMG).

Yes, it hinges on the definition of legitimate.
But legitimate refers to sound recordings, not artists.

"I guess they mean the French U.S. recording industry (UMG), the British U.S. recording industry (EMI), the Japanese U.S. recording industry (Sony), and the German U.S. recording industry (BMG)."

Nice!

leflaw caught me while I was typing...

I don't know if the question was to myself or mroop, but I'd say that being disqualified from participation in radio, retail and sales reporting by considerations that have nothing to do with the work itself classify my music as illegitimate. It does not count, neither do my sales.

i can surmise the statement in many less words,

According to the RIAA "INDEPENDENTS ARE ILLIGITIMATE"

take it or leave it!

All in all who really gives a sh*t what these idiots say?

I haven't heard a single word from them that hasnt been distorted, subtle, or totally untrue!

Most people seem them as just another large corporation with power with absolute no alturistic or moral principles.

amen hermit. that's exactly what they're saying. some people get so bogged down in word definitions the meaning of a phrase gets lost. Makes me think I'm listening to Bill Clinton "depends on what your definition of is is."

so if the Recording industry accounts for only 10% of ALL recorded music (from a previous post on this site) and they claim they are responsible for 90%of all LEGITIMATE music. that leaves a hell of a lot of Illegitimate recorded music out there according to them. don't know how anyone in their right mind can see it differently

Speaking of illegitimate artists, I've released my band's stuff into the public domain at http://fairforshare.com/ - click on artists and look for Pawn.
By the way, http://www.pdinfo.com/default.htm is another good source for 'illegitimate' music, including of course most classical music, spiritual classics such as Amazing Grace and Ave Maria, and Joy to the World. But since the RIAA is opposed to Christian values such as compassion, I'm sure they wish they could copyright everything Jesus Christ said, so they could make people pay for that too.

Correction - http://www.pdinfo.com/default.htm is not actually a source of music, but it contains a database of music that is in the public domain, which you can then hunt for on your own. http://www.classicalarchives.com/howto.html contains actual music you can download, but has very few mp3's and limits you to 5 songs per day.

Now we are all on the same page!!! I think the hill people would be proud!!!

Reference: "one tin soldier" by COVEN

I'm still having a hard time finding out if that song is copywrited or not.

Hermit I'm sure it is. I loved that song by the way I think most of us are on the same page. there's just one or two amature slueths out there who like to make themselves feel superior by constantly correcting and putting down others views

sorry If I'm one of those,

I will gladly share.

Not to defend the RIAA or anything, but that's certainly not what they're saying.

"Legitimate" in this case obviously means "not a pirated physical copy of some legitimate retail product".

Yes, RIAA members actually do sell most of the sound recordings sold in the U.S. (90%). If you sum up all the indies they would only make around 10%.

That's not a big secret, right?

I'm sorry if I gave you that view. it's not intentional. there's only one individual I was thinking of. I've tired to have a constructive dialouge in the past but they were always right and I was always wrong. I almost lost a business from an amiture lawyer like that who tied up my escrow. guess it got to me. I souldn't let it. actually hermit I thought you were right on in your assesment.

"Legitimate" in this case obviously means "not a pirated physical copy of some legitimate retail product".

Exactly. If the RIAA was saying that independent music is not legitimate, then they would say that the RIAA sells 100% of legitimate sound recordings in the US, not 90%.

"I think most of us are on the same page."

If being on the same page means having a problem with reading comprehension then I guess I am not on the same page.

I agree with George on this one, simply because I am not on an RIAA label does not make me illegit, I sell my product, I preform and I work in the studio. There are indie acts who have made it Buck Cherry for one, Michelle Branch for another. I feel the Riaa want control of the INTERNET for music so there will be no more Michelle Branch's out there. She proved to the riaa and all indies that with the INTERNET and live shows you can make it with out there help and this scares the crap out of the RIAA. To bad Michelle signed with the lables to bad for her that is

"She proved to the riaa and all indies that with the INTERNET and live shows you can make it with out there help and this scares the crap out of the RIAA."

How did Michelle Branch prove this? Did she sell records and draw crowds before she signed with Maverick?

I think Fugazi proved it a long time ago.

but the RIAA does not represent Indie music. and since there is more indie music produced than RIAA music I fail to see how the RIAA can claim they control 90% of legitimate music. I know Indie music accounts for way more than 10% Either the industry is lying again (suprise suprise) or they're calling indie music illegitimate. I can't come to any other conclusion

Quote AlteredBeast 'Yes, RIAA members actually do sell most of the sound recordings sold in the U.S. (90%). If you sum up all the indies they would only make around 10%'

I don't buy that. I go out to indie shows around the country. I see bands night after night after night who are moving anywhere from 10-50 discs per night. That in itself isn't alot, but when you look at the bigger picture, there are 1000's of bands out there every night doing that. If 1000 bands sell 20 discs per night, thats 20,000 per night, or 140,000 per week. That does not include internet sales, or sales in cd shops. Indies are the majority, despite what the RIAA tells you.

It says 90% of recordings "produced and sold" - they are talking about sales. While this may be an exaggeration, it is probably pretty close.

"If 1000 bands sell 20 discs per night, thats 20,000 per night, or 140,000 per week."

The top seller on Billboard alone sells more that 140,000 in one week. Outkast sold 500,000 in 1 week their first week out a few weeks ago. That week the top 8 sold 2,500,000.

140,000 x 52 = 7,280,000. Compare that to just the top 8 selling 2,500,000 in one week!

If those same indie bands had the same opportunities, IE, Major chains stocking their product, or radio play, they could easily turn those numbers.

Of course the RIAA bands are going to sell huge amounts of albums...people do like music. They buy what is in front of them, what MTV pushes on them.

mroop if you want to buy the RIAA's propoganda go for it. Indies produce and SELL their music as well. You were just taking the figures the eatnails submitted from his experience, that's not the sum of ALL indie music. ALL INDIE MUSIC PRODUCE AND SOLD IS FAR MORE THAN 10%. again you're trying to take incomplete facts to support your view. At least I admit when I don't have all the facts and don't claim to be right because of that

welcome, eatnails and all new posters.. enjoy the spirited, informed, and intelligent discussions. mroop.. "produced and sold" is legal dung for the RIAA, also the term, "legitimate." All it means is that they say what is real and what is not. Legal dung.. A whole lot goes on in this culture without the Riaa's knowledge. So be it. eatnails.. Riaa music is popular because it is musical crack. They shove it down your throat over and over until you are addicted.. they shove it on the young so they can cull their profits.. What is the answer.. BOYCOTT. Do not download or buy musical crack riaa products. Buy indie, and used.

ARE YOU REGISTERED AND READY?

Thanks for the welcome Jazzmary2U. I've been anti-riaa for at least 10 years now, and thanks to the internet and sites like this, I can finally make my voice heard.

One thing Mroop that needs to be taken into account. My figure only includes 1000 bands. I'd make a cash wager that on any night, worldwide, there are no less than 5000 indie bands playing. It is impossible to get an exact figure on that, but you can rest assured, there are many more indie acts than there are RIAA acts.

true eatnails, also all those CD's from indies that are sold online adds to it. I second Jazzmary, welcome. I'm not very knowledgeable yet but I enjoy learning about this from most everyone here.

"ALL INDIE MUSIC PRODUCE AND SOLD IS FAR MORE THAN 10%. again you're trying to take incomplete facts to support your view."

Oy. Of course I used eatnails figures. Did I say otherwise? If you want to question the RIAA's 90% number be my guest. You don't know if they are correct and neither do I.

My original point is: This RIAA statement says nothing about indie bands not being legitimate. It says "legitimate sound recordings", not legitimate bands.

And as to the meaning of legitimate I will quote altered beast:

"Legitimate" in this case obviously means "not a pirated physical copy of some legitimate retail product".

you should be a lawyer cause you keep talking and don't make any sense. If legitimate means not priated (you for some reason are obviously on some sort of kick about piracy) then they're saying they contol 90% and Indies only account for 10%. I don't know all the facts but I can tell you if it comes from the RIAA I don't trust it. the fact that you do trust their figures without knowing all the facts tells me something about your character. and anyone who deals with the indies will tell you they produce and sell far more than 10%. Why do you keep asserting that's not true when neither of us knows. the only reason I can guess is that your too arrogant to admit your not an expert on everything. I'm not going to get into another pointless argument with you again. I'd rather listen and learn rather than put down ideas and strut around as if I were some sort of an expert. Indie bands do account for more than 10% from every figure I've seen posted here and from all the indie band members who frequent this site says. by how much I don't know. you demean everyone of them who work hard trying to get their music across. end of discussion for me

"you should be a lawyer cause you keep talking and don't make any sense."

I would say you are having more reading comprehension problems. How old are you compmore?

Old enough to be your father probably. I was raised in the old school. respect other peoples opinions and don't BS. talk straight. you talk in circles and have yet to address the main point I've made. If you stop insulting me and being so arrogant toward my posts and don't comment on any of my posts anymore, I won't comment on any of yours and we'll pretend each other doesn't exist.

I did not intend to insult you so I apologize. What is your main point that I was supposed to address?

I would reiterate that classical music - indeed anything published before 1923 - is in the public domain. The RIAA can distribute that stuff to their heart's content, but so can you or I. So if you have any Bach, Brahms, Beethoven, Mozart, Mendelsohn, Sousa, Holst, Handel, Vivaldi, Rossini, Tchaikovsky, etc. in your shared files, you are most certainly a legitimate distributor of some damn fine music.