Gizmodo
In case you missed it, last Friday we declared the month of March Boycott the RIAA Month. We've gotten sick and tired of always seeing the RIAA pulling deplorable moves and decided it was time for us to do something about it. We're kicking the month off with this, our manifesto. We want to be absolutely clear about what this fight is about and why it's so important. This is an overview of what the RIAA does, why it's damaging, and what we need to do to stop it. Consider this our planted flag.
First off, we want to be clear that this battle won't be over on March 31st. We declared March the Boycott the RIAA month to draw a line in the sand and to make a strong statement, but this is merely the beginning. Everything we're going to lay out here will still be true in April, in May, in June, and in the months that follow. March will be not the entirety of our efforts, but rather a kick off of our organized campaign to make a difference. We'll be posting tips for how to get the word out, ways to support artists without supporting the RIAA, and keeping you updated with everything that's going on throughout the entire month. With your help, we can educate people about how important this issue is and really make a difference.
Who We're Up Against
The RIAA is the industry group that represents the four major record labels — Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal, and Sony BMG — and all of their subsidiaries. They work on behalf of their members, and they have been accused of a wide range of offenses, from price-fixing to stifling innovation. They're able to perpetuate these crimes due to their huge bankroll, but that happens to be the one aspect of their organization we have control over. As consumers, we are the ones who stuff their coffers. By buying albums released by RIAA labels, we're giving them the money they use to sue our peers, stifle innovation, and force DRM down our throats. By cutting off their income stream, we can help make the RIAA less effective and therefore less damaging.
We're huge music fans here at Gizmodo, and that's why it's really hard to advocate not purchasing albums from artists we love. However, what everyone needs to understand is that we are in no means advocating piracy or not supporting musicians. The fact of the matter is, the RIAA's practices do not, in the end, support musicians or put money into their pockets. A fraction of the money from album sales actually makes it to artists, and not a single penny that the RIAA has received from their series of lawsuits has actually made it back to the artists that had their "copyrights infringed" in the first place.
Piracy Lawsuits: Extortion and Privacy Invasion Under the Guise of Copyright Enforcement
The goal of the RIAA's lawsuits is to make people so afraid of being sued that they will stop downloading music. However, in their lawsuits they circumvent the law and extort money from people who haven't been given the benefit of a legal trial.
The process that the RIAA has in place to find and sue plaintiffs is designed not to provide a fair trial and prove guilt, but rather to confuse and intimidate people into settling out of court. What exactly happens is too detailed and lengthy for me to go into here, but Grant Robertson's Layperson's Guide to Filesharing Lawsuits is a must-read for anyone interested in what exactly happened in the 20,000+ lawsuits (so far) the RIAA has brought upon the citizens of this country.
Recently, the RIAA began looking to streamline the entire lawsuit process by cutting courts, lawyers, and any semblance of due process out altogether. Their new plan is to have ISPs point people to p2plawsuits.com (catchy!) and offer to discount their settlement by $1,000 if they pay up without going to court at all. By avoiding the court system, the RIAA can avoid paying those pesky lawyer's fees. Even better for them, they plan to require ISPs to retain all of their customer records for at least 180 days in order to be eligible for the $1,000 discount. This would make everyone's surfing and downloading history available to a non-governmental organization in order to make it easier for them to gather evidence for their intimidation lawsuits.
Smothering Innovation: If You Can't Access the Internet, You Can't Pirate Music
Beyond the harassment, extortion, and privacy invasion that the RIAA commits under the guise of lawsuits, they also stifle innovation by treating any open Internet source as a potential way for people to violate their copyrights. Recently, they filed a "motion for reconsideration" in a suit claiming that anything downloaded via an Internet connection is the responsibility of the owner of said connection. While the RIAA is trying to make it easier for them to get money out of the parents of kids they sue, the precedent that it would set would make it difficult, if not impossible, for open WiFi hotspots to exist. That means that the RIAA would make it impossible for you to connect to the web for free while out in a city that provides Internet access merely because you might use it to download music.
DRM: Pay More, Get Less
Digital Rights Management, or DRM, is the software that makes it so music you buy from the iTunes Music Store can't play on any other player other than the iPod, such as a Zune or Sansa. In an effort to keep people from sharing legally purchased music, DRM actually goes much farther than copyright law dictates, denying paying customers the fair use of the music they buy. You should be able to do what you want with an album once you've paid for it; like a CD or a record, you now own it for life.
However, music wrapped in DRM software cannot be played on devices other than those explicitly tied to the store you brought it from. Furthermore, listening to your music across multiple computers, or moving your music to a new computer when you upgrade, is often a huge headache that ends with you needing to repurchase your songs.
In effect, the RIAA's insistence on strict DRM takes value away from legally purchased music. People have a choice: they can either pirate unrestricted MP3 files that will let them use them however they'd like, or they can pay for files that won't allow them the freedom to listen where and how they choose. It only makes sense that many tech-savvy people choose to download MP3s rather than pay for crippled files. The RIAA wants people to pay for restrictions and like it.
Rescuing Artists From Those Claiming to Support Them
As we're a technology website, we're most in touch with the RIAA's actions in response to music downloading as opposed to their history of poor artist management and unfair retail tactics. However, it's worth noting that issues such as the underpayment of artists and album price-fixing are quite serious and should be considered as good a reason as any to keep your money from going to their pockets. Two articles worth reading to study up on how major labels screw over the artists they claim to represent are Courtney Love's speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference and The Problem with Music by Steve Albini. Both are written by artists who have first-hand knowledge of just how badly major labels take advantage of musicians, and both are guaranteed to change how you view the music industry.
Out With the Old, In With the New
So what would we like to see happen? First and foremost, we want the lawsuits to stop. Treating normal people like common criminals and using fear tactics and intimidation to extort thousands of dollars from them goes against everything that this country stands for. Secondly, we want them to stop insisting that DRM software be used on all of their music being sold online. People are willing to pay for their music, but they deserve to be able to own that music and use it however they'd like once they purchase it. And lastly, we want the RIAA to stop trying to stifle innovation and control the future of the Internet merely because the possibility exists for piracy to happen using upcoming technologies.
But all these things, in the long run, are temporary solutions to a problem that will eventually end with a permanent solution. The fact of the matter is, the RIAA is becoming more outdated and unnecessary by the day. Their seeming inability to grasp the reality of today's music industry has doomed them, and there will come a time when they will cease to exist.
That's because the era of the major label is over. Why should a new band want to sign with one? They no longer need a $50,000 recording budget; more sophisticated and powerful home recording equipment and software is released every day. Music videos are cheaper to shoot and edit as well due to the lowered costs of cameras and computers. Promoting for radio is increasingly unnecessary, as more and more bands are discovered via blogs rather than through traditional channels. And manufacturing is slowly being erased from the picture altogether, allowing artists to distribute their music online with little overhead costs.
While twenty years ago a band needed a record label to discover them, help them record, help them shoot a video, manufacture and then distribute their album, a resourceful band can do all of those things themselves. Eventually, bands will be able to sell their music online direct to fans with minimal reliance on a record label. The RIAA is teetering on the edge of irrelevance, and it's our job to give it a hearty shove. They can still do a hell of a lot of damage on their way down, and that's what we need to try to stop. Stay tuned.
Comments
Amen.
This might come in handy:
http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
I'm only assuming it's comprehensive.
Power to the people!
Fight the power!
Hey, in the graf beginning "Recently, the RIAA began looking to streamline...," you might wish to change the phrase "non-governmental organization" (which generally signifies an independent watchdog or social justice group, a/k/a "NGO") to something like "for-profit corporation"-- just for clarity's sake?
PS, you might also wish to note that the Big Four (and others) have not simply been "accused" of price-fixing; they were forced to settle a suit by 43 State District Attorneys and pay restitution to all purchasers who so requested:
http://www.musiccdsettlement.com/english/default.htm
WE SUPPORT YOUR WAR OF TERROR! US of A, US of A, US of A!
I for one will with stand the urge to purchase any music on the iTunes store, but I *may* have to purchase a TV show here and there. You can blame my lack of Tivo...
I'm sick of these fat cats regulating what they want, because their pocket books are deep. Just another way to suppress the freedom in a free country. Everyone I know will have a link to this... You guys should have a contest to make a you tube video about the RIAA's actions!
Preach Adam. I will be boycotting too, just add me to the list, but don't release this list to the ISP provider, who then will give it to the RIAA. SCREW THEM!! Also, when it comes to the music, tell the RIAA to put people out there who can make real music, who can sing (Not Digitally, you know who you are [Br!tney Spe@rs]), and also, in the case of hip hop, YOU NEED THE POWER OF THE MIXTAPE!! Shout out to DJ Drama.
Viva La Revolución! Viva!
You mean people haven't already been doing this? I couldn't have been the only one.
Boycotting RIAA labels isn't that hard. It's not like they actually release anything worth listening to.
If you're so serious - why don't you boycott advertising gadgets requiring DRM for a month? Of course you won't.
how do we support those artists on major labels without the riaa? don't get me wrong, i'm all on board for this boycott. I do, though, want to be able to buy the new Nine Inch Nails album when it's released, though. I'd like to buy it on vinyl. How do I do this without giving the RIAA money?
So what will Gizmodo be doing to further the cause of free-culture advocacy?
If this is just a slacktivist boycott, I don't expect it to do any more good than brief boycotts against more evil consortia like the oil industry.
I agree with the boycott - I only buy used CDs, but I think some of the claims above are a little "off". Artists sell their music to the music companies. There is no logical reason for them to receive lawsuit winnings. Also, for example, music from Apple can be burned to a CD and then played on any device. That is functionally the same as taping an LP, of duplicating a cassette. Peope dont have to own iPOds or buy from apple, There are actually 10x the Windows solutions. ... and id we are boycotting the RIAA, why arent we boycotting Nintendo, X-Box, and Sony. The do the same thing. And finally, when you buy a CD you dont own the music, you own the plastic disk.
Thank you Gizmodo for leading the charge against the tyrannical RIAA. The problem is that they are large with deep pockets while consumers are small, unorganized and relatively weak. I propose some sort of Music Aficionado Association of America (MAAA) to defend the rights of music listeners against the heartless money grubbing executives behind the RIAA. I'll be participating in the boycott and be waiting eagerly to find out how I can support artists without going through the RIAA.
This is something what would benefit greatly if there were hard data and personal accounts from musicians to cite.
While I sympathize with the ideas behind this (my damn Emotive CD from A Perfect Circle won't rip to MP3!!), you're making a very broad moral statement here about what people ought to do with their property. If an artist wishes to have their material locked down so they have some control over who can experience it and they do so through by clearly telling the potential consumer, "this media is restricted in such and such way," then I don't see an argument that overturns that artist's wishes. It is no different in principle from, say, asking visitors to your home to refrain from smoking while inside. It may not make (economic, cultural, etc.) sense for an artist to limit his or her audience, but that isn't for us to decide for them.
There are many things the RIAA does that amount to petty (and downright seriously invasive) bullying and they should be condemned for it. However, just as there are few excuses for someone to believe smoking has no negative impact on your health, musicians have little reason to believe that signing on to a RIAA-supporting label is going to result in both substantial creative and business freedom.
The "push" Gizmodo is seeking cannot happen without the strength of the musicians on our side. They also need to demonstrate their power. I think, therefore, that it's long overdue for the musicians themselves to come clean and tell us directly what they wish to be done with the music they produce. If they care about their fan base, they should make it clear if they support DRM and aggressive intellectual property rights protections. If they don't and they are unable to petition their labels to change their ways, then they need to bail out. Start a label of their own. Find one that is willing to be more flexible on what the customer can and cannot do with what they buy.
Because it is not the case that the act of giving money to someone in exchange for a physical object automatically and universally results in the complete transfer of property rights to the buyer. The seller, if they so choose, can attach conditions on the sale. Breaking those conditions is, quite literally, a breech of contract. I think if a musician really wants to attach DRM restrictions to their music, his or her wish should be tolerated. If that choice bothers you, feel free to persuade the musician otherwise. But hating it doesn't give anyone license to acquire what isn't theirs without the permission of the owner.
So a year from now, when the RIAA is claiming in front of Congress that their decreased sales are a clear reslut of piracy and emphasizes the need for legislation and DRM, will this seem like a good idea?
It's not enough to boycott the RIAA; there has to be an alternative, and the alternative needs to MAKE money. Pick couple of labels, or better yet, some indie band(s), and buy them a couple of quad platinum CDs purely on the basis of their not being with the RIAA. Then you'll have the ultimate counter argument about why crappy global media corporations can't make a profit.
strider_mt2k says:
Power to the people!
selcouth14 says:
Fight the power!
Therefore, fight the people!?
Just kidding, of course. I completely agree to and embrace this cause. RIP RIAA. The sooner, the better.
@begemot: Can you give some examples of devices that require DRM? I'm sure you're referring to things like the iPod and Zune, but the fact of the matter is that, although those devices support DRM, they don't require it.
Adam Frucci, you're now on my list of personal heroes along with Cory Doctorow and Larry Lessig.
I just wish the government would disband the RIAA.
I'm in. Now I need to go get some of that RIAA toilet paper...
Great idea. But lets just pretend for a moment this is successful and sales plummet for the RIAA in March. They won't acknowledge the boycott, they'll blame the decline on greater piracy during the month and hold up the sales decline of proof of the dangers of piracy.
Remember, the decline in CD sales has NOTHING to do with the fact the RIAA has already reissued their entire back catalog on CD, and that back catalog sales were a major part of CD sales in the past. It has nothing to do with the quality/talent of the acts the RIAA is pushing. It has nothing to do with more and more consumers buying indy music. Per the RIAA, piracy is the ONLY reason for the decline in CD sales.
Drizzten,
You can put all sorts of crap in a contract, but it won't legally hold up. Do you see any limits on the restrictions an artist/record label can implement? For instance, what if they only wanted to grant you, the sole purchaser, the rights to listen to the music? If they wrote on the cover that you had to turn off the music whenever a second person came within hearing distance, you'd follow it, right?
I personally think telling someone what devices they can listen to your music on should be illegal. For example, Sony can't say you can only listen to their CD's on sony cd players, yet iTunes can force you to only listen to their songs on ipods. Similiarly, I disagree with anyone telling me I can listen to it on my home pc, but not my work pc. If they chose to do stupid things like this, wide-spread boycotts are in the consumers best interest.
Two problems with this:
1. I still don't understand why the artists still need to be supported. If I recall, it was Lars of Metallica who led the charge. If artists want to continue to be supported, they should speak out against the RIAA. In the end, any artist who doesn't speak out against the RIAA is probably not too concerned with DRM, and is happy getting their paycheck.
2. This is a little absurd:
First and foremost, we want the lawsuits to stop.
I agree that the extortion is wrong, but there is nothing wrong with suing someone who steals from you. In the end, people who pirate music are doing so illegally, and should face the law. Lawsuits are fine, as long as they stay within the limits of the law.
@enzo
You're not the only one. I've been going strong since 2001.
Music is overrated.
Silence is underrated.
Quiet your mind for a month or two.
Bring them to their knees.
listen. this wont work if we just refuse to buy music. as discovered in the fight against ecologically damaging practices of mining and logging, certain industries are too large to be affected by a direct consumer boycott.
instead, we need to boycott and pressure the companies that deal with the RIAA, the ones who are actually giving the RIAA revenue. that would be any company that sells a product with DRM. for one month lets not buy a microsoft, apple, sony, creative, etc, etc.
the consumer has a more direct effect on these companies revenue stream because, compared to the RIAA, they are smaller and more dependent.
im talking about not buying a single product from these companies, even if that product has no DRM. that means, no iPods, no AppleTV, no keyboards, no cellphones....nothing, until these companies stop propping up the RIAA...
you could even go as far as boycotting stores that are playing music from the big four, but that might get to be too hard.
The issue with artists having recording equipment accessible, and the ability to release music, burn CDs, etc. is that 99.9% of them are completely horrible.
MTV has done such a great job and glamourizing being in a band, along with shows like American Idol that says "everyone can be a star" that people have lost touch with reality. Everyone is in a band, and almost all of those bands are horrible. It takes talent to actually sing, play a guitar, or write songs. People seem to be lacking that.
I work in the industry. Every time I go to a show, I get handed 19 burned cds with address labels, or myspace addresses written on them with sharpie markers. I can tell you that I don't even listen to them anymore, and most people won't even accept them. This is what everyone's idea of "local music" or independent artists is. 9/10 times the quality on the outside reflects the quality on the inside.
Back in the early 90's there was so much great music. You could hear Counting Crows, Green Day, Rusted Root, Blind Melon and Nirvana all on the same radio station.
When you actually cared about your craft, you practiced, you saved money to go in and record your CD and then paid to have the artwork done and the CD pressed. It took real dedication and time. Now everyone has a $79 fender squire strat, and a $100 Crate 150w half-stack, records in garageband with their radio shack mics, then burns CDs and writes their myspace address on it.
We really need a board in every major city that you have to perform in front of in order to get a "band license." You'll only be allowed to perform in venues once you are licensed. This is a half-serious idea.
THIS is the real problem with the music industry. The RIAA may be the rock but the artists are the hard place, and the consumer is trapped.
You're right, maybe we should just pay for food and utilities until the iPhone comes out. That'll show 'em.
Petitions and live events would be cool and pro-active. How about a Gizmodo circus, and there can have a petting zoo of gadgets!
@barkingart:
At least you'll be able to afford the iPhone.
revolution = evolution
Thankyou DRM and the RIAA! Thanks for putting file sharing into the media spotlight!
Your great multi-million dollar publicity campaign has made the networks so massive people can get whatever they want...and for free!
Now f*ck off and die somewhere before you cripple the internet for everyone else.
Yes, Hugo Chavez would be proud.
Question for everybody: are there any popular sites out there that sell DRM-free indie music? If so, how come they're not more popular - is it just the lack of major artists or is it also usability, pricing, selection etc?
I've been trying to think of a good idea for an online business lately, and this article inspired me. I may consider creating an indie music site with a no-bull, extremely simple business model: Upload your band's music, cover art etc, we each get a share of every track purchased. Thoughts??
Just a minor clarification, but you state that part of the problem with iTunes DRM is that you can't play it on a Zune or Sansa. Might I suggest you reference cellphones in the future? Given that many even support actual AAC codec that the iTunes store sells tracks in, just not the DRM wrapper, perhaps this could be a more compelling argument. These days, I'd guess that at least half of all new cell phones contain music playback. And when you consider the size of that market, we're talking something like 1/2 a billion potential music players. Of course, the same is true for the other music stores' DRM. Just a suggestion for giving the message that much more mass appeal.
@junyo:
That is why it is important for anyone who supports this to: mail (for maximum effect) or email the RIAA, local news organizations, and state/federal representatives. It's a lot harder to claim in front of congress that lower sales are a result of piracy instead of boycotting when the boycotters (us) warn in advance and then follow through...
Glad to always find people who lend me their CD's.
Oh well, time to fire up Acquisition.
sp3nc3 said: "an you give some examples of devices that require DRM? I'm sure you're referring to things like the iPod and Zune, but the fact of the matter is that, although those devices support DRM, they don't require it."
Actually, when you use the Zune to 'squirt' a song to another Zune, it applies DRM to the song, whether or not it had any to begin with, to prevent the permanent transfer of music between the two devices.
So, in a way, the Zune, at least. requires DRM, as it applies it to music loaded on your player.
sp3nc3n
again, its not the "requiring DRM" part thats important. it is hurting any company that deals with the RIAA and DRM
@crash:
I'm aware of that. I am, however, of the opinion that what's right and what's legal don't necessarily intersect. In fact, they seem to intersect with increasing rarity these days.
Other than requiring the buyer to commit a crime as a condition of purchase, in principle, "no" to the first question and "yes" to the second...assuming I was foolish enough to buy it. If I heard a band play live and fell in love with their music but found out later they asked the buyers of their CDs to never play them at less than 120dB or risk having their limited rights to the music revoked, I sure as hell wouldn't buy it.
I disagree. Requesting that the buyers of a CD adhere to certain conditions is absolutely no different in principle than, for example, agreeing to not violate the conditions of a discussion forum. In both cases, someone is offering the use of their property in exchange for the user following the owner's rules. The fact that we are not really buying the entire panoply of rights associated with a CD, unfortunately, isn't made clear enough on the CDs we buy. As the RIAA's actions crudely make clear, we are buying a limited right to enjoy the music.
Rather than fining and throwing people in jail, I'd be for record companies asking for extra money in exchange for a more expansive right to use the music...no different in principle, really, than the current situation where you are clearly asked to request permission from the copyright holder to have a public broadcast or when you use the music in conjunction with a money-making activity.
They could if they wished and I don't think it would be morally wrong if they tried.
I don't use iTunes/iPod for a number of reasons and their DRM system is one of them.
As would I. And if Warp Records sent out notice that from now on the only physical device their music could be played upon is a car stereo, I'd refuse to buy anything from them until they dropped that policy.
I'm not suggesting a boycott is wrong. Feel free to express your preferences. My beef is with the "all music ought to be free from all restrictions" mentality.
I am totally with you ...these asshats need to learn a lesson.
.....I love how gizmodo only decides to speak out after steve jobs makes it the "in" thing to do.
This isn't news. These arguments have been made before and more eloquently too (I agree, but come ON)
@vandezuma: Check out eMusic. They sell plain ol' mp3s from indie labels. I'm not a huge fan of the subscription idea, but I have been looking through their catalog over the last week, and I'm going to have to sign up for a few months at least.
The best part is that there are a lot of compilation albums containing songs from popular artists - artists who are, I imagine, signed to the big labels. Songs for which I would not purchase a whole CD or a file that would not work on a cell phone, but which I will happily gobble up as single easily-played units. I feel this is exactly what needs to be explained to the RIAA.
Down With the RIAA and DRM!!!!
All of the music on my PC is ripped straight from CDs I own, all 200+ of them. I haven't bought a CD in several years because, as others have pointed out, most of it is garbage I don't want. I have never bought a song online because of the draconian restrictions (DRM) put on them. I whole-heartedly support this boycott! RIAA and the MPAA are both trashing our freedoms with the support of our elected officials: DMCA! Vote for those who would repeal or modify in our favor the DMCA. Support open organizations that do not force DRM onto us. And get involved in your elections. Most judges are elected and their opinion on these issues MATTERS. Meanwhile, spread the word about this boycott. Froends don't let friends buy DRM!