The Recording Industry Association of America: Borderline criminals that could be targeting you
Anyone lacking in ethical values and notions of human decency might do well to consider a career with the Recording Industry Association of America. At least, that is what can be inferred from the RIAA’s most recent move against music piracy, as well as their general order of business.
Ever since the explosive popularity of Napster hit the Internet, the RIAA has been frantically trying to prevent music lovers from sharing music with each other without handing over some cash to the companies that comprise the RIAA. The most recent target is college students. If there was ever a group of people just swimming in money for the taking, it’s college students.
What the RIAA does is send students letters who have been caught downloading music illegally. These letters inform the student of an impending lawsuit against them, and with the compassion and understanding of Jesus Christ himself, offer the student the opportunity to settle the dispute for a lower dollar amount than if the dispute were to be formally taken to court. Apparently Jesus was a fan of borderline extortion.
Isn’t that what this is? Extortion? Whether what the RIAA is doing is legally extortion or not, coercing someone into making a payment by threatening a greater harm is shady business, and that kind of business doesn’t belong in an essential element of the creation of musical art.
This isn’t the only despicable tactic the RIAA has used either. They also have a tactic in which they file suit against an illegal downloader, and then, if they think the case is not strong enough, they drop it without prejudice. When a case is dropped without prejudice, the plaintiff is not responsible for reimbursing the defendant for any fees associated with the lawsuit, and the case can be filed again in the future. Thus, the RIAA punishes the defendant and adds the threat of future prosecution, all on the fringes of legality.
The RIAA claims that they go to these lengths to protect the work and financial interests of the artists. This is plain silly. The RIAA is clearly more concerned with making a profit for itself. Steve Albini, a record producer who’s produced bands such as Nirvana, the Pixies, and Mogwai details from his experiences show just how little the major recording labels really care about the artists. The gist of the article is that the record label takes control of almost every aspect of the music from the actual recording of the music to the merchandising, thus leaving the artist with little cash and little say over their own work. This is wrong on an infuriating level.
This maddening desire to make money is precisely the reason why Internet downloading is so prevalent. Why would someone pay $15 for a CD when it could be downloaded for cheaper or for free on the Internet? The Internet also offers users a chance to download music that the recording industry has deemed unprofitable for retail sale. You won’t find any Drop Nineteens albums at Best Buy, but if you type that name into an illegal downloading service, you can find albums, b-sides, and live recordings of that band.
The mere fact that bands like that have ceased to become profitable from a business standpoint does not mean that people should be deprived of that band’s music. But because the RIAA treats music as a business, this is how the system works.
When viewed as an art form and not a business, music does not benefit from the RIAA. When music is turned into a business plan for making money, the major record labels find a formula that seems to be working and follow it to the point of lunacy. That’s why bands on mainstream radio stations sound so much alike. It’s the same reason why two different Nickelback songs can sound disappointingly similar. The industry is not interested in the innovations of artists, only the ability of those artists to make the industry a profit.
Granted, the recording industry offers artists access to the technologies, experienced personnel, and advertising that artists would otherwise not have access to. But even that aspect of the recording industry is becoming obsolete thanks to the Internet. The Internet will probably be the death knell of the recording industry as it is known today because it cannot be controlled by a few corporations, and millions of people in America and the world have access to it.
The Internet gives artists control over their music and merchandising. Although the scope of advertising done entirely by artists is not nearly as big as if they were signed to a major record label, the artists are only at the whim of themselves.
There are no contracts to fulfill, and no profits to be split with greedy record labels. Artists can use websites like MySpace to advertise their music for free, and they can even sell their music on MySpace or iTunes, all the while retaining most of the profit and the control over their work.
In terms of recording technology, record labels are put in danger by the cutting edge of these recording technologies. Quality recording equipment and software is being developed and sold at the consumer level for costs that anyone, not just large corporations, can afford. This is why a local music store drum salesman can set up a recording studio in his garage, charge $20 per hour for recording sessions, and produce a polished sounding recording.
Music technology is getting to the point where all an artist needs to do to create good sounding music is understand some basic tenants of sound dynamics, and how to operate user friendly recording equipment. Even mediocre technologies can be made to sound nearly professional. I know because I have experienced this firsthand.
As the recording industry starts to lose control of how music is made and distributed, music will become more diversified. Formulaic music will not be as prevalent because it will cease to be as profitable as it once was, and the popularity of music will be defined by its innovation, not by virtue of the fact that it is backed by some major record label with deep pockets.
This is the way music ought to be produced, and it is organizations like the RIAA that prevent this from happening. As long as music is treated as a business, the true innovators will continue to struggle because they will be viewed as a high-risk venture.
As long as the RIAA continues to take people to court for sharing music with each other, the exchange of new innovations in music will be fettered. Bear in mind that it is important that artists be compensated for their work, but I think it is quite obvious that the RIAA is not cut out for that particular job.
Control of music needs to be given back to the artists and taken away from the corporations. Music is an art, and it should be shared with anyone who will listen.
Read more on the subject:
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
Contact Campus Press Staff Writer Jonathan Swihart at jonathan.swihart@thecampuspress.com.
