Got a question for Hilary?

[dubstylee]

Here's the deal. A representative of the RIAA has agreed to take some time out of their hectic court schedule and answer a few of our questions. So here's your big shot, what do you have to ask the RIAA?

Please remember that this is an official interview, so questions like "Why the #$%# are you $#$@! suing $#@%#$ everyone you $#$@#$ $#@$@??!!" Will not be accepted. We will use the questions we feel best represent the community, and are the most eloquently phrased. ;-)

Please leave your questions for the RIAA below.

[crackerjacker]

ok i am not going to comment except direct you to these to links which i already posted what i had to say.

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/read_comments.php?id=07112002n#lisa

[GPA]

Questions:
0) How do you intend to stop P2P Programs, or will you eventually leave them and try other methods of gaining profit?

1) Is there any hard evidence that P2P is damaging your sales and what it is?

2) How are you going to combat Gnutella if it is a TOTALLY distributed System?

3) Why have you not concidered creating your own program just like KaZaA or Gnucles with Ad's (Not Spyware) which cover your costs instead of just losing money distorying other P2P apps? For this I do not mean limited music choice, or limited downloads, just plain free program with the addition of Ad's.

Comments:
I do not think it is fair that you call P2P programs evil in public as there are some artist who are willing to give away their music, which means you are lie-ing to the public, if you are to say that P2P is illigal, give a note that some files are actaully not illigal.

for question 3, wouldn't it be better to buy out all the P2P apps and make your own one instead of spending all the time in court? If you own them all or most of them you are once again the market leader (Which I think is all you want).

Any I missed Guys?
-GPA

[electrician1232000]

When i buy a cd for 15-20 dollars why you copy-protect it and intentionally show you have no concern for my fair use rights?I paid and bought it with my hard earned money but youre really tellin me i dont own it.If my kids damaged it and i cant make a backup would you give me a new cd?

Or how to start a music service charge me to download music that i dont really own because i cant even burn it to a cd?

Its too bad because you have really given youreself a very bad name and shown people the true beast with youre actions and the laws youve tried to pass to step on us consumers.You will never have any credability with the people anymore and will never be trusted.I just cant believe how you people have become so money hungry.Take a look in the mirror are you proud of what you have become.If i was you i would hang my head in shame.Money made you but greed will end you.

[macazar88]

I was never in my life ganna buy a cd.Yes i am a cheap ass.But when filesharing came and i downloaded one song i remember it was ol dirty bastard baby i got your money.I went and bout the whole album called ***** please.To show you filesharing is good not evil.file sharing is what makes the internet the internet.i would have never ever knew bout artist like korn and lil jay and never would have heard there songs.i am sure many people have done like me.Plus artist get barley any money most of it goes to you guys and the government.

[Deep Thought]

I have only one question, how does the RIAA plan to deal with companies like LimeWire L.L.C and other companies that distribute their own Gnutella clients? If and when gnutella becomes completely distributed and the technology is a little fuzzy to attack, how will you take on the companies trying to profit from it?


:wings

[Ender7]

1. The RIAA is claiming that it has loss millions of dollars because of illegal copying of music. How can the RIAA justify those claims when there is no physical proof? For example, I can claim that you made me loose millions of dollars because I was going to buy the winning lotery ticket, but you interfered with me buying the ticket and someone else got it. How can you prove that you didn't make me loose millions of dollars?

2. Couldn't the financial problems be related too:

A. No variety in the music being played (N'sync, Britney, etc.e.tc)
B. very little music has come out this year
C. all(MOST) of the radio stations play the same songs over, and over, and over till we are sick of hearing them. Why would anybody want to buy something that is constantly played on the air?
D. CD's are too expensive
E. we are in a finincial recession.


3. I must say that I find it disturbing that the RIAA/MPAA is trying to pass laws which would put DRM into all hardware. This is a very bad move and is making a LOT (let me stress A LOT) of people angry and mad. If the RIAA is worried about copying then why doesn't it just invent a new format that isn't supported on computers? or invent a whole new console system? Why must the RIAA pass a law that turns all computers into idiot boxes?

4. The RIAA is getting a money from all tax sales of all blank CDs, with the assumption people are copying music. Yet it claims that copying music on CD's is illegal and throws people in jail for doing it. you can't have it both ways so Which is it? If your are charging people for copying music on CD's then they should have the right to copy it, but if you are throwing people in jail then you should not get a dime. It is little things like this that is giving the RIAA such a bad rep.

5. MP3's sharing is pretty much mainstream(if not everybody, then close enough to not make a difference is doing it). I don't know how many times I have heard "I downloaded this song..." by everyday people(cops, doctors, teens, grandmothers, teachers etc..etc) in passing conversations. The truth is that nobody thinks twice about it anymore so why waste time and money going after people when all it does is hurt your image and doesn't even slow down MP3 sharing?

6. The RIAA is a business, and all businesses must give the people what they want or they don't buy their products. This is basic buisiness practice knowlege, Yet the RIAA has done nothing that anybody wants. In a recent transcript of the Jupiter plugin conference, Hilary Rosen said that people don't understand how much money goes into producing a band. To be fair, she is correct, however that doesn't change the fact that people JUST DON"T CARE and still thinks that CD's are too high. Regardless if the cd cost 5 cents or 5 million dollars, it is what the BUYER thinks its worth that counts, If you don't give what the people wants, then they are not going to buy from you.
Why isn't the RIAA trying to create another buisness model that would give people what they want instead of clinging on too its curent dying model?

[chaser7016]

1. Why is the music industry not trying to work with ISPs to tax on a monthly fee for music downloads? 5 bucks each month times all internet users! Is that not enough money? Would that not create a ton of new technology, accounting and other type jobs?

2. Why does the music industry fight P2P with costly legal battles, when innovation is cheap and the answer!

3. The music industry is trying to gain control on something that is a global issue, do you think you are just doing your job, but truly know in the long run P2P really can never be stopped. Bills and laws can be passed, but innovation will continue to override such things.

Well I personally can see the future and the future is all media industries will finally realize they have been wasting a lot of money. I see downloading TV shows that the broadcasters have made available on the net with special pop up commercials while watching the show. I see watching movies being placed on the net via the studios that have been enhanced with commercials smartly placed right into the movie(and even more blatant, actors saying yum this pepsi is great). I see the music industry making money via consumers' monthly ISP bills, via licensing of the industries better alternative P2P networks(create something better then current P2P people will flock, especially if they are paying via their monthly ISP bill), through a Napster based subscription channel(Interactive TV: watch videos and download), through continual cheap CD sales, through innovative advertising and so on and so on.
Well there is so much opportunity, I just don't understand the industries lack of vision?

Thank you for your attention,
Cheers, Chaser!

[mvoosten]

Not really a question, but more some comments I would like her to respond to:

Music labels are very keen to claim their rights are violated by illegal copies and that it also hurts the artists.
What's always interesting to see is that they put themselves on the foreground? I would ask why.. The artist to my opinion have the rights on their work, not the label companies (ok juristic bull that I'm not an expert in). Maybe it's time to do some investigation on record companies and their monopolistic reasoning.

Ok, now the real stuff..
The industry likes to see file sharing as a bad thing, but the truth is it could have been the best thing that happened to them. However, the industry has been so stupid to look at themselves as superior to which everyone has to bow.
What is the added value of a CD over a downloaded album? At the moment nada, besides the fact that your wallet is lighter then anyhere needed.
The truth is that music is more popular then ever, certain music genres reach people otherwise never reached.
The industry has to see that dilivering added value is the thing they can benefit big time from, rather then sticking the head in the sand and pretent technologie and the world are stuck in time 5 years back.

What about concerts, merchendising, DVD video's, etc... See file sharing as promotion rather then something that must be stopped that can't be stopped.

If you look at DVD's, wow, their florish.. and guess what? Illigal movies are spreading like hell and somehow it has an interesting effect.. Why? DVD's have more added value, cost the same or these days even less then plain music cd's and the quality is superior over what you might be able to download.
If I see a movie on internet and it's good, there is not a big barrier for me to buy the DVD. Why? For the reasons above and the fact you get value for your money.

Just my thoughts, but the main point is, the music industry is a corrupt, monopolistic, arrogant industry that I hope will have a nice investigation ala Microsoft to let them know that consumers are their only reason of existence and they should listen to their voice, rather then dictate their own little laws.

M.

[dr. damn]

There is an RIAA "tax" on audio CD-R media and audio tapes designed to compensate artists for pirated music that is made on them. How is this money divided up to artists?

What percentage of this money actually goes to the artists?

[taylorcomm]

My question is....


What is the difference between me going down to my local library and picking out a cd, ripping it to mp3, and listening to it later on versus me going to a website/filesharing service and getting an mp3 and listening to it?
Both have large collections of music and both have the ability for you to use that music in the way you deem appropriate. The only difference is the scarcity issue in the library. What is your vision of the "library" of the future? Should the public library start charging?

Chris

[mwalimu]

A lot of questions in this thread about file sharing, so I'll throw one up about webcasting...

Why does the RIAA support royalty rates and recordkeeping requirements for webcasters that are steep enough to put most webcasters out of business? Many webcasters, including those who have ceased operation since the CARP rates were announced last month, included features with their webcasting services that enabled listeners to purchase the CDs, and the statistics on the usage of these features indicate that in some cases, the number of CDs purchased using these features numbers in the thousands from just one webcaster (and that's not counting the fans who bought the CDs without using the links provided by the webcaster). There is a plethora of statistical and anecdotal evidence that webcasters support musicians and help sell CDs.

Further, from a listener's choice standpoint, the state of broadcast radio these days is abysmal, where nearly all stations most people can receive are owned by a few major media conglomerates, playing music to short-attention-span lowest-common-denominator tastes. So along comes Internet webcasting, no longer constrained by the limitations of how many broadcasters can fit in the FM spectrum in a region, nor the need to get their critical mass of listeners from a limited geographic area, and suddenly it becomes possible to serve up music to satisfy all the arcane, diverse tastes that broadcast radio could never hope to (e. g. a station of all Mozart, or all Celtic, or all Native American music). Or a couple dozen local bands playing clubs mostly in a small region (say, central Illinois where I live) could pool their resources and create their own webstation to play their own music. Thousands of artists who could never hope to get airplay in the current broadcasting world get exposure via webcasters. Listeners hear of them, buy their CDs, and go to their shows.

So here you've got a new medium that helps sell CDs, gives lesser known artists more exposure. And yet you're trying to impose royalty rates and recordkeeping requirements that would kill this??? WHY??? This could be one of the best things that ever happened to the recording industry, and it absolutely defies logic that the RIAA would want to kill it.

One possible answer I can think of is that the major recording companies and traditional broadcasters are trying to preserve the current state of things where the majority of listeners are only exposed to the limited number of big-name multi-platinum artists whom they choose to promote. This of course serves the interests of those artists and their companies. But what about the thousands of other recording artists, and the music-buying public, whom the RIAA claims to support as well? If the RIAA truly loves and wants to support these groups as they claim to, it's time for them to put their money where their mouth is and support the fledgling webcasting industry.

--
mwalimu, aka Joe McCauley

[mojo-ris-in]

:devil
Ok before I ask my question I just want to make a few comments. This whole debacle about file sharing destroying the music industry has been seen before in a different way. Back in the 1950's, the movie industry was all aflutter about this new form of communication known as television. They feared that people could watch movies at home then why would they ever go out and see a movie. The tried to strong arm the government and the fledgeling T.V. providers in an attempt to basically kill the industry. Fortunately, (or not) the movie industry began to work the new industry to their favor and eventually became more powerful and, yes, richer because of television. It seems that the recording industry could learn something from the movie industry in this case. Let's be honest. Most people know that album sales are only a small percentage of what an artist makes in their career. The majority of artists make their money through touring and public appearances and not as much as the industry would like us to believe. So who is losing money? Record executives who ride around $100,000 dollar limousines sipping champagne while wining and dining some starry-eyed wannabe they hope to exploit-er represent as "the next big thing". I'm sorry but if Tommy Mottola only makes $50,000,000 dollars this year because of those "evil file sharers" who are driving artists to the poorhouse, I will not shed a tear. The basic fact is the record industry rapes their bosses, that being the consumers who pay their checks, each time they force me or any consumer to pay $15-$20 dollars for a product that costs less than a dollar to produce. Now I am aware that there are other costs involved such as engineering, producing, cover design, and promoting the album but let's get real. The recording giants could easily slash their costs and make as much money and give the consumers what they want, that being more affordable CD's. And while we are on the subject of honesty, why can't the record industry get behind a system of file sharing songs over the internet? It seems to me that if the recording industry wants to recoup some of their supposed losses they would embrace a way to make money through a file sharing service that pays royalties yet gives the consumer the songs they want with full rights to burn to a CD or download to their MP3 players. Let's be honest again, does the recording industry really expect a consumer to pay for a downloaded song and not be able to burn it to a CD? It seems to me that the recording industry is saying "it's our way or the highway" and will never let consumers out of their stranglehold. Now, with that being said, my question to Mrs. Rosen is this, what can or will the RIAA do to release music to consumers in a manner where everybody gets what they want (cheaper prices for consumers and royalties for the artists)? What about other ways to generate revenues through filesharing such as banner ads on the download websites or streaming ads while the download is in progress to bolster revenues for the artists and keep prices affordable for the consumer? To me it seems that everyone can win if all parties are willing to set aside differences and come up with a way to deliver music at an affordable price while ensuring that artists get their royalties. One last note, thanks to everyone at Zeropaid for giving me a opportunity to voice my concerns and a soapbox to stand on. The most endearing quality of the Internet is its ability to empower everyone from the man on the street to the movers and shakers of the world.
William Anderson aka mojo-ris-in

[lemoke]

So far when I come across the RIAA in the press, it is a story about how they are trying to shut down filesharing, and/or trying to change existing technology to curb copying of "their" product.
What I would like to know, is what does the RIAA have in store for us. What is their dream of a perfect marketplace, with a satisfactory balance between Them and Us? Is it the status quo? I have seen their reactions, I would like know why they must react in such a way. Do they believe that the music industry will crash and burn in the near future?

I believe that there is no turning back, Pandora's box has been opened. I have been exposed to so much music through webcasters (Soma FM R.I.P.) and apps like Audiogalaxy. I also belive that I am not alone. Why is the RIAA forcing me to listen to the same music day in day out on the radio. Any and all mainstream music source I find provides the same extremely narrow sample of music.
The last couple of years has seen such an increase in knowledgeable music fans. Maybe the death of top40 radio can be a good thing.

[TipYourBartender]

Five question for the RIAA rep. I know its a lot, but all but the last 2 are pretty flaky.

1)What is your position on bands that want to willingly post their music over the Internet in free MP3 format? What, also, is your position on artists who expressly do NOT want their music shared via Musicnet/Pressplay?

Speaking of which...

2) What is your opinion of the 2 file-sharing services? Do you feel they have been successful?

3) Based on the Webcasting decision, what does the RIAA feel is the future of Webcasting?

4) From Napster on, the RIAA has portrayed itself in some sort of life-and-death, good-vs-evil battle, when both sides know that is not the case. Not once, NOT ONCE has the record industry portrayed itself as wanting to work with the services to find some sort of non -litigous solution to whatever problem it is that you claim to be facing (And don't count Napster - that's dancing with a corpse: you can take wherever you want, and just leave her on the floor when she starts to rot). Because of this stance, instead of looking at the RIAA for what it is, it has instead become The Enemy, as you'll probably see from most of the other questions you will recieve. Futhermore, to circumvent your legal battering ram strategy, decentralized alternatives like Gnutella and Freenet were created, or services like Kazaa were created out of the country.

Why, from the start, have the labels been so adversarial towards file-sharing services? And, from the RIAA's perspective, has that backfired?

And the big doozy, one that I've been really itching to hear, so make it good...

5) What justification can you give all the Zeropaid users for the creation of the DMCA?

[Psilaxs]

Ok, this is my Question,

Instead of the industry bickering Amognst themselves trying to determain a reasonable business model, why not follow the lead as to what has already been set?

All you have to do is make a P2P network. EXACTLY alot the lines of say KaZaA WinMX or (Insert your favorite here)

Charge 5-10 bucks a month, Unlimited Downloads, Upto 320 K bit rate, All artists, All songs, Basically what we can do now.

I think many people would be interested in a model such as this, But then again perhaps not. After the shananiganz you guys have pulled, no one really cars about you anymore.

i am being honest and find this a great opp to express what i think and feel so i will continue.

You say music sales are down WAAA were loosing to Pirates WAAAAA! Ok then why in THIS year did you set another Record for sales, having more platinum albums then in ANY other decade. I find it odd that you EXPLOIT the tragic events to further entrench your political agenda.
And what i mean by that is, After 9/11 the economy took a nose dive, people dont have the money they used to.
I for one sure as hell don't, and yet at anyother time history when the economy has taken a downturn and sales have dropped, you attributed it correctly. But now you have a
"Monster" if you will to use as a whipping boy as you see fit,
and that is P2P and the very costumers you DEMONIZE.

You will only further alienate yourselves, By lobbying congress
to ABSOLUTELY TRAMPLE are rights without a second thought.
Like Imbeded copy protection, forced DRM. A Bill that would allow you to HACK Us, and dont try and deny it,
I contacted the appropriate represenitives in congress
and it IS indeed true.

And your plan to go after individual users,
if you thought Napster being shut down Backfired,
I dare you , Nay, I EMPLORE you to sue just 1 person 2 person user, You will an end to your orginization almost overnight,

at this point anything you do that ISNT what WE want is merely another Nail in the coffen.

I am the type you hate most. T1 Line 140 Gigs of stuff to share and ENJOY

there are many things you could do to save yourself at this point but you will not hear anything except your own delusional
business model.

Now my Quastions.
1: how do you expect to cope with Crackers?
EVERYTHING thus far has been broken(If you can hear it, feel it, see it, or play it, You can copy it)
2: Your overpeer is failing, what will you do to cope?
3: You 8ONLY* made 37 BILLION (YES BILLION)
this year, how will you recoup the 4.7 percent you lost?
4: Normal business tends to fluctuate in sales, doesnt yours?
5: 99% of all artists fail to return money, Really?
I know of NO business that can stay profitable(or even in business for that matter) with
only 1% of product revenues, how is this possible?
6: how can you be hurting with 37 BILLION in sales in this year alone? That is roughly 740 Million Per state and over and well over $100.00 per person. Just how do you stay in business?

7:Why will you not listen to anything we have to say, if you would just comunicate with us (Like you are now) Maybe we could work something out, but you have decided it wont work that way, and it is already to late, so nix that idea'


I can think of more but this is getting waaay to long.

Best Regards to ALL, Psilaxs

P.S I hope you and your Minions do not starve to death

[ChronX]

A few questions

1)How are you going to stop all P2P programs, especially the ones that are overseas, and are fully decentralized?

2)P2P has changed a lot since Napster died, and a majority of them have surpassed Napster, with decentralization, the sharing of many file types, and non-central server based programs are beginning to appear, so my question is how are you going to stop that?

3)When people buy a cd from the store they turn it into mp3 format so they can share it to other people on the internet, if i spent $12 on a cd shouldn't i have the freedom to do what i want with it and let people preview a cd before they buy it so they know there getting there moneys worth?

Thats basically all i have to ask.

[Happle]

I would support, and be the first to join, a subscription music service just like Audiogalaxy technologically, that costs no more per month than 30 dollars for:


1) THE RIGHT TO USE MY MUSIC ANY WAY I WANT (such as burning to music cd, backups of UNEXPIRABLE mp3, playback on computer (any platform), DVD player. mp3 player, or re-encoding to another format like Ogg Vorbis.

2) UNLIMITED DOWNLOADS of high quality mp3's

3) COMPLETE LIBRARIES (that is, songs from the 60's, 70's, etc, one-hit wonders, b-sides, b-sides from one-hit wonders' flopped album, etc) of all music you control

4) REGARDLESS OF LABEL, GENRE, or POPULARITY- like trance, trip hop, downtempo, and all that stuff you won't hear on mtv or commercial radio.

5) I (personally) would be more than willing to accept a limitation on the age of the music (like no unreleased stuff, no stuff since this year, as long as it was REASONABLE (not "no music less than 10 years old" or anything like that)

In my opinion, you will continue to meet strong resistance from the buying public and continue to further alienate your public (which gives YOU money) as long as you deny us the right to legally access, use, and enjoy whatever music we want. Most of the songs that were popular on Audiogalaxy were old songs, rare tracks, or from lesser known artists. These categories do not provide nearly as much revenue as currently popular artists such as Ja Rule or Eminem. Therefore, allowing us to access not-recently released pop music would not cost you much at all. Most record stores don't even stock anything except the top hits in a few genre (like Peppermint music) anyway, to cut their inventory costs.

Simply put, until people are able to buy from you, you will continue to find product stolen. All you have to do is sell it at a reasonable price and make it widely available. (i.e. no mail or shipping costs.)

Thank you for your time.

[wiggum]

Q1. You have been accused by KaZaA BV and Madster of trying to win lawsuits by using an excessive amount of paperwork and wasting their time. In one case you submitted a 100 page document just to change a meeting date. Is one of your tactics to take advantage of the fact that a lot of these p2p companies don't have large resources?

Q2. Where do you see online music been in 5 years?

Q3. Are you going to do anything about the poor image the record companies (and your organisation) have with todays youth? Does this concern you?

[ameba23]

Hilary,

As an independant artist myself I am very disappointed to be deprived of the privalige of openly sharing my music with others. You claim you are doing this for the artists, and not for profit for yourselves, but what about the artists like me who genuinely want to share?

Please remember when you are making the laws on the internet that you are a completly un-elected organisation. The internet is a world wide network not governed by any single country, and just because you're rich does not give you the right to make the rules. I don't even live in the US, so why should the RIAA be stopping me sharing my music?

I know you think you're doing the right thing, but just think: With a free network of file-sharing, people living in tiny villages can access music from all over the world, and every artist has the opportunity to reach a world wide audience of millions. There is so much amazing talent out there, but so much of it is not getting exposure because of soulless pop music made for money dominating the record industry.

Art and sharing go hand in hand. It's human nature, and you can't change that.

I know you're very busy, but I would greatly appreciate a reply to this message (ameba_23@hotmail.com).

Thanks for your time,

--Greg

[BookSpyder]

I hope the following questions are considered legitimate enough to warrant a response:

1. How much of the retail price of a new CD ($18.99 as an example) goes to support the RIAA?
2. Does the RIAA have an outlet to report to the consuming public how the money gathered from retail purchases is used to benefit the artists or labels?
3. Does an artist who chooses to start a label but is distributed by a major (one of the big five) get to bypass the RIAA by protecting his own property as he sees fit? Could the artist distribute on the web, sell copy-protected or value-added CDs or offer a lower priced, more distributable product without "RIAA overhead?"

I ask these questions because now more then ever the RIAA appears to be turning into an anachronism. If the big five choose to implement copy-protection on whatever media they release music on, will there be any justification for them to police for piracy? If music labels are going to allow for downloads from corporate-controlled sites for potentially more widespread distribution, what role then does the RIAA have when the transaction is between the music company and the consumer?
The technology and practice of file-sharing and downloading is eventually going to render the brick-and-mortar shopping experience moot, and will allow the Joe DIY musician to distribute his music on his terms.

As I understand it, the RIAA gets a percentage of every CD-R burner, CD-R, minidisc and cassette sold in the United States. Whether any of this media is used for the copying of RIAA protected music or for other purposes (Data backup, voice recording, non-professional music performance, etc.), the RIAA gets paid. From what appears in the media and even on the RIAA website, it seems that the RIAA is more in the business of justifying its existence to protect its own revenue in a time where the old rules of distribution are being changed by the very artists and companies it claims to protect.

I would hope that if the RIAA really is in the business of protecting the artist and labels from piracy and abuse, that we would see more of this than a proposal to prosecute large file-swapping clients. The last time America saw this kind of draconian action was during Prohibition, and it had the effect of showing not only how far the public would go to get a product that they wanted, but also how toothless the laws and enforcers were to prevent it. Nothing killed Prohibition faster than the public desire for a product that someone thought should be so tightly controlled as to be virtually inaccesible.

Peace,
BookSpyder
-Would be guilty of singing "Happy Birthday" six times this year, but I never sang any further than I had to so as not to be liable for the royalty fees.....

[Mystos]

What do you think of the impressions you are leaving the consumer? The impression your industry are giving us are "the consumer is always wrong," "Our consumers are nothing but thieves, pirates, scum, etc and can not be trusted," and "you will take it and you will like it!" Another is "The consumers are thieves, they are stealing from the artists, but it is ok when we steal from the artists."

Why don't you be honest reports on figures and statistics, or are you too afraid of how they might invalidate your claims? We all know about how you used a double negative (You lost a negative X, which anybody who knows math knows it equals a positve!). You should say you either gained or lost a profit, not indulge in stock holder/Aurther Anderson type practices which can come back to haunt you. In a related question, how do you come up with any of your figures? A lot of it seems to be guess work and assumptions, like the figures for the amount of money lost due to P2P.

What do you think about the fact that every time you do something you only manage to piss someone off and have them turn against you? In addition, what do you think about all the enemies that you have made through your actions, and how many of them are dead set against you and are doing what ever they can to stop and fight you? You made quite a few enemies, myself included, when you started mucking around in areas you don't understand or belong with things such as your CBDTPA(which has been renamed several times in order to keep people form finding out). As a computer science major the last thing I need is some entertainment industry preventing me from running and/or programming what I want to. I already have Microsoft trying to prevent me from running Linux, or running what programs and codecs I want (anyone see the recent changes they made to the Windows Media Player End User License Agreement?). The great thing about computers is that anyone can program what they want and there is very little stopping someone from doing so, which is also what made this industry so great.

Are you and Microsoft up to something? From what I hear Microsoft's Palladium, it includes DRM and sounds a lot like it will do what was proposed with the CBDTPA. Microsoft would love to do this, since it increases their monopoly, their control of your PC, and kills off their competition, like Linux and Mac OS since Microsoft holds a patent on DRM and you would have to go through them.

How can you tell the Tech industry what to do when you have no understanding of it at all? Back with the CBDTPA fiasco a lot of people, myself included, where quite upset of some one doing the equivalent of trying to rewrite the laws of physics. Before you even dismiss what we say, A lot of us have a very good education and understanding of computers and how they work, and what was proposed was not only next to impossible, but it greatly harmed and effected the market/operating systems/ETC in which we the experts worked and have a greater understanding. I for one know it is already a pain to program, I do not need something else making it even harder to do so. Another related question is, why should the Tech industry, equivalent to the auto manufactures, do what the Entertainment industry, equivalent to the whip & buggy manufactures, tells them what to do?


How do your IP cops(the people whos software is patroling the p2p networks) know if I was really sharing a illegal file? From what I can tell all their software dose is scan the file names. I could name the song I made and put on P2P, called "I hate X", where X is a keyword triggered by the IP cops software (like the common name Briteny, and the example song is about my ex-girl friend).

What if I am accused of trading a "illegal file" even though I did not? From what I can also tell, there is no way to prove your innocent. Your ISP gets a automated threatening letter from a bot that just scans the file names for keywords and your IP, and more likely then not the ISP will either warn the person or ban them even though the accused maybe innocent.

Are you anti-competition(don’t lie, tell us the truth). Ignoring "illegal file" trading, A lot of things you are doing seem to indicate so. With sites like Mp3.com (It's a legal mp3 site where every day Joes can offer their music for download), people's own homepages, P2P(yes peer to peer it has legal uses, some use p2p to help save with bandwidth, or use it if they don't have a place to host their stuff), that it cost less to produce and distribute music, and that a lot of them are giving it away FOR FREE, one could see that you know have some serious competition.

Since just about everyone has shouted at you about it and you finally claim to doing it, where are these so called lower prices? I still see the same ridicules price of 14+ for some new titles and 18+ for every thing else.


Why do you bother and waste money on copy protection? All you need is one person to rip it, and most of them are easy to break. If I want to transfer the music I bought and own to a mp3 player, I should be able to and I will do it. A lot of my music is converted to MP3 and put on my PC for my convenience. Before you go shouting about how illegal this is let me clear some stuff up, these are CD's PAID FOR, in other words I OWN, and I DO NOT give or offer the files out to anyone, and this is just like me copying a CD to a tape. Besides, a majority of my CDs are not from RIAA members anyway. Also intentionally adding errors and stuff to mess up computers to a CD is not really copy protection, no matter how much you would like it to be, all this is is a violation of the Redbook audio standard. I also doubt this is a DMCA violation (on the copy protected ones anyway) since it is not a real copy protection scheme, there is no copy protection built in Redbook the beginning, one is not breaking anything, this standard was before the DMCA, errors are not copy protection, from what I understand it is not illegal to transfer it to another format (ie cd to tape), and rarely does it actually prevent one from copying. Go make your own format if you want to prevent this stuff, but keep in mind that by now consumers probably will not buy or support anything you come up with. I can garentee that, for one thing it has been too long since you have introduced a new and consumer friendly format, second I doubt anyone will buy what ever format you propose, and third, the MP3 format has risen in popularity and that is what the consumers want. Unlike you, other industries have realized this and are providing the consumers what they want, reasonably affordable (and even cheap!) DVD players and CD players that also play MP3 have been showing up a lot lately. It wasn't long ago that Rio Blue MP3 CD player was made, goes to show how quickly these things get supported and affordable. Same thing can be said for other types of Mp3 Players, even I am I am thinking of getting one with a good amount of storage some time soon. These companies have been quick to adapt to the change and damand, something you seem to be incapable of doing.
---
Sheesh, there are about a million questions I would like to ask, but I think these cover some of my main ones, and I am sure someone else will bring more up.

[roger d]

1. How threatened are you by the massive music community being organized and interacting through message boards, e mail, P2P programs and other electronic means? This is the first time in history that the music consuming masses could communicate with each other, not through the industry.
2. When will the price of CD's come down?
3. It has been reported by industry insiders that the P2P war can not be won by the RIAA, what will it take to end the war?
4. What will it take for the RIAA to stop demonizing every music lover with a computer?
5. Do you really think that people will just stop using their computer for music? It is the best tool ever invented for "playing" with music.
6. Is there anything we can legally do with music on the computer (regardless of where the song came from)?
7. "we're mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore." Not the narrow cast radio, overpriced music, out of print catalog music, reformated and repackaged hits, digitally remastered hype, and carefully planned, caned and forcefed hits, P2P has evened the playing field. How do you feel about this?
8. How illegal is it to sing happy birthday in public? Are we a world of sinners?

[cauterizedcantelope]

Ignoring for a minute that not all music is copyrighted, consider that most new P2P networks are designed content neutral, in that anything may be shared and file extensions/formats are irrelevant. How do you intend to minimise damage to non musical file sharing while still protecting artists rights?

[mwalimu]

Okay, in response to numerous complaints from teh public about CD prices, you've given us the "bottom up" view on why CDs cost what they do and what that cost covers. Can you offer any perspective on the "top down" view? That is, given that some particular consumer has x amount of money to spend on various forms of entertainment this month and has various choices on where to spend it. Besides purchasing CDs, the consumer could go to a concert, see a movie in a theater, buy a DVD or a VHS casette, buy a game for his computer or game system, among numerous other choices. Why should this consumer, who doesn't care about what goes into the making of a CD, spend some of his money on CDs instead of some of the other options? How do you think the recording industry positions itself among all these other choices to make CDs compare favorably in the marketplace? (Aside: Why is it that prices on movies and computer games tend to drop more than 50% within about two years of their introduction, even on the most popular titles, while music prices seldom drop anywhere near that much and take much longer to do it?)

There is a widespread percpetion that where many of the other entertainment options are making an effort to offer consumers a good deal and finding ways to attract the consumers' money, the record companies are digging in their heels and insisting that CDs are worth the prices they're asking for them. The result is that many consumers are spending their money on other forms of entertainment and finding less expensive ways to get the music they want to hear. A majority of consumers have enough self-respect to be willing to pay what they consider a reasonable price for the music they like. When the record comanies offer music online at a price and in a manner that most consumers consider reasonable, these services will flourish. But that isn't going to happen as long as the record companies insist upon putting a price tag on their music that few consumers are willing to pay (and note that copy-protection and self-destruct mechanisms on music files reduce their perceived values significantly compared to unrestricted versions of these files). Once again, the record companies need to take the view from the top down (as described above) instead of the bottom up.
--
Joe McCauley, aka mwalimu

[PowerMan57two]

Do think people will still buy the CDs in the store, when most of them are being copy protected today? Because I know I wont buy a CD if it is copy protected. And if does not say the CD is copy writed on the CD somewhere, I will sue.

[Arby]

I wish I had more information. If I did, I'd ask you a question or three.

I'll ask you one anyway. Do you take anything from the recent, and ongoing, revelations in the major media (let alone the alt media) about coroporate corruption by the likes of Enron, Global Crossing etc, etc, etc? Interpret the question anyway you like and answer it accordingly, if you wish.

As for 'legal' criminal activity, like offshore banking and not paying taxes because the rules say you (to whom it may apply) don't have to (see www.howdarethey.org for example), Well, You aren't the one to be questioned, even though big campaign donations to those who make the rules would mean that in a way it's fair to ask you what you think.

And I'm not sure we need to question the government, and legislators, about anything. It's clear from it's actions that it's leaders are capitalists first and leaders second, which means that it's leaders aren't leaders in a positive sense. We don't all subscribe to the 'riches for the strongest', macho, Darwinian, neoliberal capitalism that is widening the gap between haves and have nots, that is ravaging the environment and causing ice shelves to break up and drift off, that is shifting 'all' of the political power from people and their elected reps to (with the complicity of traitorous politicians) unelected CEOs and other capitalist bodies like the IMF and World Bank, whose work takes place behind closed doors. The Trilateralist Commission identified a "crisis in democracy" (interference with the prerogatives of capitalist rulers who will decide for the whole world what is best for it) back in the 70s and have acted accordingly ever since. Bush, whose administration has already codified (for example) a secrecy rule that, for the first time, bars the presidential (public) libraries from scrutiny by the public, is not showing any signs that 'he' believes in democracy, by which I mean here 'fairness' and 'transparency'.

It's a free universe. But you will reap what you sow.

[AdamD1]

I do babble so these can of course be edited down if needed.

Since the Music industry at large already had means in place to track retail sales via Soundscan (also approved by the RIAA as a sales tracking format) why didn't the RIAA and the labels at large recognize that Napster could have been the same idea for Internet distribution? Here was a system where you had over 80 million members, all trading files, all of it tracked in a central location. You could have phased in a process where either a subscription model was applied or a per-download model was applied, and then sent invoices out to everyone. They don't pay: cut them off. How hard was that? It was already built and tested for you and instead of seeing it as a help to your industry you instantly saw it as a threat. I can tell you that I for one would have stayed a member. Very likely so would a large percentage of that 80 million.

Secondly: From a sheerly economic point of view (and I'm in Canada so bear with me on the dollar value) when I see a DVD for say "Moulin Rouge" for $34.99 and right beside it, on the same rack, the soundtrack CD for $19.99, which do you think is the better value? This is not hard for most consumers. I'm doubting anyone at the RIAA has actually spent any money on CD's lately but don't you think, progress being what it is, that something more like $8.99 is a fairer price for a CD these days? And don't give me that crap about how much it costs to promote and album, yadda yadda yadda. I worked in the music industry for 16 years. I know all about it. Believe me: at $8.99 you would sell astronomically more copies of any CD you can name. Why the hell are CD's still at a regular price fo $20.99 or more?

Finally: The RIAA was the organization which approved CD's back in the late 70's as the bonafide digital format for consumers. They also approved really useless consumer digital formats like Digital Compact Cassette (DCC) and MiniDisc (MD), though the latter is actually pretty useful. When it became known that CD's were in no way copy-protected, largely due to the fact that CD-Writing drives made it a cinch to copy CD's, why didn't the RIAA react then? Talking 1990 or so. That seems kinda silly to me.

There ya go.

ad

[papadoc]

My question:

Since it's quite apparent you're hoplessly addicted
to control and power,
as evidenced by these symptoms you show:

clouded judgement
inability to accept the fact that there is an alternative way
self centerd and selfish attitude
lying and deceiving
manipulation of those around you
denial

When are you going to check into a rehab,
and get help to open your eyes,
and quit living in the insanity your'e living in?

Down deep I'm sure you're a good person.
It's always a shame to see good people driven by their addictions,
rather than by their mind and their heart.

[Scyth77521]

I've written my questions. Hopefully these aren't too late to be included. Here they are:

The RIAA website states that our founding fathers “realized the fundamental fairness of granting control of the creative work to the author” and the RIAA run SoundByting.com site states that copyright is “not about money, but morality. It's the principle that an artist or author has a right to decide what happens to their work”. However, the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the right to secure exclusive rights to artists only in order to “promote the progress of science and the useful arts”, not in recognition of an innate right artists have to control the copying of their works. How do you respond to this apparent contradiction?

What determines the price of a CD? Specifically, what prevents CDs from being priced lower than they are currently, and, possibly more importantly, what prevents CDs from being priced higher than they are currently?

Most of us remain concerned about financially supporting the artists whose music we enjoy so that they may go on to produce more music. However, many have become concerned with whether CD purchases are the best way to do that. How do you respond to those who feel that buying concert tickets and t-shirts is a better way to support artists? Also, what would you say to those who have been negatively affected by the legal actions against various file-swapping services and, while they wish to support musicians, feel uneasy about supporting the labels that brought about those actions?

You are likely aware of a recent Ipsos-Reid poll which found that 57% of surveyed music downloaders said that the number of CD they were purchasing had remained the same and 24% percent said it had increased, while only 19% said it dropped (http://www.ipsos-reid.com/pdf/media/mr020612-1chrt.pdf). In light of these data, do you feel that the industry position that online piracy has a net negative affect on CD sales in justified?

[Caitlyn Marble]

I have a few things to ask about how pay services would benefit the consumer more than filesharing.

Would rare b-sides and live tracks be on pressplay? What if say, a band releases a super rare single in japan that totally flopped, but would eventually become a prized possesion for any hardcore fan because of the rare songs on it? Would they be on pressplay? Or perhaps you would rather us buy the rare japanese single and throw down 110$? Even so, the record company would be making a killing off something rather overpriced but probably took up the same production costs as the other singles. Thats assuming the CD is still in print. Now if it was out of print the record company would be making nada, unless they put it on pressplay. But if its a rarity, and the band has an average size fan base, you can bet that only about 25-45% of the fans on pressplay will be hardcore enough to d/l the songs, which sort of makes it not very cost effective in putting the song up on pressplay, which is different from, say, the hit song the band had, which would be d/l 98% among pressplay using fans.(I admit, this is pure speculation)

Now, would raritys be available for EVERY SINGLE ARTIST, or just the ones on the top 40? (because, you know, it would be more cost effective if they put the concerts and hits up for the popular multiplatinum artist up, rather than if they put concerts of a one hit wonder that somehow has a small, but very devoted following) If they just did the the entire popular artists catalog on pressplay, and only one album of the low profile indie band, it wouldn't be fair to the indie band, and that would tune a lot of people out of using the service if all they are offered is top 40 and "breakout" artists. Well, the same situation is happening on radio, mtv, etc, etc, etc, so if you were to have the same happen on pressplay, well....

For many artists thier entire catalog of music is up on p2p. Without the choice, what is the incentive for people to pay for what they can get for free? Sure people will buy what they like. That's pretty much been established, even with the use of p2p. If I find a band, I buy the CD. But I will not pay 45$ on CDNow.com for a reprint of a CD with an extra song on it (unless i've got the money, but alot of the time I don't and I'm not the only one) I'd feel alot better having a near cd quality rip of the song than having felt guilty blowing 50 bucks on something that wasnt' the bands greatest work. What they people want is choice, (inexpensive choice, so please lower the costs of CD's already!!!!!!!) and will they get what they want, especially from pressplay?

And what justifies the use of companies like Overpeer who flood p2p networks with fake files? What shows you that this will work? Possibly the only person this could acutally be hurting would be a user with a slow modem and not much patience. For the rest of us who have broadband and/or a patient dispostion, fake files will become a minor nuisance to be dealt with occasionally, and certainly less annoying than running out of printer ink or running out of hard disk space. It takes less than/about 5mins to d/l a song with broadband (and remember more and more people are ditching the 56k! This isn't 1998!) and if I get a dud then I delete it and start over. It will get to the point where the fake file user will be the one easily identified even though they change the user name and files occasionally, or everyday, whatever. It will just become a newbie trap. And thats before we totally incorporate file hashing, song scanning, etc. So, are you postitive that file file flooding will encourage users to move to pay services like pressplay and/or discontinue p2p usage?

P.S (How do you feel about the sharing of music videos over p2p? I have not heard this one addressed yet.)

~Thanks~

[Nickelpig]

According to RIAA.com, "the RIAA does not collect information on the specific costs that make up the price of a CD" How can you justify such high prices for CDs if you're neglecting to look at how much they cost? Your website offers a few suggestions, including marketting and touring. It also claims that less than 10% of all CD are profittable.

1> I am an avid concert goer, and I usually pay upwards of 40 dollars for a show. But I'm mainly into lesser known bands, and they tend to have cheaper concerts. How much are tickets to a Rolling Stone's concert as of July 18th? 50.00 - 350.00 US dollars. With money like that, why aren't tours self-supportive?

2> Marketting. If Brittany Spears is so great, why do you have to spend so many millions of dollars on advertising to get our attention? Her career should be able to stand up on it's own if she's so great.

3> Less than 10% of your product is profittable? Perhaps it's time to reasses your business model.

I can walk into Walmart on any given day and buy fifty burnable CDs for a little less than twenty dollars. Doing the math, that's 4000 minutes worth of music I know I want to listen to. For the same price, I can buy one Brittany Spears album, and get 40 minutes worth of music that may or may not live up to my expectations.

The industry spends billions of dollars on advertising and marketting for luke warm artists. And what does the public do? Goes underground to download and burn music they otherwise wouldn't have been exposed to. Why not adopt a business model that recognizes the consumer need for a variety of music at a lower cost, ie. through file-sharing?

[sebby]

Why does the RIAA insist on impeding on the progress of digital music, and especially those of independent artists, by legislating the shutdown of P2P services, requiring licensing fees for internet radio (some of which only play independent artists, btw), and generally treating your own consumers as criminals?

You insist that the RIAA is loosing sales because of MP3 sharing. Why does the RIAA itself not provide MP3s for sale to its consumers as a viable alternative? How can the RIAA claim lost sales because of MP3s when it doesn't offer them to the consumers itself? October 2000: "The RIAA isn't against online music; we're leading the way."..... this is 2002; no positive progress for the benefit of consumers has been made by the RIAA.


Through strong arm tactics, the RIAA has lobbied to have its outdated business model supported on consumers' backs; these consumers are being made to financially support the RIAA, even when their purchases do not directly relate to the RIAA itself. How long do you seriously think consumers are your to keep financing the RIAA?