The RIAA, Jammie Thomas & Radiohead

Last week The Recording Industry Association of America (or RIAA) won a "key victory" in its fight against copyrighted song sharing.
Jammie Thomas, a 30-yr-old Brainnard, Minnesota mother of 2, was ordered to pay $222,000 ($9,250 for each of the 24 songs focused on in the case) in damages to the six record companies named in the suit.
The suit claimed Thomas had broken copyright laws by sharing music on the peer-to-peer site Kazaa.

We were a little surprised as we read more about this decision. Could you imagine being in this woman's place? What really got our goat was this quote from Richard Gabriel, the lead attorney for the music companies.

"This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our recordings is not OK."

Let's read that again.

"This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our recordings is not OK."

First off; "our recordings"?
We're sorry Dick, we weren't aware that your clients actually MADE the music your suing over . . . Oh, wait. Oh, we see what you mean. THEY OWN the music. Sorry; our mistake. We just assumed that when you said "our recordings" that you meant that they were the actual recordings made by the people you represent and . . . yeah—our fault . . . we just . . . you know . . . I mean, you did say "our recordings".

So, Mr. Gabriel, you feel it's "OK" to go after single individuals and pursue fines that probably equal 5-8 years of income for said individual? What kind of message does that send?

We'll get to "sending messages" in just a minute.

Now, we're not saying that Jammie Thomas is innocent. We suppose it's possible that her network connection could have been hacked. But that's not really the point.

This is the point: THE RIAA IS WRONG.

We know we live in a capitalist environment, but the music industry has had it wrong for so long that they are blinded by their own greed. They don't even recognize it.

They don't care about the artists!
They don't care about the music!
And if there was any doubt—this case surely proves that they don't care about their customers!

The RIAA has been sticking it to us for decades.

First, the artist.
It used to be a symbiotic relationship. The artist got the promotion that came with the elusive record contract; the record company got the money that came with promoting their label roster. Along the way, it started becoming a numbers game for the labels. The more bands signed, the more money coming in. But that wasn't enough for them. The labels started self-imposed "requirements" for bands. If they wanted the contract, then they had to agree to the labels terms (which could include everything from "sharing" publishing rights, reaching sales quotas in the labels favor before the artist is paid—which if the album doesn't sell leaves the artist with debt for everything, i.e. no risk to the label, and a ton of other possible bull crap). The industry has created an environment of insanity where if a release doesn't go gold, it MUST be a crappy album. So, does that sound like a group of people more interested in helping the artist or in filling their overstuffed pockets?

Next, the music.
We can barely type this because thinking about it makes us ill. Have you listened to music today? Now, obviously, we're talking about the kind of music that the RIAA is so worried about protecting . . . you know—the money makers. With VERY FEW exceptions, it's an embarrassment. The industry isn't concerned with craft. It's all about what sells. And they've taken care of that too. They make the decision for you. "What do you mean?" you might be thinking. It's simple. They buy off the the radio stations. It doesn't help that nearly all commercial radio is owned by a handful of large corporate entities. It just makes it easier to keep it organized for the labels. If a radio station wants to be the first to receive the next "hot" release then they agree to play that title and other artists that the label says they will play. If a promoter or station wants a band to play their market on their next tour, then they better make sure that album sales are up or their city will be skipped. The label decides what is played thereby influencing a buyer's listening choice and habits.
Then there's television. If you've seen 10 minutes of any season of American Idol, it's easy to see what a majority of people consider "music". It's just ridiculous.

Lastly, the customer.
Whether it's the price of CDs, digital rights managed files on iTunes or taking people to court—the record industry hates their customers. If the record companies would have dropped the price of CDs 15 years ago, they could have bypassed, or at least stalled, the peer-to-peer music sharing that has put them in panic mode. People started sharing music online because the technology was available to make it happen and because people were tired of paying $16.99 (before tax) for a CD from the Sam Goody at their local mall (see, The Musicland Group files for chapter 11 for a look at your future, RIAA). CD prices are grossly inflated. There is no reason, other than greed, to sell a top 100 CD for more than $10. CDs should be priced in the $5-$7 range overall. We understand that there are soft costs: recording, promoting, management, design and operational fees. However, add those to the hard costs of several grams of polycarbonate plastic and paper and they're still covering everything at $5 a pop.
Then, there's iTunes. A great idea from Apple that is totally stymied by the record companies. You get to preview music and then buy it from the comfort of your computer! It sounded great until you found out that the record companies have required Apple to "lock" the file to certain restricted use. You couldn't just copy the file from your desktop to your laptop. You could only burn that file a certain number of times. And, if you were on a network, you could "share" your playlist with your co-workers, but they couldn't listen to those files unless you "authorized" their computer as well. Yeah, that sounds like something we want to buy.

And now they want to take individual people to court.

Well, things are about to change.

Tomorrow is October 10, 2007. This is the day that Radiohead, one of the biggest names in music today, is releasing In Rainbows, their 7th album. The thing that makes this release different from their past multi-platinum albums is that they are releasing it without a label. That's right—this album is completely funded by the band.

But wait, there's more!

It's also only available through their own website. That's right, no iTunes or any RIAA controlled entity is involved.

But wait! That's not all!

Wait for it . . . wait for it . . .

"How much is this album?"
YOU, THE CUSTOMER, DECIDE.
How unbelievable is that?!
You read that correctly. You simply go to the site, put in the amount that you WANT to pay and the album is then available to you via digital download. If you choose, you can also buy the "DiscBox" set that includes another disc, vinyl versions of the album, and some other items that will be available in December but it does include the digital download now.


So, here is our proposal.

It didn't take long for genuine music fans to put together a donation site for Jammie Thomas. As of writing this, she's gotten over 4K in just over 3 days. Go to her site and give her a buck or two to help her appeal or pay for the fine that has been disgustingly imposed on her.
Come on—you know you've downloaded a song before without paying for it. If everyone who has done the same gives her a dollar, she'll have plenty to pay for her own case and help the next poor sucker out there that's on the RIAA's list.

Next, go to this site and buy the new Radiohead. Not only is it a great deal, but all the money is going where it belongs: to the artists.

You remember how the RIAA's head lawyer talked about "messages"? How's this for a message—

To the Collective RIAA,
When all of your "big named" artists that you've created and supported start to realize that they can take the money they got from you, and release their next CD on their own—you no longer will serve a purpose or have relevance in the future of music.

That sounds "OK" to us.