Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

RIAA Needs to Be Disbanded, Says Moby ^ | 20 June 2009 | Andre "DVDBack23" Yoskowitz

Posted on 06/20/2009 4:29:04 PM PDT by nickcarraway

Following the recent jury decision against alleged file sharer Jammie Thomas, in which the woman was fined $80,000 USD for each of the 24 songs she shared via P2P, the popular artist Moby has written a blog entry claiming the RIAA "should be disbanded" for using the wrong techniques against people who are just trying to listen to music.

His full post:

"The riaa have sued Jammie Thomas-Rasset of minnesota for $2,000,000 for illegally downloading music.

argh. what utter nonsense. this is how the record companies want to protect themselves? suing suburban moms for listening to music? charging $80,000 per song?

punishing people for listening to music is exactly the wrong way to protect the music business. maybe the record companies have adopted the 'it's better to be feared than respected' approach to dealing with music fans. i don't know, but 'it's better to be feared than respected' doesn't seem like such a sustainable business model when it comes to consumer choice. how about a new model of 'it's better to be loved for helping artists make good records and giving consumers great records at reasonable prices'?

i'm so sorry that any music fan anywhere is ever made to feel bad for making the effort to listen to music.

the riaa needs to be disbanded."

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Computers/Internet; Music/Entertainment
KEYWORDS: music; piracy; riaa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: CharlesWayneCT
And you think the artist that wrote the music, and the artists that play the music, and the company that produced the music and marketed the music and packaged it for sale, should NOT get "their cut" of the money from the music?

I don't think anybody thinks that artists shouldn't be able to profit from their efforts, or that the other entities involved in the process shouldn't be able to profit from their efforts. See, for example, iTunes.

The broader point Moby and others are making is that the strategy of the RIAA does not seem at this point to be a good strategy, marketing wise, for the musicians. The million dollar judgments will be uncollectible, and will engender anger and ill will among the musician's customers.

Excessive punitive judgments also are a bad concept in general. Teaching the public that the way to "get back" at someone involved with an injustice is to have an extremely large punitive judgment undercuts our entire judicial system. It may seem amusing when some suburban housewife gets hit with a judgment for $80,000 per illegal copy since she can't pay it, but it won't be so amusing when another jury decides that some corporation has to pay $80,000 per illegal copy of some web content or applet that everybody who worked there downloaded as they did their jobs. In that case the defendant will, from the point of view of the jurors, have gotten what they deserved - just like the housewife. The only difference is that the corporation will either have to fork over 10 or 20 million dollars, or head for Chapter 11. And a lot of people may lose their jobs.

I've certainly seen plenty of conservatives speak out against excessive jury verdicts in, say, medical malpractice cases. By the standards of this case those malpractice awards are stingy by a factor of 1000 or more.

21 posted on 06/20/2009 6:07:51 PM PDT by freeandfreezing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
I don’t know that I’ve ever heard a Moby tune, but I am now a big fan. I may buy a couple of his CD’s to use for stocking stuffers if it’s the kind of music my grand kids would like.

I'd advise against it until you (and grand kids) have gone to to sample some of Moby's music. I doubt they'll like his music.

He's a big-time liberal, hippie too. Read the last two paragrpahs here.

Moby is a little turd but I do agree with him on this.

Here's a picture of him.

22 posted on 06/20/2009 6:10:52 PM PDT by MotleyGirl70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Good point. If I’m a record company executive, I’m thinking about becoming an acts manager. Using the acts music to sell concert tickets, merchandise.

23 posted on 06/20/2009 6:13:46 PM PDT by mainerforglobalwarming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MotleyGirl70
Just looking at that guy I am sure a 3D artist could dispense with the actual musician and replace him with a lifelike puppet using Blender or Maya (or any of their derivatives).

Fur Shur once you'd rendered the 3D images into a holographic image for stage production you could even hold very large discount priced "live concerts" that'd be packed!

24 posted on 06/20/2009 6:19:36 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Moby is a leftist twat, and an enemy of just about everything else we stand for on this forum.

25 posted on 06/20/2009 6:21:11 PM PDT by JacksonCalhoun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hegemony Cricket

Check out the animated "Napster Bad" videos on You Tube featuring Lars and James.

26 posted on 06/20/2009 6:30:15 PM PDT by MotleyGirl70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mainerforglobalwarming
Let me see if I have your logic.

The record companies have been ripping off the recording artists for years so let's go ahead and join in to rip off the recording artists while we are simultaneously ripping off the record companies who have been ripping off all of us for years.

If you don't pay for the music you get off the Internet, nobody gets paid for their creative work. That is not a positive development for creative people. That record companies have been making a fortune off music for years is beside the point. They have been making a fortune off the music because people were buying the products.

I have been writing and recording songs for years. It costs good money to make master recordings and people think they have a right to a free copy of that valuable investment just because some smart guys came up with a way to steal the music quickly and conveniently off the Internet.

Copyrights are valuable and 40% of the GDP of the United States is derived from intellectual property. If it's OK to steal copyrighted material, why not steal patents and trademarks?

Aren't creative people here to serve us, the lazy who can't create a damn thing but demand a right to freely own anything those creative people come up with?

Why are these entertainment companies standing in the way of freeloaders like us who just want to grab some free original music with a couple of mouse clicks?

The money we won't spend on downloading music is more important to us than the money collected by record companies. Right?

We consumers have the moral high ground on this because we should not have to pay for entertainment from greedy entertainment companies who already have plenty of money. We need to keep our money to buy important things like beer and cigarettes.

Of course, our refusing to part with our money to buy music gives us moral superiority over the dirty rotten scoundrels who sell music....doesn't it?

27 posted on 06/20/2009 6:38:28 PM PDT by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

Moby? Never heard of him. Moby Grape maybe.

28 posted on 06/20/2009 6:40:25 PM PDT by Inyo-Mono (Had God not driven man from the Garden of Eden the Sierra Club surely would have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Inyo-Mono

I like his Spirit of God Hovering Over the Face of the Deep.

29 posted on 06/20/2009 6:58:15 PM PDT by AceMineral (Offically unapproved of since 1973)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Nothing the RIAA does prevents that. Any performer or artist can simply NOT register their work with RIAA, and then work out their own deals for distribution and payment.

30 posted on 06/20/2009 7:13:14 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: freeandfreezing

I agree with that narrow point, that these awards don’t help the cause.

31 posted on 06/20/2009 7:14:17 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Baynative
I don’t know that I’ve ever heard a Moby tune,

You probably have, in a waiting room or on a commercial. It's just computer-generated ambient sounding elevator music. He's OK for background noise, but nothing memorable.
32 posted on 06/20/2009 7:57:36 PM PDT by Welsh Rabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NoControllingLegalAuthority
You have a point but here's another side from a life long buyer of music starting as a kid with 45's and 33's. BTW I have every record, album, most cassettes, and all CD's I ever purchased. I download legally meaning I go to Walmart dot com. Amazon got to where their downloads didn't work half the time. Anyway I download music which is lower quality till I can purchase usually meaning find a CD of usually one or two songs in 12 I wanted on the CD.

The artist and all involved have gotten my money several times over. As for sharing? For profit NO. But for a family member wanting say one song I bought and it's for their private usage? Yes. Like I said just about all the music I have I've paid for several times in my life due to format and technology changes. Actually some mudic I have purchased several copies of in the same format. Now I'm converting all of it to CD's when I can find them that is. This way I can also place it on a back up hard drive I keep elsewhere besides my home. In event of fire or theft I still have the music. LIke I said some can't be replaced. Sad to say I have some vinyl gems I'll likely never hear on CD.

I guess my point is this most persons who are serious listeners in the long run won't settle long for an online copy when they can find a CD. A download to many is simply a better than nothing deal till they can find the product. I usually burn CD's for playing in the vehicle. I refuse to risk my investment leaving store bought originals there. My guess is RIAA thinks I have no right to do this either. I can see and understand RIAA going after for profit bootlegers. But there is a such thing as overkill and cutting ones nose off to spite their face.

33 posted on 06/20/2009 10:02:27 PM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgement? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NoControllingLegalAuthority

I don’t download music period. Music today sucks to begin with, forgot about violating the law. Who would want to download today’s crappy stuff? My point is that the record companies are hypocrites. When Sony sues itself for manufacturing audio cassettes that were used to tape albums and songs for years, then maybe they’ll have the moral right to go after those that illegally download material. As an artist how much money have you lost from folks taping your music? The record companies sure as heck weren’t protecting you.

34 posted on 06/21/2009 3:45:49 AM PDT by mainerforglobalwarming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: driftdiver
The music industry is shocked, shocked that people who listen to lyrics glorifying criminality would stoop so low as to illegally download their wares.
36 posted on 06/24/2009 6:22:54 AM PDT by steve-b (Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson