Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Media Music Your Rights Online

Could the RIAA Just Disappear? 114

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the don't-hold-your-breath dept.
BlueMerle writes "Ars Technica is running a story about how EMI is disappointed with RIAA and ultimately they (RIAA) may disappear. 'Is the RIAA as we know it about to disappear? As rumors continue to swirl that EMI will pull its funding from music trade groups like the RIAA and IFPI, an IFPI spokesman tells Ars that the group is in the middle of a major internal review of its operations.'" I wouldn't bet the farm just yet.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Could the RIAA Just Disappear?

Comments Filter:
  • Wow, could a trade association pay the ultimate price for engaging in a totally counterproductive strategy that hurt the industry? Could the NFIB be next?
    • Re:is it possible? (Score:5, Informative)

      by squiggleslash (241428) on Friday January 11, 2008 @05:20PM (#22005294) Homepage Journal

      I hate to point this out, but the lawsuits themselves have generally had the names of the labels on them, not the RIAA. The RIAA is the average Slashdotter's shorthand for "the music industry" (well, kind of shorthand, seriously many of them can't tell the difference.)

      The article is about the trade association. The lawsuits are from the industry. The RIAA (the trade association) has had a hand in organizing the lawsuits but ultimately the lawsuits themselves have been pushed by the publishers themselves. The RIAA doesn't even have standing.

      So if anyone's reading this as "The RIAA is being punished for all the lawsuits!! No more lawsuits!!!", then, well, they're wrong. The RIAA's primary purpose is lobbying, and I guess the lobbying it does just isn't worth the money being spent on them.

      • Good Riiadance, Byatches...

        But, as for what gets posted, damn it seems awfully cliquish. As in someone can be first submitting, but someone else gets the goods just by posting a different URL and coming up with a slash-baiting jingle.

        Maybe to combat this, Slash should rotate submitters and limit them to x-number per month or quarter and put of a "compliance" graph showing that the same, tired old names are sidelined for a while. Well, unless worse submissions run for a while...
      • "I hate to point this out, but the lawsuits themselves have generally had the names of the labels on them, not the RIAA."

        Isn't it the RIAA who actually represents the labels in court? That's the impression I've gotten.
        • by edwdig (47888) on Friday January 11, 2008 @06:23PM (#22006416)
          Isn't it the RIAA who actually represents the labels in court? That's the impression I've gotten.

          I believe the RIAA represents them collectively in major things, while on the little things its the individual members.

          Examples:

          RIAA vs XM / Sirius / MP3.com / Random MP3 Player maker

          Sony vs 90 Year Old Woman

          Warner vs Mountain Hermit

          EMI vs 10 year old girl
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by jimbojw (1010949)
        • Some kid: Do not try and attack the RIAA, that's impossible. Instead, only try and realize the truth.
        • Slashdotter: What truth?
        • Some kid: There is no RIAA.
      • by wiredlogic (135348) on Friday January 11, 2008 @07:52PM (#22007746)
        The RIAA's primary purpose is lobbying, and I guess the lobbying it does just isn't worth the money being spent on them.

        Huh, and here I was thinking the RIAA was supposed to be a standards body promulgating a common equalization curve for grooved recordings. Will wonders never cease.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Technician (215283)
          Huh, and here I was thinking the RIAA was supposed to be a standards body promulgating a common equalization curve for grooved recordings.

          They are. They are also the ones who forgot to tell the labels that the Compact Disc is a standard format used to sell music. Now we have incompatible and dangerous shiny plastic round things that no longer follow the standard that works and is safe. Visit any CD section and look for the Compact Disc logo on any of them. The RIAA fell down on this one.
      • by smurgy (1126401)
        Agreed, but it still possibly signals a distancing move on the part of the labels from the collection of strategies they've been following with regard to DRM - and when read in conjunction with such other signs [slashdot.org] suggests a definite move rather than a bit of "oh it wasn't us being so mean to the consumers" rhetoric.

        The purpose of RIAA lobbying is to create a legislative environment in which a body of pro-DRM case law can develop, therefore removing that lobbying is a meaningful act within the context in whic
    • Re:is it possible? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by badasscat (563442) <basscadet75.yahoo@com> on Friday January 11, 2008 @05:21PM (#22005300)
      Did anyone here - including the submitter - bother reading beyond the first paragraph of the article?

      This is not about the RIAA disappearing as in "going away". This is about the RIAA and IFPI merging operations. This would probably actually make things worse, because the combined agency would be larger, would have jurisdiction over more than just the United States, and would continue doing its current work.

      It's about finding ways of consolidating operations. And like a company that does this successfully, the resulting agency could actually end up stronger than the RIAA as it currently exists.
      • by ePhil_One (634771) on Friday January 11, 2008 @05:35PM (#22005546) Journal
        Did anyone here - including the submitter - bother reading beyond the first paragraph of the article?

        You must be new here...

        It had to be said, I'm so sorry...

      • Re:is it possible? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11, 2008 @05:50PM (#22005802)
        Well, having read the entire article and the linked articles I respectfully disagree that this is about the RIAA and IFPI merging. The merger is really beside the point and doesn't seem to be EMI's idea or goal.

        The RIAA is effectively an (effective) oligopoly and in that sense it is disappearing. EMI, having new owners, being the first of these labels to sell their tracks without DRM, and now questioning the value of the RIAA and IFPI clearly seems to realize that this oligopoly as it stands is no longer of benefit to them.

        That's not to say that a restructured RIAA/IFPI won't become an effective oligopoly as well or that this is what the submitter was addressing, but this very well could mean the RIAA is 'going away' and it is a clear indication that the RIAA in its current (i.e. anti-consumer) form is going away.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by clang_jangle (975789)

          That's not to say that a restructured RIAA/IFPI won't become an effective oligopoly as well or that this is what the submitter was addressing, but this very well could mean the RIAA is 'going away' and it is a clear indication that the RIAA in its current (i.e. anti-consumer) form is going away.

          Sure, now that Big Media has pretty much got the developed world's governments in their pocket. The real story here is that soon the Big Media/Big Pharma candidate will be replacing our Big Oil president, so the

      • by kabocox (199019)
        This is not about the RIAA disappearing as in "going away". This is about the RIAA and IFPI merging operations. This would probably actually make things worse, because the combined agency would be larger, would have jurisdiction over more than just the United States, and would continue doing its current work.

        Well, from the Record Industry's point of view "disappearing" or "renaming" RIAA to something else or merging it with any other org so their name gets changed but mission is basically the same would be
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by init100 (915886)

        the combined agency would ... have jurisdiction over more than just the United States

        Neither the RIAA nor the IFPI has any jurisdiction anywhere, since they are not parts of the justice system (police and courts).

  • by pwnies (1034518) * <j@jjcm.org> on Friday January 11, 2008 @05:07PM (#22005052) Homepage Journal
    Your antics make me laugh! Who else could pull off an attempt to sue someone for downloading files who doesn't have a computer?!
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      First they came for the 10 year old girls, and I laughed because they had no concept of sharing being wrong

      Then they came for the grandmas, and I laughed because they're all technophobic

      Then they came for the people without computers, and I laughed because they couldn't possibly be guilty

      Then they came for me, and no-one was left to laugh at me.

      Sweet. I got the last laugh.
  • We all know they will eventually disappear. The question is: Will anyone care?

    Hint: NO!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by owlnation (858981)
      I care if they disappear. I don't want them to disappear. I want them to be destroyed spectacularly. I want their grandchildren to remember their shame.

      Disappearing is not nearly painful enough.
  • We could only dream this would happen. Thank god someone in the industry is realizing that this go for the throat, fuck the consumer attitude of the RIAA is just driving business away.
  • Bill Hicks' God (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by airos4 (82561) *
    "Please, God... reach down and pinch my butt cheeks!" EIGHT YEARS OF PRAYER. Does everyone who got extorted get their cash back? Can they sue for it?
  • RIAA ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nossie (753694) <`IanHarvie' `at' `4Development.Net'> on Friday January 11, 2008 @05:09PM (#22005090)
    The way things are going in the UK we wont need the equivalent of the RIAA to do the music industries dirty work... we'll have the government.

    So is this really that big a story? or are they just reallocating their resources?
  • Answer: Yes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by imstanny (722685) on Friday January 11, 2008 @05:14PM (#22005188)
    With Sony BMG deal, Amazon will offer unlocked MP3s from all major labels.


    RIAA days are numbered.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by stewbacca (1033764)
      There is speculation that Apple, Inc. will be announcing the same as well. As soon as DRM goes away on iTunes, DRM will go away forever (for music tracks at least).
      • by miruku (642921)
        *dances with joy*

        then we need the push for selling music and other audio in ogg and flac formats! lets not loose the momentum on this one.
    • The one has little to do with the other. Just because they'll give you files without DRM doesn't mean they won't sue your ass if you put those MP3s in a shared folder on Kazaa.
  • by idontgno (624372) on Friday January 11, 2008 @05:16PM (#22005218) Journal
    If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    • So ... what, exactly? It'll show up as a glowing blue Force ghost and say "I told you it would all work out" every so often?

      I'm okay with that.
  • If the RIAA disappeared, who could counter-suits be filed against? Is it conceivable that as the legal tide turned, EMI could pull the plug in an attempt to evade responsibility?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sm62704 (957197)
      If the RIAA disappeared, who could counter-suits be filed against?

      The RIAA isn't filing lawsuits, their members are. If EMI sues you, then you countersue EMI.

      But countersuing Sony would be lots more fun.
      • by notgm (1069012)
        you're right, i hadn't realized that at first. the RIAA does engage in some questionable tactics, however, like the cease and desist/settlement/'who's IP is this?' letters - any chance that they could be named as parties in a counter-suit, or in some other nasty legal activities?
      • The individual labels are listed as the plaintiffs in the lawsuits. However, they are represented in court by the RIAA.
  • Yes. Here's Proof: (Score:3, Informative)

    by imstanny (722685) on Friday January 11, 2008 @05:17PM (#22005226)
    http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i84e2bdeac2bc80912b76d9dd4d565fb6 [billboard.biz]

    With Sony BMG deal, Amazon will offer unlocked MP3s from all major labels. RIAA days are numbered...

  • by prelelat (201821) on Friday January 11, 2008 @05:22PM (#22005308)
    I wouldn't bet the farm that the RIAA will disappear they are too important to the music industry, as they should be. I think that the RIAA has gotten side tracked on the real issues of music piracy and needs to stop attacking the consumers. It is the large pirates the ones that are actually making fake discs and selling them for a profit that need to be stopped, as they should. Turning off large sites that share music illegally should also be targeted. Music shouldn't be free or you wouldn't have an industry, but on that same note you don't alienate your consumers by making them feel like criminals(even if they just rip their CD to their MP3 player).

    I think what is really important is that their is an internal review going on, maybe a large shakeup will ensue and we can hope to get everything back to the way it should be. Protecting users from fake copies of albums, and protecting musicians from mass pirating. Your always going to have an underground community, you're just going to have to make sure your product is superior and stop the major counterfeiters.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ghyd (981064)
      This Economist article http://economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10498664 [economist.com] paints an even bleaker future for the recording industry. So the last part of your post seems the most probable.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by clang_jangle (975789)

      Music shouldn't be free or you wouldn't have an industry...


      Yes, and lord knows capitalism is the only way one can make a living and besides it's your god-given right.

      Oy vey - deprogrammers needed!
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by iminplaya (723125)
      Music shouldn't be free or you wouldn't have an industry...

      Music doesn't need an industry to survive, or even thrive. Distribution is no longer an issue, except to those who wish to control it. Production will always be profitable, if enough people like what you produce.
    • by rtb61 (674572)
      Perhaps the RIAA become more about making money for the RIAA, it's executives and it's lawyers and the RIAA members and the members customers where all just targets to squeezed for as much money as possible.

      It is obvious that the RIAA has caused a considerable amount of harm to the image of the recording industry, as well as affiliated organisations like the MPAA and the motion picture industry.

      The most damaging thing of all, it has brought a new 'public' focus on the whole principle of copyright, on ho

    • Music shouldn't be free or you wouldn't have an industry

      Ask yourself. Should we be basing an industry on culture and expression? Shouldn't free access to culture and society be the right of every living being?
  • Dentists (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by stewbacca (1033764)
    I'm always leery of my dentist, because he provides me with lots of advice on how to make my dental hygiene better. This, in turn, results in less visits from me, and ultimately less money for him. Thankfully, EMI is the "dentist" of the recording industry. The world needs more dentists.
  • Sorry, I RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by liak12345 (967676) on Friday January 11, 2008 @05:25PM (#22005352)

    If that happens, the "RIAA" might disappear even as its work continues.
    Same shit. Different name.
    • Like Napster?

      "The customers took down the Central Lawsuit Server, so they went distributed. Now you have no idea how many fragments of the former RIAA there are, and you can never be sure you've got them all."

  • No... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anita Coney (648748) on Friday January 11, 2008 @05:25PM (#22005356) Homepage
    The music industry needs a lobby group to bribe the government to stamp out evils such as net and satellite radio.
  • by compumike (454538) on Friday January 11, 2008 @05:25PM (#22005358) Homepage
    So EMI will no longer farm out its enforcement duties to the RIAA. That's the entire point of the article. There's nothing to imply that they won't continue to protect their intellectual property. Just don't get all excited, now.

    There's a few things that still have to change:
    1) Copyright should be reduced in duration.
    2) The penalties must be adjusted to be reasonable.
    3) People must come to respect the rights of property holders, not violate them blindly. Copyright has lots of negative impliciations when well beyond the term of commercial viability, but I believe that copyright can be adjusted to accomodate both that and the property rights of the creator.
    4) Slashdot-crowd must abandon the notion that "not-for-profit" redistribution of someone else's work should be permitted without permission of the rights holder.

    --
    Our microcontroller kit. Your code. Instructional guide and free videos. [nerdkits.com]
    • by dada21 (163177) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Friday January 11, 2008 @05:45PM (#22005716) Homepage Journal
      Insightful comment, but a lot of what you propose will have no effect:

      1) Copyright should be reduced in duration.

      Copyright in the digital age is dead and quite useless. As laborers realize that their real income comes from billing for labor to-be-done, rather than billing for labor already-done, copyright will quickly dissolve to being useless. Artists are laborers, and those who realize that their future incomes will be derived from that which can't be easily duplicated by others will be the ones who profit and stay in business. Performing live is something that others can't easily mimic. Supply and demand, friends. There's a near limitless supply of digital content, so the price falls to near zero. There's a VERY finite supply of the time a specific artist can perform, so their income will come from selling that time to fans (i.e., live concerts or performances). Yes, this creates a real dilemma for writers, but I believe that MOST readers will prefer the artist's accepted printed book rather than the knock-off.

      2) The penalties must be adjusted to be reasonable.

      The penalties for being caught violating copyright are the least important factor in the situation. The time, and money, spent fighting a legal battle against an organization with a scale of income many MANY times higher than the defendant are the real costs. If you are found guilty of a civil violation, you declare bankruptcy and the judgment goes away. You don't get back the years, and tens of thousands of dollars, that you lost fighting to save your name. Reducing penalties will likely not fix this problem.

      3) People must come to respect the rights of property holders, not violate them blindly.

      OK, I won't steal the physical CD you have. The minute that I use my labor to duplicate something else, that product is mine. If I see you made a neat toilet, and I spend my hours buying porcelain, laying it into a form, and making my own toilet, you should have little control over how I move my arms, and use my mind, to duplicate the product that I want. Copyright, and other intellectual property restrictions, do little to promote new content or creations. The biggest wall for content creators is distribution, not creation. Millions, even billions of people create content, but only a few are able to distribute it.

      I respect the rights of PHYSICAL property holders, but I see no reason why they should control how I think or use my body and tools.

      4) Slashdot-crowd must abandon the notion that "not-for-profit" redistribution of someone else's work should be permitted without permission of the rights holder.

      Actually, the "not-for-profit" redistribution and re-creation of another person's original thoughts is a positive for the original creator, as it is a free form of marketing and advertising for them. Artists who tour regularly should LOVE people duplicating their digital works to friends and family and co-workers. Studio time is akin to the time (and money) one spends going to college or getting another education. It is what you DO with that education (i.e. studio time) as a long term labor that dictates how you get paid for your education.

      Just because a guy spent 4 years in college doesn't mean I should pay him $50,000 a year. Just because a band spent 4 years working on an album doesn't mean that their recorded work is worth a single penny to me. The laws of supply and demand, while restricted by ridiculous IP laws, will still win out in the long run.

      The RIAA is worthless, and many bands that I work with and am friends with realize that already. The only bands who care are the ones who sold their souls to their management companies in exchange for access to the monopolized distribution sectors (radio, TV, large distro magazines) which are already going the way of the do-do. Radio, TV and large distro mags will soon be worthless in the next digital era.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Microlith (54737)

        1

        The cost for most works today is not in the duplication but in the production. What you describe essentially dooms any artform that can't be performed live, which is a huge number versus the handful that can. It affects more than just writers, it affects anyone whose works can be or are digital in nature.

        And no, most people will go for the cheapest version available which will always be the knockoff, be it physical or digital, because they have only the cost of duplication (which is trivial or non-existent

      • by peektwice (726616)
        IMHO, an album that takes 4 years is probably going to be worth paying for. The shit-crop of "music" that the RIAA members are currently pumping out at a rate of two or more per year per "artist" is not. Your point still holds, but I wanted to do that "the kids these days don't know good music" think.
        • The problem is that what you are decrying is what, by and large, is being pirated. It's not worth paying for, but it's worth enough to some people to expend time and effort downloading it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Damon Tog (245418) *

        "Supply and demand, friends. There's a near limitless supply of digital content, so the price falls to near zero."

        This does not mean that music should be free, it means that today's "a la carte" method of selling music is obsolete.

        A rough comparision would be to the cable industry. When you subscribe to cable, you are not forced to pay for each television show that you watch, you simply pay a flat rate and watch as much as you want. This is how recorded music must now be "sold."

        Musicians and labels should license their recordings to cell phone companies and ISPs for a flat rate and allow people to download as much as

      • OK, I won't steal the physical CD you have. The minute that I use my labor to duplicate something else, that product is mine. If I see you made a neat toilet, and I spend my hours buying porcelain, laying it into a form, and making my own toilet, you should have little control over how I move my arms, and use my mind, to duplicate the product that I want. Copyright, and other intellectual property restrictions, do little to promote new content or creations. The biggest wall for content creators is distribution, not creation. Millions, even billions of people create content, but only a few are able to distribute it.

        And you're welcome to write your own songs, books, or even produce your own movies.

        Look, if you build your own toilet, you're replicating a template. If you digitally copy a song, film, novel, whatever, you're not copying a design, you're appropriating a unique expression of it. It's not like hand-crafting your own version of an existing product at all, which is why I wish people participating in this sort of debate would give up trying to draw analogies to physical products.

      • There's a VERY finite supply of the time a specific artist can perform, so their income will come from selling that time to fans (i.e., live concerts or performances). Yes, this creates a real dilemma for writers, but I believe that MOST readers will prefer the artist's accepted printed book rather than the knock-off.

        Yep, sometimes it's too finite. Some music (certain electronic music, for example) can't be produced live. Prints of a painting can be easily and professionally reproduced. Writers, as you said

      • by Rich0 (548339)
        As others have pointed out, while I think that a lot of reforms are needed I don't think you can just get rid of copyright.

        Sure, live performances will always make money for certain kinds of artists. However, the amount of money that can be spent on production will be greatly limited.

        How would you handle movies? Anything that takes more than a camcorder and maybe 100 hours on a PC editing to produce would never recoup its costs under your proposed system. You might argue that $100M movies aren't worth th
    • by ProteusQ (665382)

      4) Slashdot-crowd must abandon the notion that "not-for-profit" redistribution of someone else's work should be permitted without permission of the rights holder.
      Do you make any distinction between sharing between friends and anonymous P2P? If so, what if anything needs to change in regards to libraries, especially libraries with digital content?
    • So EMI will no longer farm out its enforcement duties to the RIAA.

      So if you countersue, your suit will actually be applied to the person who brought the suit in the first place and not their disposable puppet.

      This is why mob bosses contract hits out - makes it harder for the law to find them. What we have here is a mob boss who is unhappy with his hitman and is going to do his own hits. Should make it easier for the law to reach the responsible party.

      It would be a layer off the onion at least, whic

    • Not entirely, it seems. The impression I had from the article was that the RIAA would cease to exist as the RIAA, per se. What we would end up with is an new organization built from the ashes of older organizations, very probably employing many of the same people and tactics. Music will not be free then either and we will have a whole new acronym to hate.
  • Yes (Score:2, Insightful)

    If by "disappear" you mean disband, only to have the exact same people start up another, less publicly hated, organization.

    My only real hope is that they decide to be less evil in their new incarnation.
  • *POOF*

    They're gone...

    In twenty years, the RIAA is going to be a spook story that criminals tell their kids at night. "Rat on your pop, and the RIAA is going to come and serve you with a lawsuit!"
  • they are already irrelevant. in an era of cassette tapes and cds, yes, the riaa was relevant. the copyrigh skirting players were few, and they were slow. but their mission statement in an era of point and click distribution is impossible to fulfill, where no one plays by the rules, and the rules themselves are defunct and antiquated

    so the only question about their disappearance is will it be gradual, as those who fund them slowly wither away themselves, or will it be quick and dramatic, as those who fund th
  • by Dmala (752610) on Friday January 11, 2008 @05:52PM (#22005834)
    I really think the record labels should go away along with the RIAA. They were a necessary evil when recording, distribution, marketing had huge upfront costs. Technological advancements have made professional recording orders of magnitude cheaper, and the Internet has done the same for distribution and marketing.

    Except for the very top tier, artists make very little from record sales. Why bother? Just give the music away for free and make money the way artists have for a long time: from live performances and merchandising. Consumers will be happy, artists will do as well as or better than they ever have, and all of this foolishness will go away. A bunch of greedy record execs will be looking for work, but will anyone care?
  • If it did, I'd piss on it!
  • by earlymon (1116185) on Friday January 11, 2008 @06:11PM (#22006206) Homepage Journal
    Ok, let me try to add this up. As I recall, internet radio was threatened by the bully-arm of the RIAA, SoundExchange, forcing royalty payments even for non-RIAA affiliated artists (or however the legally correct way to express that, if there is one). Remember this one, gang? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/29/0335224 [slashdot.org]

    So, how does this add up? Does EMI pulling away from RIAA defang SoundExchange thereby seriously reducing the threat to internet radio? Or in the ironic comedy of the new century, does the RIAA, with sounds of a death rattle (added for drama, I'm shameless), turn around and unleash SoundExchange on EMI and bring suit under the same grounds as the attack on internet radio?

  • by HermMunster (972336) on Friday January 11, 2008 @06:43PM (#22006778)
    I don't purchase music any more due to the RIAA suing people, period! If they disappear and we can get past this idea that everyone is a thief, then maybe, just maybe, I'd buy music again.
  • I'm not holding my breath on this one and if I did I'll look like a Smurf. The RIAA will re-incarnate into another form so that the RIAA as is is now will become something else doing something similar under a different name like ASS (Association of Seventy-Eight Service).
  • Any new RIAA could simply go back to what it was before they became litigation central: A place that spent its money promoting music in general and handing out those gold records, compiling statistics, etc.
  • And yet... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gewalt (1200451) on Friday January 11, 2008 @08:12PM (#22008036)

    And yet... EMI is still the only label offering content in iTunes+. That's the DRM free side of iTunes, btw.

    So it doesn't look like RIAA is going to go away, its just likely to lose 25% of its membership body. Well, even less than that, since EMI doesn't actually possess 25% market share.

    EMI has been going against its brethren for a while now. Let us hope they don't fail...

  • I'm not one bit surprised. Apparently EMI is realising that the RIAA's failing to organise the music industry, now that file sharing is more popular than ever. RIAA is simply too old to keep up in this new world of free information exchange and can no longer support itself upon the ageing copyright laws of the present.
    At least, that's my theory.
  • This was a long-time in coming. It didn't make financial sense. Look. The major record labels have been pumping million$ into the RIAA for years. In return, they've sued 10 year old girls and, on many cases, gotten a $2,000 settlement. Hmmm. Millions for thousands? If a car company did this they'd be called Ford - and be in just as bad a financial state. It's pushed their customers to more cost-effective means of acquiring music - i.e. iTunes. "We don't like the way our customers use our product so
  • no idea if their flying monkeys would go away, but the RIAA would.

    and their little dog, too.
  • If this actually happens, then I should be able to buy EMI music again without moral objections.
  • AARI (Score:3, Funny)

    by moxley (895517) on Friday January 11, 2008 @09:48PM (#22009184)
    If they do, they'll probably take a hint from our corrupt ass government (with whom these corporations are likely in bed with) and resurface 2 months later as the:

    AARI (with a new logo and everything)...
  • I pulled my funding of the RIAA over a year ago.

    No new music for me.
  • dont tease me like that
  • To copy from one is plagiarism. To copy from many is research.
  • the music industry has traditionally made a lotta cash offa sales of copyright tunes

    now you clones all think ya gonna rip them guys off?

    not without a fight and guess what: they got the law on their side

    if ya pirating music on a p2p net my advice is quit and hope you ain't already on their list
  • There is a theory which states that if ever for any reason anyone discovers what exactly the RIAA is for and why it is here it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

    There is another that states that this has already happened.

Don't sweat it -- it's only ones and zeros. -- P. Skelly

Working...