DEPARTMENTS


Sex and Other
Mindfucks


Drugs and
Rock 'n' Roll


Media and
Mediocrity


Society (and
Antisocial
Tendencies)


Politics and Other
Bullshit

Inhuman
Resources


Casual Fridays


Miscellaneous
Editorial
Rantings and
Ravings

In and Out:
Sex Advice from our Staff Dominatrix


Employee of the
Month



ABOUT US

Mission
Statement


Who We Are


Write for Us!

Invest in Anti-
Commercialism!

Play Our Theme Song
by Simon Inns
(MP3 format; 1.5 MB download)

Donate to the Cause!



Why I'm Boycotting the RIAA
 
   
 

 

No, I don't want Your Goddamned MTV


 

by Ken Mondschein

 

 

As of last week, about 1,600 Americans have been trapped in the labyrinth of the U.S. legal system by a body that, though it has no public accountability, has established itself as a quasi-governmental authority. Torn away from their lives, they face massive fines, court costs, and even imprisonment. Were these people terrorists? Pedophiles? Hapless under-employed twenty-somethings who had defaulted on their student loans? Nope: They were ordinary computer users charged by the Recording Industry of America with violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

While it was originally instituted in 1998 as part of the hardly publicly-minded World Trade Organization's mandates for member countries, the DMCA is one step closer to actually handing the country over to corporate rule. (Lest we forget, the government is currently the sole property of Halliburton.) For instance, the Act gives the recording industry, which is a trade group and not something that anyone actually voted on, essentially Gestapo-like powers. Rather than the subpoena being given by an actual judge, it can be issued by the clerk of a United States District Court upon reasonable suspicion that you're hooked up to a peer-to-peer network such as WinMX or KaZaA. Bam—your ISP has to provide all your information, including your name, address, telephone number, shoe size, and whether or not you wank to the girls jumping on trampolines during the "Man Show" credits. And, if they find any music files after they confiscate your hard drive, you'll most likely be their indentured servant for the rest of your natural life, with a large chunk of your wages garnished to pay off the "damages." For a trade group to wield that kind of influence is ridiculous. Hell, Ralph Nader wishes he had that kind of pull.

Moreover, the entire argument that the recording industry uses to defend its actions—that it protects artists' rights—is patently ridiculous. Music today is an industry; songs and "artists" are manufactured the way Andy Warhol manufactured silkscreens and the Velvet Underground. To suggest that Creed or Avril Lavigne or Justin Timberlake or some other assembly-line device for branding sound is having the fruits of their labors ripped off by file-swapping script kiddies is like suggesting that Milli Vanilli is getting ripped off every time someone fires up a karaoke machine. Through the magic of marketing, the recording industry has made something otherwise worthless into a precious commodity, restricted public access to it by making the prices ridiculously high (have you seen what they're charging for CDs these days?!), and then screaming bloody murder when a black market develops.

What the RIAA is really afraid of is that file sharing is destroying this little racket they've got going. Historically, the recording industry got huge at the same time that people moved from the shoulder-to-shoulder crowding cities to the bland anonymity of the suburbs—limiting their access to live music venues and other sources of authentic culture, but opening the door for the culture-manufacturing industry to step in and provide us with an amazing simulation thereof, just the same way that Wonder Bread and Spam are amazing simulations of actual food. What the Internet has done is digitally reconnect us into communities, short-circuiting the means of marketing, manufacture, and distribution that the powers that be have invested so much in.

The RIAA, a dinosaur if there ever was one, knows it's fighting a losing battle against the forces of evolution. Sure, CD sales have declined, but when you consider the lawyers' fees and work hours necessary to indict, convict, and fine even a tiny portion of the people who are swapping files, they're just throwing good money after bad. Like the vicious dog in your neighbor's fenced-in yard, the RIAA is dangerous, but sufficiently remote not to be worrisome to the vast majority of people. And they know it: Take, for example, their recent motions towards persuading Congress that P2P networks are a one-stop source for computer viruses and kiddie porn. Next thing they'll do is require you to pay royalties if you get a song stuck in your head or you sing "Happy Birthday" at someone's party. (Someone actually owns the rights to "Happy Birthday," you know.)

What's even more wrong is for a private entity to hijack the courts and ruin the lives of a small portion of the people who are threatening its imagined hegemony. The way to stop it is by the power of the purse. I, for one, will not buy another freaking CD put out by a major label until the charges against every one of the people indicted under the DCMA are dropped. Maybe then they'll finally shut the fuck up and die.

(Incidentally, I, personally, don't use peer-to-peer networks, simply because what's out there is crap. Do a search for some of the people who've authored half the mp3s on my hard drive—"Lourds" or "Every 13 Days" or "Trogdor the Burninator"—on any p2p, and you're going to get zilch. People made music for millennia before Thomas Edison ever made a wax cylinder, and the survivors huddled in the ruins of our current civilization will continue doing it, at least until the toxic zombies eat their brains. And if I ever meet Lou Reed or Jello Biafra, I'll be sure to slip them a twenty for whatever transgressions the Internet community at large has committed.)

 

Disco sucks. Write to editor@corporatemofo.com



Posted September 7, 2003 1:38 AM

 


 

Backtalk

I just read your RIAA boycott letter, and don't quite understand the logic of a consumer boycott in this case: 1. A person buys a CD. 2. Said person puts the songs of the CD on their server and shares it with the community. 3. Songs from the CD are now available to anyone with a computer and internet connection. 4. Availability of songs now aplenty, other persons don't visit their local music stores to buy said CD. 5. CD sales and residual income to the creators of the CD plummet. (last figure I heard on the corporate radio station said somewhere around 26% from last year). Music stores aren't doing as well. 6. Producers must increase cost of CDs to recoup losses (same as software industry) 7. RIAA comes in to enforce copyright rules (granted, through questionable tactics that will take YEARS to figure out...). 8. Consumers come in and stop buying CDs, instead electing to continue sharing to find their favorite songs... The boycott suggestion continues the fall down the slippery slope, and does nothing to address the issue of copyright violation. The musicians are not to blame for Loss of revenue due to file sharing. If anything, blame the lawyers for executing impulsive and poorly thought-out tactics (filing a docket for Boston in a Washington court!?!?!?) in an effort to create an artificial deterrent to a serious problem. How bout boycotting speeding tickets or John Grisham novels... The music (and I mean MUSIC - not SONGS like happy birthday or Trogdor (although I love that song) - music mixed, produced, and created with talented musicians, that cannot be reproduced by any old hack out there) is intellectual property, and deserves to be treated as such. The real argument the musicians need to discuss is the issue of live performances vs. studio performances. If the CD sales continue to drop due to file sharing, then the only place the musicians will have to recoup is in the live performances, resulting in exorbitant ticket prices, overpriced peripherals and merchandise, and outlandish food prices. (Bonnaroo, are you listening?) Boycotting CDs sends the wrong message to the wrong people at the wrong time.

Posted by: Dennis Whittaker at October 4, 2008 4:13 PM

Is it illegal to possess mp3s of CDs you own? If I have Pretty Hate Machine in my closet that hasnt seen daylight in 4 years, but I have all the songs in mp3 format that I listen to on a daily basis... is that illegal? I don't see why it would be. So, hypothetically speaking... if you get busted for downloading some mp3s, how do they (RIAA) know you dont own those cds? And if you get a subpoena that you are getting sued, what keeps you from going out and purchasing the cds, and then you are not illegally owning mp3s of that particular artist?

Posted by: G at October 4, 2008 4:14 PM

The wife and I have over two thousand albums on vinyl. I wrote the RIAA to see if it was OK to download the digital versions of the songs that I already owned on another format. This falls very close to the "time shifting" that our congress already allows. But I was informed that I would need to purchase all the albums AGAIN to change formats. Bullshit, pardon my French Tired of RIAA and DMCA, Mike

Posted by: Mike at October 4, 2008 4:15 PM

While I enjoyed Ken's article, and agree with his arguments for boycotting the RIAA, I think he has missed a crucial element in the demise of the music industry as we know it. Ken sites the high prices of CDs and low quality of music as the reason for the development of a black market, which are both valid arguments. But he doesn't even mention the ties between the major labels in the RIAA, and the corporate radio stations (not to mention concert promoters) that are all but impossible to avoid in any but the largest markets. The issue here is that for much of America P2P networks are the only access to any music other than the mass produced top 40. Ken mentions that he can't find music by "Lourds" on a P2P network, but has he tried to find a "Fergie" cd at the local Wal Mart (or even at a local music store). In their greed, the music industry, from recording, to distributing, to promoting, has thrown all their resources into a few "artists" in order to create big stars and big money in the hands of a few, through the brainwashing of the listening audience. There is more at stake here than the high price and the low quality of CDs. While George Bush is out spending our tax dollars on "defending our freedoms", corporate America is busy spending our money eliminating our choices so that when it is all said and done, we will only be left with the freedom (but not the money) to choose between Ford and Chevy, Britney and Christina.

Posted by: Elliott Hansen at October 4, 2008 4:16 PM

Hey, I got two comments about your RIAA article. 1. I've never downloaded music, but I don't pay a lot for my music. The pawnshop around the corner from my house is all the record store I ever need. I guarantee, all the latest pop will be available within a couple of months. You can always count on some teenage pothead culling his CD collection periodically for drug money. And it's really great for a classic rock lover like me. I'd rather pay $5 for some Grateful Dead or Allman Brothers CD than the going $15 to $20 or more in the chain record stores. I get my DVDs there, too. 2. You're absolutely right, disco does indeed suck. It sucks brontosaurus, blue whale and wookie all at the same time.

Posted by: Sean from Florida at October 4, 2008 4:18 PM




 

 

Copyright 2001-2010
Powered by
Movable Type 3.33
Logo design by Molitorious