The RIAA’s War Against, well…. Everything

by alphamonkey on June 5, 2006 · 16 comments

in Uncategorized

The Washington Post is reporting that the RIAA is now looking to target sites such as MySpace and YouTube (and their usesrs) for, get this, the dissemination and displaying of music videos.  So, let me get this straight:  The RIAA doesn’t want people sharing and promoting music videos, which are in and of themselves advertisements for records.  Did I miss the day when the entire Recording Industry Association of America got kicked in the head by a mule?  Punishing people who are promoting bands and directors (for free!) may yet be the stupidest thing they’ve done yet, and this is a group that let Lars Ulrich be a spokesperson.

Next week, look for news that the RIAA is seeking to shut down people talking about their favorite bands.

  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr
  • Your Good Twin

    Fucking retarded.  I always assumed music videos were a kind of public domain that they WANT people to freely share, like you said, as advertisements for the band’s music.  I’ve gotten into at least 10 bands thanks to videos on Transbuddha, sales they wouldn’t have made without you being able to freely show them to me.  *throws hands up in the air* I’m really dumbfounded.

  • .alphamonkey.

    I’m curious as to why more artists don’t stand up and say ‘Uh, we paid for that video (which gets taken out of royalties or ad budgets), and we’d like people to see them’.

  • MonkeeDoo

    Probably because the artists that benifit most from music video airplay have less musical integrity and merit than a Casiotone beat bank.

  • .alphamonkey.

    I’d argue that.  Music videos benefit most those artists whom otherwise would exist wholly beneath the radar.

  • noochienoochie

    I agree w/ you A.M., but the RIAA is really only looking out for the heavy hitting artists anyway. Same goes w/ BMI and ASCAP. I’ve never seen a dime of the money that my record label’s had to pay for reproduction rights. Guaranteed that Britney and Madonna see royalty checks arrive w/in 30 days of a release.

  • .alphamonkey.

    Yah, you’re preaching to the choir on that one.  I find it fascinating that the labels have never had to face the kind of accounting and practices scrutiny that other companies that size have.  Sadly, most bands don’t have the money nor wherewithall to take labels to account until they’re so big that it doesn’t effect them anymore.

    The US needs to follow Canada’s lead and have more musician advocacy groups who’ll stand up to the suits and fight for what should be going to the artists.

  • noochienoochie

    Hear, hear. And really, most indie labels are barely better off than the bands themselves. Thankfully there’s still a lot of teamwork going on between small bands and their labels, but neither has the clout to cause change for those who could really use it. And the bigger bands, true, don’t care b/c for the hassle, they’re merely pinching virtual “pennies”, pennies which would be others’ chances at livelihood. Oh well, thank God for real careers, huh?

  • BADD

    Did you just use the word “radar”?  I’ll have you know my great grandfather created that word only 96 years ago.

    THat means the copyright is still valid and I want my royalty check for your *usage*.  How dare you use a word I created (well I own, same difference)without paying me first.

    That will be .000005 of a penny.  Pay up sucker!!


    The day that the RIAA and it’s other half the FCC came about our society and all it had stood for began to be chipped away.  Soon we will have many government agencies telling us what is appropriate in all aspects of our lives.

    THe puritanical ideals of the United states never died.  It just got more sneaky. 

    Everyone should realize that the more we allow such commitees and groups to exist the more our freedoms will be slowly taken away.

  • .alphamonkey.

    Considering that the FCC is supposed to be our safeguard against media monopolies and unfair broadcast trade practices, I’d rather see them return to that role instead of making sure no one sees a boobie.

  • Enslaved By Ducks

    “(Leaving out a bunch of blathery pigshit)…and this is a group that let Lars Ulrich be a spokesperson.”


    Y’know it’s fairly rare, even in this day and age of the internet where it seems that anything and everything is fair game, to see outright slander and libel occur.

    But you managed to pull it off with that line.

    Ulrich has NEVER been a spokesperson for the RIAA.

    He’s been a spokesperson for Metallica.

    That’s it.

    When Ulrich went ot Congress and testified about Napster and illegal filesharing, tell me alphamonkey, how was he introduced?

    Don’t bother, ‘cause you obviously have no *uckin’ clue but just decided to make some shit up so you could slam Metallica yet again.

    During Ulrich’s introduction absolutely no mention was made of the RIAA. He wasn’t there because the RIAA had subpeoned him or because the RIAA had asked him.

    Quite the contrary.

    He was there because he wanted to try and set the record straight regarding filesharing/Napster and Metallica and Metallica’s attitude towards same.

    But you couldn’t take that, could you?

    Oh no, you had to act like a spoiled member of the “entitlement generation” which you most assuredly are and start bitching about “how unfair life is and how you got caught plagerizing and illegally downloading music and since everyone else does it why can’t you lame bullshit boring anecdote.”

    And just to show how tough you are you decide to slander Ulrich.



  • .alphamonkey.

    Lars Ulrich did appear in a couple of RIAA sponsered ads (which would make him a spokesperson).  Sorry to burst your bubble there. Oh, and Ulrich’s statement to Congress?  Why would it be on the RIAA website? Just wondering. While we’re at it, you might think about looking up the definition of slander and libel.

    You might also look into getting some decaffeinated coffee.  This write-up has nothing to do with filesharing. It’s about the absurdity of companies trying shut down other sites from advertising their products for free. Which is doubly absurd considering that the labels never seriously considered music videos a revenue model until sites like YouTube and MySpace started showing them.

  • elkciN

    You should tell the ducks to let you masturbate, or at least do something to get some of that rage out. Do you work for the RIAA or something? Oh, and Lars Ulrich is an idiot, and if Metallica was really that hard up for money, they should have a talk with their label. I know they have to feed their families, but I don’t think it HAS to be Lobster served with a side of bald eagle eggs, on a golden, diamond-encrusted platter. By the way, it’s only slander if it isn’t true, and technically I don’t think opinions count as slander.

  • .alphamonkey.

    And dammit, where does everyone get the idea that I’m only like 20?

  • elkciN

    Yeah! He’s 20 and a half, and don’t forget it!

  • .alphamonkey.

    psst! mid-30’s.

  • MonkeeDoo

    Wait, you said Alphamonkey was trying to “slam metallica yet again”.  I looked in the archives and couldn’t find a single slam.  Nothing like. . .

    . . . Cliff Burton, consistantly high on dope, brought the only shred of musicianship to the band

    . . . beyond all of the whining and hissyfits, at least you can hear the bass guitar on “Rust In Peace”

    . . . before the band made a gazillion dollars and had their good sense doushed out of their brains in group therapy, lars ulrich GAVE OUT TAPES OF METALLICA FOR FREE

    . . . “st. anger” was incredibly influential on Fred Durst, which is like saying Ace of Base was incredibly influential on A*Teens

    . . . Robert Truillio fits with the band about as well as OJ’s glove did.

    Maybe if I look harder I’ll find some.  Since he’s a member of the “entitlement generation” he probably hides them in a secret I-Pod file.

Previous post:

Next post: