Gizmodo is calling for a boycott of the RIAA in March.
Gizmodo is declaring the month of March Boycott the RIAA month. We want to get the word out to as many people as humanly possible that we can all send a message by refusing to buy any album put out by an RIAA label.
I support the boycott, and if you’re an independent musician or producer, I think you should too. Not, however, because of the gut reaction you have to the promise of “sticking it to the RIAA.”
Thanks to the lawsuits, most music consumers now treat it as self-evident that the RIAA is a band of thugs. As a result, campaigns like Gizmodo’s appeal to us viscerally. But this reaction to the “RIAA is evil” bogeyman can distract us from what, for indie artists, are the real issues: The current music business climate, and our flawed copyright laws.
As musicians, producers, and engineers, even if only amateurs, we are part of the music industry, and as such we have a stake in the RIAA’s actions not shared by casual consumers. We also have a greater say than consumers in the industry’s direction, and when we pin the problems of the music industry neatly on the RIAA, as most consumers do, we’re apt to overlook the importance of the real issues and our need to have informed opinions about them.
Common Misconceptions
Gizmodo aims to send the message that we won’t put up with the RIAA’s “unethical practices” any longer. In calling for the boycott, they make a common mistake, one that’s inevitably repeated in every discussion about the RIAA:
The RIAA has the power to shift public policy and to alter the direction of technology and the Internet for one reason and one reason alone: it’s totally loaded… They get their money from us, the consumers
Let me dispel this and some other oft-repeated myths.
Myth: The RIAA makes money off CD sales
The comments following the Gizmodo article above are littered with this sentiment, but it’s off the mark. The RIAA is a trade group, and is funded by their members, and by government. Their members obviously make money off CD sales, but nothing you do at the cash register affects the RIAA directly. In fact, as CD sales decline, the big labels have incentive to increase their funding of the RIAA.
Myth: You stick it to the RIAA when you pirate music
The RIAA has risen in prominence over the last 10 years precisely because of illegal downloading. If you support the practice, you’re furthering the RIAA’s raison d’être.
Myth: The RIAA uses illegal tactics
Their copyright enforcement strategy might seem unethical, but it’s legal. And even though they’ve had their hand slapped for over-stepping their bounds, the simple fact is that current law allows the RIAA to sue music fans.
Myth: The RIAA is evil
“Evil” implies an intent to cause harm. The RIAA has no such intent (and I question whether an organization can have intent in any meaningful way.) Rather, they operate with a mandate, to “foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes their members’ creative and financial vitality.”
Whether or not they succeed at this task is open for debate. Personally, I think they’re one of the most successful lobby groups ever. This article from the P2P Weblog sums up my feelings: The RIAA has completely re-framed the P2P debate in terms favourable to their members’ business needs, making “piracy” and “downloading” synonymous for many people.
Regardless of their success though, “evil” is meaningless in this context. Yet the idea comes up in every discussion on the RIAA. Gizmodo and other copyfighters even encourage it, I suspect because it serves their purposes to have us believe we’re fighting a single, powerful enemy. People are easier to motivate when we have a simple cause to rally around.
But in this case, the cause isn’t so simple.
The Real Issues
As an independent artist, especially if you plan to sell your music, you should understand the two issues that have given rise to the RIAA’s lawsuits.
Music business reality
Opinion on the big music labels ranges from “the record labels don’t get it,” to “the labels are dinosaurs.” Rarely do we see an understanding of the labels’ position that accounts for their business realities.
Here’s how it works: The major labels who fund the RIAA are publicly traded companies. This means they have a responsibility to their shareholders to remain profitable. The U.S. government, too, is responsible to American corporations, primarily to ensure that the country and its laws allow corporations to remain profitable. P2P networks posed a threat to the labels’ profitability, and they charged the RIAA with (arguably the most responsible) counteraction: Change the law.
Was this the best response? It’s debatable, but whether or not they made a wise decision, that they chose a legal response does not make the labels evil. Nor does it make them dinosaurs. This is 21st-century capitalism: Corporations lobby government for business-friendly legislation.
That brings us to the second issue.
Current copyright law
The DMCA is, by most accounts, bad legislation. Just as the U.S. government has a responsibility to ensure businesses can succeed, they also must represent the rights of their constituents. The RIAA’s lawsuits illustrate clearly that the DMCA does not balance the needs of business with the rights of the people they serve.
But I’ll reiterate: The RIAA uses faulty law to further their cause, but that doesn’t make them evil. They could defer to Ice-T on the issue: Don’t hate the player, hate the game. So long as the law allows record labels to sue downloaders, and business realities dictate that they protect their existing business model, can we really expect them to behave differently?
What can you do?
While rewriting copyright law and retooling the entire music industry probably aren’t on any of our career paths, you may still play a bigger role than you realize.
As an artist, when you release a recording, you contribute to the music industry and its future. By virtue of your participation in it, the music industry becomes your industry. Whether you release via an established label, or distribute the music yourself, the decisions you make will affect your success and the success of the industry.
I would argue, then, that as musicians it’s our responsibility to make good decisions about the music industry. (And boycotting the RIAA “because they’re evil” is not one of them.) Making good decisions depends on keeping yourself informed. In two ways, as it relates to the current discussion:
Understand the business: Courtney Love’s anti-industry rant in Salon is required reading for anyone who still thinks of rock stardom as a path to riches. Even if you don’t intend to sign with a label, you’ll make better decisions if you understand how the industry works. And especially if you sign with a label, you should know their stance on suing your fans.
Understand the law: Some of the best sources for (mostly) unbiased information are:
And for a Canadian perspective, I can’t recommend Michael Geist’s blog enough.
In addition to keeping yourself apprised of the issues, you might also involve your fans. By explaining your position to others, you increase awareness of the real issues that we face. (Feel free to adopt my approach. The music and text on my album site are Creative Commons-licensed.)
What about the boycott?
So is Gizmodo misguided in boycotting the RIAA?
Yes and no.
As I implied above, copyfighters like Gizmodo have us fighting a proxy: “RIAA” is shorthand for the host of issues that really need addressing. To the general music-consuming public, this might be an unimportant distinction. But independent musicians and producers have the power to shape the future of our music industry, and it’s important that we do so with an informed perspective.
That said, I don’t like the idea of suing my fans, and I want to send this message to the corporations who endorse the RIAA’s legal tactics. The boycott is unlikely to affect the RIAA financially, as Gizmodo hopes, but it does have potential to raise awareness in the industry. So I support it.
I hope my fellow indie artists and producers will reach a similar conclusion. Don’t support the boycott just because you believe the RIAA is evil or unethical. Rather, recognize that our industry, and the legal environment that supports it, needs help.
In short, boycott RIAA labels in March, but know why you’re doing it.
For more home recording issues and tips,
Subscribe to the Hometracked feed, or receive email updates.
16 comments
Trackback URI Comments feed for this article
Well, I would hope that ‘evil’ is a metaphor and people don’t actually believe that major labels are actually ‘evil’ in Bush’s biblical sense (just as I hope people don’t think my label’s motto “We are not evil” is literal one way or the other).
If you’re asking for a more rational sounding discussion (reminiscent of Jon Stewart’s cry for civility in political discussion) then sure, who would argue against civility… let’s all put a ;) next to the word “evil” to make sure folks know we aren’t so irrational as to compare Sony to Stalin.
Otherwise I don’t think I actually understand what you’re talking about and could use some help groking your point.
Are you saying the RIAA represents the industry and indie artists are the industry therefore the RIAA represents me?
Victor,
> I would hope that ‘evil’ is a metaphor
It is, but sadly many people don’t realize that. Read the comments thread at Gizmodo (or any of dozens at Boing Boing). People feel with conviction that the RIAA are, in a real sense, out to get us.
> Are you saying the RIAA represents the industry
> and indie artists are the industry therefore the RIAA
> represents me?
No, the RIAA represents only their member labels. Those labels are an important part of the industry, to be sure, but certainly not the only part.
We indies play a role too. We need to recognize that, and be responsible about it. That responsibility includes making informed decisions on the industry’s future.
> I don’t think I actually understand what you’re
> talking about and could use some help groking your point.
I’m saying “don’t let the metaphor define the conversation.”
There’s an unspoken premise in what I wrote: Most people don’t understand the need for business and legal reform.
I suspect, given your label affiliation, that you take these things for granted. But the general music-using public is blind to the deeper issues. The comments following the Gizmodo article ilustrate this well:
“Let’s mess with the MPAA while we’re at it”
“I hate those RIAA bullies”
“I wish they were a government we could overthrow. They must be stopped.”
Of the 100-odd comments, there’s exactly one reference to copyight reform. These folks don’t understand the issues. They’re responding viscerally.
For the most part, I don’t have a problem with that. The need for change dictates a need to motivate people, so even if the majority hop on the “RIAA is evil” bandwagon simply because it “feels” right, we still end up moving the issue forward.
But, and this is why I wrote my article: Indie artists cannot follow the movement blindly. We play a role in shaping the industry, so it’s incumbent on us to understand how and why the industry works.
If we dismiss the RIAA because of a gut reaction to a metaphor, if we let “the RIAA is evil” define our converstions on the issues, we’re not going to fix the problems. Frankly, I fear we’d end up addressing the wrong issues!
After reading the comment thread (thank you sooooooo much for making me read that ;) I guess I just don’t see where the huge problem is. As far as I can tell most folks there are using ‘evil’ as a metaphor for ‘wrong’, ‘RIAA’ for ‘the majors that fund it’ and ‘killing puppies’ for ‘fucking with culture’
Meanwhile your essay makes it sound like Giz is advocating a whole bunch of stuff (like piracy) which he explicitly doesn’t, so I guess there’s straw men plenty to go around. I think it would helpful to delineate when you are talking about the specific boycott and when you are drawing on others to make a different case.
You also come dangerously close to being a major label apologist; it’s the old “what do you expect from sharks?” argument. Raw unadorned capitalism as performed by the health industry that fucks with sick kids, military industrial complex that fucks with poor people’s lives. the energy industry that fucks with earth’s environment and the entertainment industry that fucks with culture is an explanation but doesn’t even begin to excuse the behavior or gives them a pass. We’re not talking about “companies” or sharks or “lobby groups” — we’re talking about people who continue to make morally bad decisions that affect the quality of our lives. So what if that’s business as usual in the 21st century? Feel free to come up with another metaphor but it’s not acceptable and should be curtailed.
The fight to wrest control of culture from a few evil, er, sorry, wrong-headed, greedy, arrested-development infantile culture vultures is worthy of several fronts — including creating a new business model for ourselves but also consumer actions and yes, acts of outright civil disobedience. iow there are plenty of issues and each have several avenues to pursue. This may not be your (or mine) favorite issue but that doesn’t make it the “wrong issue”
Maybe it feels right because it is right. Otherwise, I have to say, you’re letting one word define the conversation.
> You also come dangerously close to being a major label apologist;
Them’s fightin’ words :-p
Though kidding aside, I don’t think that’s a fair assessment of my position. Read the last few paragraphs again. I hope it’s clear that I’m no fan of the RIAA. But I also wanted to keep my argument dispassionate, and given the contempt most of us have for the RIAA’s tactics, that might have made me appear sympathetic. Believe me: I’m not.
> Otherwise, I have to say, you’re letting one word define the conversation.
It might help if I tell you what I hoped the conversation would be.
me: “A bunch of stuff about not dismissing the RIAA because of a gut reaction, yada yada yada.”
Indie musicians: “Oh wow, I hadn’t thought about it like that. I didn’t realize that a) I’m actually part of the industry, and b) my opinions on copyright and business might be important to the industry’s future.”
(Yes, the indie musicians in my head really say those things.)
I think that you might be way beyond most artists in your understanding of the landscape. You have an informed opinion, and you feel passionately about contributing to the solution. Heck, you signed with Magnatune. That says it all.
But believe me, Victor, many musicians don’t have even the beginnings of this understanding. I work with these guys. I play with a few of them. I chat with them on homerecording.com and gearslutz and Songfight. These guys really believe that the RIAA are malevolent just for the sake of it, and that the big labels’ problems have no bearing at all on us indies.
Those’re the dudes I hoped to reach with the essay.
Maybe my reach was too broad. But I worried that if I distilled the message too much, if I simply said “know your enemy,” (which, really, is all I’m saying,) that it would come across as trite, and no one would pay attention.
Does that shed a new light on the essay?
(You said a lot of other interesting things, and I hope it doesn’t seem like I’m dismissing your whole comment.)
chat with them on homerecording.com and gearslutz and Songfight.
yea, I suspected something like this. I think you and Brad hang out with a different crowd than I do and that you guys are reacting to the tone of that group.
Meanwhile whether you believe the RIAA (or the companies it agents for) acts from immoral unbridled greed or because it’s business as usual or just for the sake of it or (as my experience at the majors tell me) because of a lack of good parenting and therapy — is all a little arbitrary because both the consequences of their actions and the ways of countering them are the same: to raise awareness in consumers and artists and create an alternative economic landscape for everybody to play in.
The crowd I deal with when trying to extract a cappellas from singers, samples from bands and producers to remix them in an Open way are the ones that still (sometimes not so secretly) harbor visions of signing with majors. Therefore phrases like Scott Andrews ‘worry about obscurity not piracy’ and (my own?) ‘giving away your music is good for your career’ makes the point a lot better than ‘The RIAA is Not Evil’ ;)
This crowd is quick to rationalize this devil’s lottery dream in a 100 ways I’m sure you are familiar with. I have a tough time explaining how record labels, even more than movie studios and baseball franchises, etc. are not your run-of-the-mill “evil” corporations; To be honest, it’s only a convenience for me that major labels bleed culture, criminalize hip hop sampling, infest consumer’s machines with root-kits and sue dead grandmas for file sharing Linkin Park. That’s all gravy on top of the uniquely abominable way they treat the artists that fall for the fraudulent, career-ending scam that is the major label deal.
So a provocative non-ironic title like ‘The RIAA is Not Evil’ on a serious, well informed essay from a totally reasonable, cool indie guy, just makes it a touch more difficult me to make my case in the world I travel in, i.e. the seriously good musician who has been conditioned to keep their music and talents under All Rights Reserved until they are tada, Discovered.
(you also make great points dying for comment but I’m running out of February…)
Awesome article Des. It’s reframed my view of the RIAA vs. downloader wars. The tactics are deplorable, but as you said, legal. What we need is better law. And the continued surge of indie music becoming self-sufficient, enough so that major labels really do look at their business models. Which is unlikely anytime soon, as shareholders expect, (and have a right to) bottom-line results. It’s a complicated issue….so much more so than many people get, in my experience.
I just have an aversion to boogeyman scare-generalizing, which the anti-RIAA crowd is happy to engage in when it suits them but of course bitterly hates when the tables are turned. Fudging the facts just to get people riled up really, really bothers me.
>I think you and Brad hang out with a different crowd than I do
> and that you guys are reacting to the tone of that group.
Heh, Brad summed his feelings up more succinctly than any of us :)
But ya, I think your statement is right on the money. (Rob’s comment above speaks directly to that, actually: He’s one of the guys that hangs out in my crowd :_)
And thanks for the rest of your comment. You’ve got a unique perspective. “The fraudulent career-ending scam that is the major label deal” should be a book.
Perhaps “ruthless” would be a better term to use than “evil”? If the RIAA had been more careful, and only went after the clearly egregious infringers, they would have a better reputation.
JY
The labels and the RIAA attack the Internet,P2P networks, and most digital music because they are losing there grip on the market. Several artists have proven they no longer need a record label to be heard or to become popular. From most accounts piracy is not losing the labels as much as they claim…but the Internet, P2P Networks, and social networks are helping artists realize slowly that record labels are obsolete.
JY: I think you’re right about that. But I also suspect that they wouldn’t have nearly the visibility that they do now. That doesn’t make their strategy correct, of course. It’s just one measure of success.
Casey: I agree, and I touched on it here: http://www.hometracked.com/2007/02/05/big-label-problems-opportunities-for-indie-artists/
I hope indie artists read the article above, and realize that the consumer backlash to the RIAA’s tactics present some amazing opportunities for us. We should be looking to capitalize on them (while keeping our disdain for the big labels in check.)
When you buy a CD you’re supporting TERROR!
Fight Back! FILE SHARE!
Musicians barely see a fucking dime if someone buys their CD thanks to the retarded RIAA. The labels take all of it that’s why artists are dependant on concerts and the merchandising. Don’t buy fucking Albums. Don’t support these fat cunts, go to a concert or something.
And when you download music use an instant-crashable hard drive and a revolving IP so these cunts can never track you down and even if they do SUE THEIR RETARDED FUCKING ASSES FOR CAUSING MENTAL DISTRESS. Bring the predatorial bastards down.
In your response to “Myth: The RIAA uses illegal tactics” you link an article entitled: “Court: RIAA lawsuit strategy illegal”. It’s like you provided proof that your argument is wrong. You can say all their tactics are not illegal, but as you proved your self, it’s not a myth that they have used illegal tactics, the courts have stated so.
While it’s fairly obvious that “evil” is an emotional overstatement, a more accurate accusation would be to say they are amoral (like all monetary driven groups), unethical (arguable, but correct imo), and totally ruthless. But the simple fact of the matter being considered “evil” by the average citizen is the price for their actions (suing little old ladies, young children, and the descendants of dead people). They are choosing to take on the PR cost, trying to help them deflect the price for their actions, is not something people should do imo. But it is just my opinion.
These are good points. des is right that corporate entities and their agents can’t be “expected” to follow any but their own self-interest, and that if their actions are unsavory, then the limits and rights involved in copyright law need changing.
I’d like to add a couple more points: some of the frustration with the RIAA and its corporate members are that their actions are clearly *not* in their best interest: “piracy” remains common, CD sales are down and customer goodwill is at an all-time low. It’s hard to swallow an argument that their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders requires them to sue their customers, when the long-term consequences of that are not clearly in their interests.
Another is that people often don’t understand the origin and purpose of copyright protections. Copyright protections are not intended to protect some vague moral “right” creators have over their works; they are a trade-off offered by the public: in return for copyright protections, the expectation is that that will encourage the creation of books, music and other protectable works.
In other words, copyright balances the detriment and benefit to the public only; it does not balance the “rights” of a creator with the “rights” of a consumer. If evidence shows that freely sharing music is something the public wants to be able to do, then it is incumbent to change the law, not the public.
The RIAA is abusing the law clearly by their lawsuits. They have reached the limits of patience that the consumers can have. You are saying that they can not be expected to behave differently.I agree that this is the expected and usual behaviour of RIAA.But as you know in this world,every step taken has its consequences.RIAA is a group of Sellers ,”We ,the people” are consumers.
RIAA,(albeit legally by certein manipulations) has clearly mistreated us and abused our rights.Therefore We The People are taking a completely legal step of boycotting them.They took a wrong step deliberately for greed.Now they must bear the consequences. They can do nothing except advertisement, TeMpOrArY change of policy,and maybe a temporary change in the laws for about 10 years through corrupted govt lobbies that looks nice enough to fool someone.All these shall fail untill they make a law stating buying RIAA labels are mandatory.
Well, put in simpler words “you mistreat the buyer.Buyer dont want to buy from you.”
RIAA can whine and sob all they can that”Why are you boycotting us? We are not evil! We just mistreat you buyers and abuse you legally to make more money.”
RIAA must get their lesson that there is a limit to people’s tolerance.RIAA MUST GET THE MESSAGE THAT THIS SORT OF ABUSE SHALL NOT BE TOLERATED.Otherwise they will become more ferocious.Therefore the boycott must continue against RIAA and its members.Also should include MPAA, and Microsoft.