Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
i'm not us-american so i have no clue how they are actualy allowed to make laws. where i live it is imposible a group of companys would make laws. i am refering to the current RIAA event (they are trying to take down internet radio by increasing fees for them). would be nice if somone could add an explanation for the law things. thanks -- aep [10-07-2007 19:21 UTC]
This may seem like a stupid question. I'm assuming obviously that the record label ships out copies of an album and has to inform the RIAA how many, in order for them to award the album a certification. Does that make sense? I'm confused. Could somebdoy please reply to this. But in some cases are some albums under-certified. My example being 'Metallica' (1991), according to Nielsen Soundscan it's sold approximately 14.82 million copies over-the-counter, but the RIAA has certified it at 14x platinum, denoting shipments of 14 million in the U.S alone. So how can it sell 14.82m if only 14m have been shipped. Am I safe in assuming 15m have been shipped, but it just has not been certified yet?
I know what you mean, in the case of 'Metallica' (1991), which would now be classed as a catalogue album, Elektra can't ship out 1 million copies at a time. It's shipments would be dealt with in the thousands, say 100,000 copies per shipment. In the case of 14.82 million copies sold, the record label must've shipped out 14.9 million copies, and the RIAA won't certify it 15x platinum until Elektra confirm 15 million copies have been shipped. Because the RIAA only re-certify's albums per 1 million shipped (or in the case of double albums 500,000 shipped - depending if it doesn't exceed 100 minutes in length). However, Metallica has now sold 15,077,000[1] according to Nielsen Soundscan, therefore Elektra has to have shipped 15.1 million copies in the U.S in order to accomodate these sales, meaning the album is long overdue it's 15x platinum award from the RIAA. Who know's why they haven't upped it's certification, maybe Metallica can't be bothered paying the RIAA for the additional award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.40.170 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
"threatens" the recording industry? The RIAA is a protectionist organisation, in the economic sense.Protectionism is rarely a good idea, but it doesn't set out with the explicit aim of destruction. Also, asserting that file sharing is piracy? Downloading music free on peer-to-peer networks is piracy. Could we grow up about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.79.169 (talk • contribs)
I disagree that it's piracy. It's not being done for commercial benefit, but for personal enjoyment. Just because the laws were interpreted to change a reasonably shared moral concept of the past does not change the concept itself. I, personally don't see in the least how it's any different than a VCR or Audio tape. MrPontiac 09:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Dose anyone know what the recording industry actually loses from flie sharing. I mean if they don't get money from people buying the song, they get free advertisement and all that stuff. What is the big deal.--12.160.240.140 22:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlexOvShaolin (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
Could somebody integrate this bit of information into this entry? Izaak
http://info.riaalawsuits.us/howriaa.htm is a legal-language description of the process by which the RIAA brings suit against file sharers. I believe this to be appropriate and useful information, though it seems to be slanted slightly against the RIAA. Swartzer 05:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Edited language in "boycotts" to make it more clear.
I may be asking for trouble on this one, but the section is quite long. As there looks to be quite a bit to say on the subject, perhaps it should be split to it's own article and only a brief summary given here. The main reason I'm hesitant to do so is that keeping that split article neutral will be even harder than keeping this one neutral. Either way I (or anyone else... please!) should take another look at the file sharing section and sort out what should and shouldn't be there. --h2g2bob 10:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
split the fucking thing
Please split this page. there needs to be a summary here and the general discussion on RIAA and filesharing/downloading in another page. Witty lama 03:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Erm... If you split off the filesharing lawsuits, what on earth will be left on the page? The only thing RIAA does is suing, this article will have no more than 3 paragraphs if you split that off. 201.213.37.39 23:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This biased crock is a joke. The thing should be trimmed to an objective identification of the RIAA. Everything else should be in a separate entry called "Music Piracy in Modern Times," or somesuch. No way will it be neutral, but then this isn't at all either. --Blutwulf
I'm splitting the article now, and removing lots of text. Including this bit, which doesn't fit in this section but should perhaps find a home somewhere:
--h2g2bob 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Likewise this one
--h2g2bob 01:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty much done with this. All the citations are reliable and support the text. However, it's still leaning pretty heavily against the RIAA. More on the RIAA's opinions would be good. The split article needs sorting, but is one for another day, I think. --h2g2bob
Anyone else hear this?I've read it around about 3 or 4 blogs but can't find anything to substantiate it. --209.137.175.59 04:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I've looked over the article, and as of the current revision, I think it's just the facts speaking for themselves. I'd like to request that anybody who argues that the article is biased cite specific examples of bias, such as weasel words or name-calling. --Poochy 06:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added a neutrality dispute. As an example of the bias in tone I offer the statement: "Unfortunately for the RIAA, they have no jurisdiction or support for this lawsuit because the website is operated outside of the USA." The discussion of file-sharing lawsuits needs to be more complete, with all points of view on the legal issues involved covered. As it stands, the article is clearly critical of the group's efforts. Doug 16:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know the relationship between RIAA and SoundExchange? SoundExchange collects royalties, and the Copyright Royalty Board sets the rates or legislates somehow. Where does RIAA fit in? What's going on!? Any help aprectiated - the article could really do with a section on this. --h2g2bob 04:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
SoundExchange is the nonprofit agency designated by Congress to administer, collect and distribute royalties under the statutory license to digitally transmit the public performance of sound recordings (i.e. internet radio stations, satellite radio). Though originally part of the RIAA, they have for several years been a separate and independent corporation, led by an 18 member board. Half of the board represents recording artists, and the other half represents copyright owners (record labels). On the record label side, the four major labels each have a seat; the majority of the board are represented by independent record labels and artists. After a transparent administrative fee is deducted, the royalties are split 50/50 between copyright owners and recording artists.
SoundExchange is also a membership organization (+20,000 members), dedicated to supporting the interests of recording artists and copyright owners.
I've been looking through the Lawsuits section, which seems to be a list and sometimes does not provide context. I think a lot of it can be moved into the File Sharing section and/or article where it can make more sense. The Lawsuits section contains:
So in my estimation Portable MP3s and AllofMP3 should stay in Lawsuits; Satellite radio should be given its own section; and the rest should be moved to File Sharing. Is this about right? --h2g2bob 05:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I would add that the lawsuit section is too bias. There are more examples of "cold-hearted" lawsuits than there are of straight examples. I suggest that some of the examples of lawsuits be placed in a "Controversy" section to avoid a bias direction. --Xe7al 01:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The link for "Clean Slate Program" appears to link to an unrelated topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.89.152.181 (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
Can someone please clarify. Some sites say that RIAA deals with the shipment of sales from their list for record companies who contribute figures . Whereas Soundscan and BMG Music Club are over the counter sales. However in determining artists sales figures, many add the BMG Music Club sales figures i.e on top of the RIAA certifications. If RIAA is shipped sales, and BMG is on their list, would this not be accounted for? Can someone give me a good explanation how this all fits together? 60.234.242.196 22:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The "similar organizations" really ought to be its own document, a List -- any objections? --lquilter 15:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree it needs to be in it's own listAngielaj 00:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I moved the list to Wiki's "trade group" page, under the sub-head "List of Intellectual Property trade groups", and linked to it under "similar groups" in the "see also" section. Moving the refference to the MPAA and RIAA as the "MAFIAA" helps clean up a bit of the bias in this article. Please do not move the list back: it doesn't belong here. PyroGamer 16:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
In the cultural referance at the bottom of the page it has an entry for Werid Al's Don't Download THis Song. Weird Al's song was an answer to a song by MC Lars called Download This Song which advocates the use of P2P networks to illegally pirate music mainly because it sees the RIAA as an outdated authoritarian organisation that does more wrong than right. Could we get the MC Lars song added to the section? --58.162.52.9 07:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Change the last paragraph of the lead
from:
The RIAA's stated goals[5] are to uphold copyright worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists, to perform research about the music industry,[6] and to monitor and review relevant laws, regulations and policies.
To:
The RIAA's mission is "to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality." "In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conducts consumer, industry and technical research; and monitors and reviews state and federal laws, regulations and policies. The RIAA® also certifies Gold®, Platinum®, Multi-Platinum™, and Diamond sales awards, as well as Los Premios De Oro y Platino™, an award celebrating Latin music sales."[7]
Thanks. Close enough. 199.125.109.13 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
This article has been flagged, deflagged, and reflagged with the neutrality dispute for quite a while. Strictly speaking, that particular problem appears to be resolved, per WP:NPOV. The article appears to present the conflicting viewpoints in a neutral manner.
Nevertheless, a different sort of bias remains. In a nutshell, this article, on an Internet encyclopedia, goes into great detail as to the RIAA's Internet related activities, but there's significantly less being said about what the RIAA does offline. Because the RIAA's offline activities aren't being described as they probably should, I'm replacing the neutrality dispute with Template:Generalize. I'm not completely sure it's the right template to describe the imbalance in the article, but hopefully it's a step in the right direction. Matt Fitzpatrick 18:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Bainwol and RIAA receive widespread condemnation for their one sided approach in tackling the piracy, which in spite of all their actions has spread almost 50 fold in past 2 years. Even in the music industry there is a widespread view of stopping ineffective (white elephant) ways of RIAA, and replace with a much more people friendly organization catering to educate the public rather then confront them, which understandably is futile exercise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.144.136 (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Technically, the RIAA has not sued anyone, despite widespread media reporting as such. They have no right to sue because they do not own the copyrights. The lawsuits are carried out by the member companies. Asserting that the RIAA sued someone is both inaccurate and it allows those member companies to protect their "good" name while hiding behind the faceless entity that is the RIAA. I think the lawsuits section needs to be edited to show the actual participants in the lawsuit along with link both to and from the actual company. Am I alone in this? Thoughts? 189.168.40.195 05:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Briana LaHara has a page on Wikipedia. I think it is important to note Briana LaHara in this article because the RIAA had stated before targetting Briana that they were only going to go after the most aggregious of offenders, and then, they first bring down a 12-year-old girl. years later, I remember her name as an example of "what to avoid" in corporate interests being endorsed by Congress in pursuit of "the more perfect Union".
Stories people could reference:
FreddyMack 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I have made some substantial edits, i haven't removed anything but i organized things a bit and cleaned up the massive section on "efforts against file-sharing", which was a complete mess. Mrsteveman1 18:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I found this court document about the pirate act the riaa is sponsoring. Apparently they want the Department of Justice to do their dirty work for them (at taxpayer expense).
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200711/110707IP%20Enforcement%20Bill.pdf
Anyone want to add this to article (I'm busy at the moment)?Father Time89 23:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Question, why don't we put all the contraversial material in one section. Cause thast I really came to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.232.249 (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
(Human) Music is an activity of the human vocal chords. There are three recorded types: that channeled using mechanical instruments (drums, violins, and so forth on stage); plus a cappella renditions of other people's songs; plus raw original all-vocal music.
The RIAA searches ceaselessly for groups that do not exist, when raw original all-vocal music comes into their offices; then uses 'freedom of the press' as rationale to copy and mass-market a recording whereas such recordings should be handed over to police until their makers can reclaim them.
Raw original all-vocal music includes vocalizations of bodily rhythms and functions, including a sizeable amount of teeth-clacking and nasal whines. No instruments are ever necessary when making such music or any music. Instruments exist solely for the purpose of presenting stage shows. RIAA sanctions royalty payments to performers, named dedications, and any other persons named with the recordings, but has never yet paid royalties to the actual artist(s) recording raw original all-vocal music. >Marcia L. Neil/beadtot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.239.212.18 (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Under pressure from EMI, RIAA could disappear was the title for a recent article. [] states that EMI is looking to cut the program in order to get rid of expenses. If stories like this continue, it could be a possible source of interest for one of the RIAA Wiki pages... Streetsabre (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I removed this information from the company structure because it digresses from the topic, but I didn't want it to disappear completely. Here it is, if someone can figure out where and if it belongs in the article.
The RIAA's website contains a list of members, which has been disputed in the past, as Matador Records, Fat Wreck Chords[8] Lookout Records, Epitaph Records and Bloodshot Records (who are not members) have been listed there.[citation needed] Some may have been automatically included in the list as they were using RIAA members as distributing labels. Indecine (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is out of control, in my humble opinion. The largest section is the "Efforts against file sharing", which is simply a duplicate of another identically titled article. I believe this section needs to be made much more concise, expanded to include other anti-piracy efforts and renamed "Efforts against piracy", which should include a subsection "political efforts" (or something like that) to include lobbying efforts for various bills and donation numbers. I also think that a criticism section should be created, rather than the scattered criticism throughout the article. Any thoughts? I thought I should get a consensus of some sort before I do a big deletion. Indecine (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Record company seizure, copy and sales of original music is not limited to distribution in record stores and music clubs -- cavalier sign-overs of original music are disseminated as accompaniment to major motion pictures, made-for-TV movies, televised/radioed commercial advertisements, and videotapes marketed. [What does 'cavalier' mean? It means that anyone named 'Cavalier' might be asked to make the decision!] Marcia L. Neil/beadtot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.239.212.54 (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This article has been the subject of multiple drive-by taggings, sometimes by anonymous editors. As the current NPOV tag was not accompanied by a NPOV dispute on this page, and the article looks satisfactorily NPOV to me, I am removing the tag at this time. Note to editors: In the future, please use the NPOV template only as a warning of an active neutrality dispute, which you may begin yourself on this page at the time of adding the tag. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
For a while now I have been confused why some of the artists I know have released compilation and live albums that received a gold or platinum award before any album with charting radio singles. I recently started to dig up some information to fill my own curiosity (partially originated from an edit war), and found some information that I could not find on any RIAA related wiki page. I discovered that compilation and live albums fall under a category called "video longform" and have different certification requirements than regular studio albums. For the video longform, gold is 50,000 units and platinum is 100,000. I found that information here on billboard.com. It's at the bottom of the list of recently charted longform albums. I know that every page has a group of people that make frequent contributions, and one of those editors could find a better place for this information than myself. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe there isn't one for "record industry". Trekphiler (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As I recall, the album was so named by System because it was leaked on the internet before it was released, not necessarily the actions of RIAA. 116.240.140.54 (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems that this is significant and relevant information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.141 (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
As pointed out in some sections of this discussion, the RIAA's series of lawsuits against private individuals is infamous and extremely controversial. However, this article only has a tiny two-sentence blurb about this issue. I also can't help but notice the absence of any mention of the antitrust class action against the RIAA. Idag (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
This was put into a sub-article some time ago, so the material you restored was a duplicate of Trade group efforts against file sharing. This has been summarize per WP:SUMMARY. At any rate, they aren't really the RIAA's lawsuits, because the RIAA does not own the IP. They do help coordinate them, be each lawsuit filed by major recording companies. Cool Hand Luke 17:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.