Jump to content

Talk:Recording Industry Association of America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robust Physique (talk | contribs) at 05:14, 14 March 2006 (→‎RIAA is not evil). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I think the RIAA cartoon image by MasterHomer is great! Connelly 04:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moved this from the page. Very POV:

P2P Smear Campaign

On September 6 2003 the RIAA started a smear campaign against peer to peer programs claiming that they facilitated child pornography.

This is being viewed by the internet community as an attempt to discredit P2P networks by associating them with something that stops any defense against the claim (anyone defending peer to peer would risk being accused of supporting child pornography) and is almost certain to make certain groups (e.g. parents) turn their attention to this subject with a view to banning P2P.

Also this could be viewed as hypocrisy, as the past actions of the companies that make up the RIAA have shown that they are willing to exploit children and expose them to songs that parents might find unsuitable. It must be stated that there has been no proven instance of the RIAA using actual child pornography, but exploitation has nonetheless happened.

Also what's with the more than a dozen external links to anti-RIAA rants. Also when one of us gets round to NPOV-ing this article could we un-anonmyize opponents of the RIAA (EFF, some online freedom bigwigs?) At the moment it reads like a hysterical Slashdot user has prefixed their comments with 'Opponents say...'. This article is on the main page! Pete 07:50, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'll check out the external links...perhaps some should be removed. dave 14:20, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I highly agree that the article has way too much "critics claim", "opponents say", etc. so I added a weasel terms warning. --Headcase 14:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologize for placing a link to this article on the main page. It is a bit non-NPOV I agree, especially the 2nd para. of the spear campaign section, and I'll make sure to consider this next time I put something on the main page. On the other hand, putthing this article on the main page has brought some needed attention to the article (not my original intention, but a good side-effect). Secondly, the reason the RIAA is in the news lately is due to the lawsuits against file-swappers, so the article definitely had significant coverage of that aspect of the RIAA which makes it good as a newsy article to put on the main page. Perhaps a separate page could be create which has all sorts of information about the lawsuits and the RIAA's actions against file-swappers and other piraters. This will keep and RIAA-bashing off the main RIAA article, and keep any NPOV facts related to the lawsuits on another page. dave 14:20, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up too much about putting it on the main page. You are right that it is a big story... had penetrated my concious and I don't live in the States.. probably particularly big story for visitors to this website. Personally I'd prefer keeping everything on one page.. it's one cohesive subject and one reasonably lengthy page is better than two shortish ones. But I am not sure I am capable of writing this article... so will leave the decision in your (or another's) capable hands. Pete 21:01, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't get it why this was taken off the page. The RIAA most certainly did try to associate filesharing with child porn. There should also be information about the RIAA paying for software to destroy computers used for filesharing, and attempts to get laws passed (mainly sponsored by Utah's Senator Orrin Hatch) to make it legal for them to use actually these programs. Just because there is little good to write about an organization does not mean you should take off negative, true information about them. --68.100.225.1 04:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ditto --Aknorals 02:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Earlier today, I accidentally protected this page, and assumed that it wasn't long enough before I hit the browser stop button, to take effect. Sorry for the inconvenience. dave 20:50, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No biggie. Thanks for un-protecting it, Dave!  :) Paige 23:30, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD NEW TALK TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE - Paige

Moved from above:

I agree; this article is anything *but* neutral. I am very much in support of what the RIAA is doing, and I hate that it is nearly impossible to find any opinion that agrees with mine online (I'm not counting the RIAA site, since it's down half the time). It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA. In fact, there are a lot more white racist web sites than anti-piracy web sites. And that's sad. - anonymous 67.32.251.222

Am I the only one here who does not miss the irony in the post above? If this was a serious post, NPOVing this article -- and keeping it that way -- will be a truly difficult task indeed. Paige 23:30, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I'm exaggerating a bit, of course, but just to make a point. I've noticed that supporting the RIAA is considered such a shocking thing to do that you're more likely to run into a Neo-Nazi than an RIAA supporter. I really don't see what you mean by "irony"; I was not being sarcastic.
So you missed the irony entirely. He was suggesting not that you were being ironic, which obviously you're not, but that you're clamoring for NPOV while professing indignation that your point of view particularly is not well-received among the majority. It isn't that you want NPOV. It's that your words speak more toward wanting an article biased favorably to you rathern than favorably to the opposition. That's the irony he mentioned. Jesus Christ.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the RIAA, the article lacks neutrality, but it also lacks a historical treatment - when did the RIAA come into existence and why? What has it done in the past? What about technical aspects - for example the playback characteristic of a vinyl record is defined by the RIAA equalization curve, which involves an actual hardware implementation in amplifiers that have phono inputs, so that should be explained here, or linked at least. GRAHAMUK 23:24, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have now written this: RIAA equalization. Still need some history though. GRAHAMUK 00:29, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
That looks like an excellent contribution. Pete 07:16, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Seconded -- Cabalamat 16:13, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Anyone know what the hell happened to that article? It has just been recreated with no history - someone appears to have deleted the previous one wholesale. Why? Graham 02:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This underlines what a pile of pants the concept of neutrality is - the idea that there is a middle 'correct' ground somewhere, and that opinion differs from this in some fixed degree is nonsense. I suppose you could list all the possible opinions people held, or just stick to relatively uncontroversial 'facts', but that would be very dull.

It's not so much about finding a 'correct' ground... its about presenting all opinions as opinions (of other named people/organisations) and facts as facts. I don't find it dull. YMMV.
You misunderstood, he meant that it would be dull to just stick to the uncontroversial facts. dave 15:37, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've re-inserted the stuff about the RIAA's P2P child porn campaign, but tried to make it more NPOV -- Cabalamat 16:13, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I Understand the need to keep the article neutral. But what it looks to me is two diffrent views fighting over what is biased and what is not. That in it's own is a difficult thing to judge. Just remember that everybody has thier own biased oppinions about everything. I would just try and stick with the facts and stay aways from adjetives. As for more history involving the RIAA, unfortunately People don't know too much about the RIAA before all the piracy shit started. But I say whatever could be found, use.

RIAA vs. terrorism

Could the RIAA also track down al-Qaeda terrorists from file-sharing and downloading music illegally? I was wondering about illegally downloading or file-sharing music could be linked to terrorism (or, cyberterrorism which I could say). Aside from music, did the Arabs and/or terrorists (especially Saddam or Osama bin Laden) also use Kazaa to download confidential documents illegally?

To the best of my knowledge, no P2P program has attempted to track down terrorists using their networks. In all likelihood, I think the attempt would fail because terrorists are unlikely to use something so insecure to trade sensitive files. Tuf-Kat 03:37, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Over half of the content is before the table of comments; shouldn't the stuff before the TOC be a short introductory text? -- Khym Chanur 03:48, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

I removed the following rant by 66.90.145.178. Apart from being blatant POV, it's also historically inaccurate regarding the usage of the word "piracy" - see Copyright infringement of software.

There may be something to say about their rhetoric, but this isn't it.

Rhetoric of the RIAA

The RIAA continues to use the term "piracy" when they mean "copyright infringement". The use of this term is misleading, since under the USC Title 18, Chapter 81, Section 1652, the term "pirate" and "piracy", applied to a US citizen is defined thusly : "CITE 18 USC Sec. 1652 01/26/98 

         TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
         PART I - CRIMES
         CHAPTER 81 - PIRACY AND PRIVATEERING
         Sec. 1652. Citizens as pirates
           Whoever, being a citizen of the United States, commits any murder
         or robbery, or any act of hostility against the United States, or
         against any citizen thereof, on the high seas, under color of any
         commission from any foreign prince, or state, or on pretense of
         authority from any person, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for
         life."

Thus, it is clear that piracy or "pirate" is not the correct term for copyright infringement. In fact, neither the words "pirate" nor "piracy" are found within the Copyright Act of 1976, nor the DMCA of 1998, nor have any of the filesharing lawsuits, been filed charging "piracy".

It is important to note that in public communications, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Bainwol, et al, have avoided the use of the proper term "copyright infringement" in favor of the hyperbole and intentional misrepresentation of the alleged wrongdoing, by use of the terms "pirate" and "piracy". This suggests that they are intentionally misrepresenting the nature of the problem they allege is occurring, since there is no murder nor robbery on the high seas occurring with copyright infringement.

Against the RIAA

Does the RIAA violate the 8th amendment of the Constitution? I think that the RIAA are violating the 8th amendment - Excessive bails, fines and punishments prohibited. That means paying $150,000 or sometimes putting someone in prision is violating the U.S. Constitution


  • No, the RIAA is a private-enterprise industry trade group, not a section of the government. Constitutional issues do not apply directly to the RIAA. Soundguy99 07:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)Soundguy99

List of RIAA members

Concerning the list of RIAA member companies, wouldn't it be better on a separate page. And of course the list should be wikified. -- Cabalamat 18:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please, this page discusses nothing about the RIAA except lawsuits and P2P smear campaigns. Where's the RIAA history, etc?

This does not read like an encyclopedia article. Anyone knowing RIAA history should please expand this page! I don't know any, so, alas, nothing I can do.


the number and/or names of members change rapidly. i don't know if an accurate list can be made in the wiki. for more infos check here RIAA radar. they have a list somewhere, too.

Intro changes

Hi all;

(Please remember: don't bite the newbie)

Sorry, the changes in the intro really need wikified, but I'm desperately out of time (MUST get to work). I'll try to get to it later. I agree that the article is still much too POV. While I don't doubt the accuracy of the P2P controversy info, simply by including this (and in such detail) without providing info on other technical issues, legislation and civil actions that the RIAA has been involved in gives a non-neutral slant to the article. Also, frankly, this section is so detailed that MEGO. Possibly this stuff should be spun off to its own article, or added to the Peer-to-peer article under "Legal issues". At the very least, I think it should be simplified and consolidated, and additional sections should be added about other RIAA concerns and the actions they've taken. Soundguy99

Re-edited Page

I re-edited a good chunk of the page, including deleting the RIAA lawsuit timeline because it was overly biased thought that should be re added if it can be done fairly.

I also deleted the blatant one sided commentary which resulted in a much shorter article and took away the DPOV warning because I feel that no longer applies after this rewrite.

Jtkiefer 06:00, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Very good. Will you next edit the Phil Spector page to remove those messy references to a dead actress?

[Insert glyph indicating a measure of irony]

Not everything that reflects badly on the subject of the article indicates a DPOV problem. You deleted the entirely factual section I'd added regarding the controversy between the RIAA and the RAC over RIAA-favored/sponsored copyright law changes, without explanation. Most of the information came from Billboard, which isn't noticeably biased against the industry whose advertising funds it. It was a high-profile controversy, if not so visible as the P2P dispute, and it unquestionably impaired the RIAA's political clout. So I'm putting it back, with a bit more specificity. It's an important facet of the RIAA, if a little noted one: It represents the interests of the music distribution/packaging industry, not the creative community.

Monicasdude 22:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to butt in, but there's something seriously wrong with the page as it currently is. At the moment, there is *no* reference to the RIAA suing people for illegally downloading RIAA-represented music. I find that rather confusing, to say the least, and rather one-sided, if I might say so. To whomever altered the page to remove such details (I can't imagine information about the suing campaign was never included in past editions of this page), I'd say that you significantly altered the POV of the article, and that it should be changed back. It's one thing to attempt to show both sides, but this is another thing entirely.

Agreed. NPOV means showing all sides of the argument, not hiding them. How about some references to those studies showing that music sharing benefits the recording industry more than it hurts it? --Thoric 06:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was not my intention to do that, I removed a chunk of information that seemed to be one sided and I apologize if I accidentally deleted benign information in the process. In regards to making it evne more one sided I felt that it was easier and better to just remove the information about the campaign to sue people until it could be rewritten in a neutral point of view. Jtkiefer 01:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I just was reading through this page and it's pretty one-sided against the RIAA. There's a strong implication in the diction that the RIAA is making a mountain out a molehill. There's one paragraph summarizing the RIAA's claims (without citing any references to back it up, athough plenty of third-party surveys exist) and then 6 paragraphs detailing the lawsuit history and what critics of the RIAA think. There's also no mention of the criticism that piracy is ultimately beneficial to the industry. This article is, in my opinion, biased against the RIAA, but also lacking a fundamental argument by critics of the RIAA. I also would like to see some references to the US Legal Code on the matter, as well as a definition of what transgression the RIAA is alleging that P2P users are committing. They might have labeled it piracy but there is an actual law being violated and piracy it is not.

Struck by lightning

The RIAA's criteria for picking lawsuit targets haven't been disclosed, but there's no reason to believe the suits are random. RIAA says it's targeting particular sorts of users -- it's been explicit about trying to find uploaders of large numbers of popular music files -- and shows a particular interest in college students. Therefore, the "if the RIAA suits are random" discussion isn't that much more relevant than an "if the RIAA were a tree" discussion. Monicasdude 15:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article still has some serious NPOV issues (e.g. the line about "Mob-like practices" and the "absurd lawsuits.") --Fermatprime 21:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

tell me again, what is stopping you from fixing them? Thepcnerd 03:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that's rhetorical but I'll answer it anyway: I generally don't fix NPOV if I share the same bias, since I'm afraid I'll just end up making it worse. --Fermatprime 00:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree... i hate the RIAA as much as the next guy but this article is pretty heavily biased. I changed mob-like to alleged mob-like because that is true (see recent RICO lawsuit) but how do you flag a site as contraversial or whatever?

POV-Check

The NPOV issues aren't as bad as people seem to suggest. I think it's more that people are so accustomed to taking sides that even an unbiased article appears to be taking sides if the truth isn't sunshine and rose petals all around. Most of the article is actually ok, the RIAA operates exactly like the economic model of a cartel, so that part is fine (it is even cloaked in the "oppoenets say" umbrella for added protection). "Alleged mob-like practices" is clumsy but acceptable. The "absurd lawsuit" part is the only section that sounds somewhat off the NPOV bandwagon. The lawsuit is, in fact, absurd by legal standards though, so perhaps even this is ok. When did it become unacceptable to use descriptions when they don't "sound nice"? Not everything is nice, like the RIAA grabbing for money (like any other corporation they are driven by greed; think $2.49 ringtones.) I mean, let's talk specific issues on the article here for sure, but let's not forget an unbiased view doesn't mean making both sides look like heroes -- sometimes the unbiased truth is painful and reveals evil we'd rather not see. -Vincent.

Admittedly, I'm not a huge fan of the RIAA either, but I think there is some bias in the article. I removed the "mob-like practices" comment completely and replaced it with: "However, this does not appear to have allayed the concerns of many critics." Because I think that was the meaning behind the sentence, and accusations of extortionist practices by the RIAA were already clear before allusions to mob-practices(besides, even from a critical point of view the legal exploitation utilized by the RIAA is different than that of the mob).

Also: "Some artists openly oppose the RIAA's policy of trying to sue file-traders, encourage their fans to share their music online, while legally preventing the RIAA from suing people distributing their music online." I think it would help, first, to add specific artist's opinions or, if there is a general group or categorization of musicians which feel this way, to mention it. It would give the reader more perspective into the effect(positive or negative) file-sharing has on professional musicians. As well as mentioning musicians on the other side of the debate(I'm sure there must be some). RadioYeti

anti-RIAA logo needs to go

It is the most noticeable feature of the entire article and a quite negative (read:POV) overtone. --Alterego 08:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But are the actions of the public not as noticible of a feature in the real world situation? Thepcnerd 02:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Alterego. I removed the logo. I happened to read this page and the logo is so prominent that I didn't even notice that the official RIAA logo was on the page. Also, I don't see why a logo of an activist group should accompany an article that is not about this activist group. If you want the logo, then create an article about the 'boycott riaa' organization. Han-Kwang 18:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honeysuckle

What exactly is the "honeysuckle" image? I checked the history to see if it was vandalism but couldn't tell. Paul 20:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Content Protection Act of 2006

I think there should be a mention of the RIAA backing the Digital Content Protection Act of 2006. [1] [2] [3] I am not versed enough in the ways of wikiPOV and such to do it myself. -Hench 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there not more information on how exactly music licencing works in the US? Could it be possible for an alternative to the RIAA to spring up? Do all US musical works have to flow through the RIAA hands? Scott Paeth 19:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History and relevant discussion of the RIAA

On http://www.riaa.com/issues/audio/history.asp there is a bunch of history about the RIAA. This article has a short derisive blurb about the RIAA, and then launches into grievances. I was trying to find out all the different business areas the RIAA is in; perhaps some history of payola scandals, some of the tech evolutions, their relationship to BMI/ASCAP, etc. I found nothing of use here except that the RIAA is mean when it subpoenas young/old/dead people. Damien Stolarz 25 January 2006

RIAA is not evil

In your article you pretty much made the claim that the RIAA is wrong and you said artists get very little while recording industry retains much of the profit for themselves. This is not true. Yes, a lot of larger record labels are out to screw you out of your money, but it's not mainly for profit. The record label usually fronts the artist money to create and promote a CD or any other thing... the band does not get paid from the royalties of this product untill the record label has been paid back for the advance. As far as peer-to-peer downloading... it is copyright infringment, is illegal, and anyone who does it should be persecuted.

Record labels are in the business mainly for profit. ~MDD4696 23:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So does every other company on the planet. Robust Physique 07:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
did you mean prosecuted? Jay walking is illegal too, should we prosecute/persecute every jaywalker? (any number of trivial offenses?) Legality isn't a strong argument for ethical action regarding this issue. One must look at other things as well. RIAA is not evil but they aren't interested in 'good' either. It's not a moralist institutian. And you are debating on a wiki, most people are going to be pro free movement of information, across the board. After reading this article I did not think the RIAA was evil. And enjoyed the point counter point of this wiki.
They would start prosecuting jay walkers, ...if there are so many jay walkers that people cannot safely drive cars. Robust Physique 05:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recording_Industry_Association_of_America&oldid=43683522"