Talk:Recording Industry Association of America
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Good Grief
"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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.79.169 (talk • contribs).
[edit] RIAA
"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." That might be because the kkk does not opeanly sue 8 year old girls...the riaa are abunch of gready corprate basterds who will kill for a peny. They screw over artist and custermers alike. The kkk attacks a mionirity , while the riaa attacks teh majority of people. It is like arresting everyone under 18 who looks at porn on the web.
I am in no way shape or form sanctioning what the kkk or white supremist websites do, but there is a reason they are more populer then the RIAA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.70.252 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Actual losses?
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)
[edit] similar organizations
The "similar organizations" really ought to be its own document, a List -- any objections? --lquilter 15:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] riaa .70 cents per song
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlexOvShaolin (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] going too far?
Could somebody integrate this bit of information into this entry? Izaak
- Someone already did, but I trimmed it as it was going into a bit of a rant. It would be great to have someone expand this to include some analysis (sourced if possible) on how well the boycott will work. I mean, how muchmoney do they make from consumers buying records directly compared to other revenue streams? Also, how far will this reach - is it only online, or have print newspapers picked up on it? Stuff like that would make a great section. --h2g2bob 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] added external link
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)
[edit] grammar edit
Edited language in "boycotts" to make it more clear.
[edit] Split Efforts against file sharing?
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)
- Yeah I agree, the section should have its own article. It's such a massive topic, with news about it cropping up every other day. Robinoke 20:13, 22 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)
[edit] Not an actual article on the RIAA
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
- Hello there Blutwulf. I do my best to improve this article. I'd welcome any help: you too can edit this article to make it better. --h2g2bob 22:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Split
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:
- Organizations such as p2pnet[1] allege that the RIAA is, in effect, an organized cartel which artificially inflates and fixes the prices for CDs. In 2003, the major CD issuers in the American market, including the "Big Four" settled a major scale price-fixing case brought by 43 state Attorneys General.[2]
--h2g2bob 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Likewise this one
- In 2006, the RIAA claimed that it gives too much money to the artists and seeks to reduce the royalties paid out to artists.[3]
--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
[edit] RIAA TO Disband?
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)
- Probably from this p2pnet article dated April fools day. --h2g2bob 13:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV debates
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've combed the article for common weasel words, and have only come up with one: "There is much criticism of the RIAA's policy and method of suing individuals for copyright infringement." - This claim is backed up in the following sentences, but "much" seems to be a weasel word. Can anybody think of a better way to phrase it? --Poochy 06:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just remove much and replace it with "has been" or "is continuing"? --69.210.141.5 07:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
