Talk:Recording Industry Association of America/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

How Does the law work out there?

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]

One of the simpler ways to do it would be for the RIAA to make a substantial contribution of money to the campaign of a specific candidate for a lawmaking office. The lawmaker will then become aware that, should they pass laws unfavorable to the RIAA, they will be unable to count on their monetary support for their campaign in the future; thus, if they have any interest in retaining their job, they will pass laws favorable to the RIAA. Again, that is a drastically simplified version, but it captures the essentials. -Toptomcat 02:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How Do They Operate

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 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)

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? —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)

By RIAA's twisted reasoning, if three guys meet in a bookstore to swap copies of CDs they paid for (I guess it was just a rental...), the bookstore owner is liable... And the judge bought it! My suggestion, next time you want to dub a track from a CD you bought onto tape, write the label & ask permission. If enough people do it, maybe RIAA'll get the message... Trekphiler (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

it's rather the control they loose. it's all about allocating the distrubtion channels. like microsoft sells vista-locked laptops so you can only put vista on it. and controll generates money since they can charge other companys (not us customers, they earn little from the actual CDs).

microsoft even pays people for installing vista (the latops are way cheaper) but you end up in getting used to it and your employe has to buy vista so you can work effective. It's basicly the same with all modern products, and you can call Music a modern product. unless it's free like in freedom. but you have a point, those RIAA guys still are to stupid to understand how to keep control even when the products are "pirated". actualy quiet funny :)

It is impossible to quantify their monetary losses, because someone having not bought something is a lot harder to measure than someone that did buy something. They can only compare this year's sales with last year's, which brings such a slew of variables to the table that it's flat-out impossible for anyone to tease out how much of the loss (or gain) is due to piracy, and how much is due to shifting tastes, the broader economy, and other factors. The RIAA tried, but its numbers are suspect. -Toptomcat 03:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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).

going too far?

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/portable-media/the-riaa-tries-to-give-a-reacharound-to-the-legal-system-236567.php

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)

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)

grammar edit

Edited language in "boycotts" to make it more clear.

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)

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)

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)

I agree, in particular the introduction of this article goes from describing what the RIAA is, to a paragraph long rant on the unfair legal practices of its members. This should either be removed entirely, or at the least put into its own section. The intro of an article is supposed to describe the subject, not raise various highly specific points. Mrsteveman1 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i have made substantial edits, cleaned up some bias, and moved sections around so that things are a bit more organized. None of my edits are new material. Mrsteveman1 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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 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.

--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.

--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

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)

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)

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)

SoundExchange

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. [1]

Lawsuits

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:

• Rio PMP300 portable MP3 - stay
• Napster - move
• Disclosure of identities of file sharers - move
• Patricia Santangelo, who was sued then children sued for file sharing - move
• Satellite radio - stay, and probably deserves its own section and expansion
• Capitol Records v. Debbie Foster "abusive practaces" - move (more file sharing)
• AllOfMP3 - I'd say this should stay, as the copyright infringement issue is debatable.
• Elektra v. Barker - move

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)

Clean Slate Program

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).

Fixed - changed to a red link to Clean Slate Program (RIAA). --h2g2bob 00:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

RIAA vs BMG Music Club vs Soundscan

Can someone please clarify. Some sites say that RIAA deals with the shipment of sales from their list for record companies who contribute figures [2]. 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 [3] 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)

It should be accounted for. RIAA figures include everybody. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

similar organizations

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)

No objections from me - tagging on page for wider consensus --h2g2bob (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, just be sure to title it something NPOV like "National recording industry trade groups." MPAA will have to be off that list, but can certainly still be discussed here. Cool Hand Luke 03:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that title won't do unless the list is substantially changed. Some of the organizations appear to be more like BMI and ASCAP. I oppose making this ill-defined list of purported copyright badguys into an article. What does "similar to the RIAA" even mean? Come up with an NPOV definition first, then write the list. As is, it's totally unacceptable even in this article. Cool Hand Luke 03:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How about "National content industry trade groups" ? --h2g2bob (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This definition would include groups like BMI and ASCAP, right? Sounds ok. Cool Hand Luke 04:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What about "List of groups that protect intellectual properties"?

I think that is far too loaded of a title and violates Wiki's POV rule. "National content industry trade groups" sounds better. 76.251.223.82 16:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I support such a split, as well. TerraFrost 19:53, 26 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)

MC Lars Reference in Culture

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)

Mission statement

Change the last paragraph of the lead

from:

The RIAA's stated goals are to uphold copyright worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists, to perform research about the music industry, 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."

Thanks. Close enough. 199.125.109.13 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Generalize

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)

I'd hardly call that bias: I'd call that lack of contributors. 76.251.223.82 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bainwol and RIAA receive widespread condemnation both amoung general public and music industry

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)

RIAA Lawsuits, question about accuracy

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)

Dozens of reported cases show that the RIAA has indeed sued many people on behalf of their clients, and they coordinate most of the lawsuits they are not directly involved with. Cool Hand Luke 06:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

On closer inspection, it appears the RIAA is used to sue ISPs, and then the copyright owners identify infringers from these successful subpoenas to pursue claims against individuals. Case names might be appropriate, but most of these suits involve a half dozen of more companies. I think listing all of them would turn this into even more of a soapbox than it already is. Cool Hand Luke 06:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm the original poster, sorry for not signing in. Anyway, the p2plawsuits.com site says the following: The plaintiffs are the labels, subsidiaries and affiliates of EMI Music, SONY BMG Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group. The record companies are members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and the RIAA acts as counsel to the record companies in these cases. Perhaps, a general section on the actual plaintiffs in the lawsuit according to this information and then for the others, using the standard convention of using only the lead plaintiff in the case name. Indecine 15:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are the largest RIAA members, who are already listed elsewhere, and it would be fine to state they are the most prolific plaintiffs. However, sources comment on the RIAA cases as a collective because they are co-ordinated by RIAA and its largest members; I think that what you're proposing might be advocacy. The lead plaintiffs aren't really meaningful when they are all footing the bill for what are effectively joint-RIAA lawsuits. The case names are already reflected in the notes. There's a reason that folks counter-sue the RIAA and not its four largest members.

Moreover, even if you were interested in advocacy, each of these companies has an enormous number of labels. I don't think most people besides DJs know that Virgin Records is EMI, for example. Cool Hand Luke 20:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Briana LaHara

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:

• FOXNews.com
• CNET News
• Technology News
• Wikipedia Brianna LaHara
• News Wire

FreddyMack 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That article should probably be merged here or to RIAA efforts against file-sharing. We rarely see a more clear example of WP:BLP1E. I would move them right away, except that both of these articles are in very sad shape, and should be spruced up before adding more even more unstructured content. Cool Hand Luke 05:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It already passed one AfD though, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brianna_LaHara. Tarc 05:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, but even there one of the few legit keep votes suggested it should be merged once it has a home. WP:BLP1E is a rather new concept in AfD debates (indeed, the redirect has only existed for a few months). It would probably now be merged unless this child is notable for something besides being sued. Standards for inclusion have evolved over time. Anyhow, we don't need to nominate it: we should move it somewhere nice, not delete it. Cool Hand Luke 07:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The edits i just made should make things much easier to deal with, I think perhaps this file sharing stuff needs to be in a separate page, and the main RIAA page needs a simple one paragraph section and a link to the file sharing page. Mrsteveman1 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Substantial edits and moves

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)

Pirate Act

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)

Since this page is about the RIAA itself, I'm not sure how you can tie them together unless you have specific information that the RIAA is the one who lobbied for the bill, or if you can show donations to the bills sponsor. I fully believe the RIAA is behind it, but it can't go in the article unless there is reasonably accurate information tying them together. Mrsteveman1 00:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As with any bill that includes this much pork, it's pretty easy to follow the money. Opensecrets.org lists a flurry of contributions in April and May 2007 from copyright associations and specific companies in the TV/music/movies industry (including UMG and Time Warner) to both sponsors of this bill (Leahy and Cornyn). But no contributions reported from the RIAA proper to either senator since 2004. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

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)

What music is, and how RIAA misrepresents it

(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)

EMI pulling funding?

Under pressure from EMI, RIAA could disappear was the title for a recent article. [[4]] 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)

Don't know where this belongs, or if it belongs

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 Lookout Records, Epitaph Records and Bloodshot Records (who are not members) have been listed there. 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)

Major restructure

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)

It looks like a user has deleted several sections wholesale, and I can't say that I disagree much. I support any massive re-write. The article is so poorly structured that it would almost certainly be an improvement. I hope the POV can also be fixed, and making a criticism section would probably help. The article is almost nothing but criticism, especially the POV-pushing lawsuit section. See Talk:RIAA efforts against file-sharing#Neutrality. Cool Hand Luke 18:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as it currently reads, the "Efforts against file-sharing" still seems disproportionally long, especially for having a main article. IMHO, it shouldn't need more than a medium-sized paragraph or two. — Northgrove 00:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be a brief summary of the sub-article. If nobody else gets to it before I do, I'll see about getting it down to a couple of sentences, and making sure all the text is moved to (or already duplicated on) the sub-article. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

copyrighted music used in videotapes/motion pictures

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)

Removing Drive-By NPOV Tag

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)

New information to add - but not quite sure where it belongs

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)

WikiProject

I can't believe there isn't one for "record industry". Trekphiler (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Steal this Album!

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)

Why no mention of the 20k+ lawsuits

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)

NPOV

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)

I have attempted to address the POV in the article by restoring important material that was deleted earlier (I tried to restore only the well-researched non-editorial material). If people are ok with these changes, then I believe that they sufficiently address the NPOV issues and we can remove the NPOV tag from the article. Idag (talk) 15:49, 5 November 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)

Oh, and I'm not sure which antitrust case you mean, but the Arista v. Limewire claims, which were promoted by Ray Beckerman, were dismissed last December with very little media attention in either direction. No proof of injury or standing. An earlier suit by internet radio was also dismissed, but I think that one had more coverage, so might be worth including. Cool Hand Luke 17:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean Andersen v. Atlantic 07-934 in the District of Oregon. Not much coverage on that one either. They have a conference tomorrow morning, but no orders on the class action certification. Looks like the RICO claims have been dropped. Much coverage of these suits would be undue weight in the article because no news outlets cover them. Cool Hand Luke 17:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Trade Group Efforts Against File Sharing" is one of the most controversial and infamous aspects the RIAA. If we drop most of that in a separate article and leave a tiny blurb on this page, this results in a POV Fork that violates WP:NPOV (and also results in not enough weight being given to this material in the primary article in violation of undue weight). The material that was restored has plenty of sites to various newspapers (e.g. New York Times).

As far as the antitrust suit, I forget the name (I'll try to look it up again tonight), but I remember there was a suit in the '90s where the record labels got nailed for price fixing CD prices (it might've been the record labels though, not the RIAA-I'll check it again). Idag (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is, and I agree there should be more, but this is way too much, and way to POV. There should not be a lengthy subheading for "selection of dependents," for example, in an article on the RIAA.

The CD price fixing settlement was not that long ago, and not against the RIAA. Cool Hand Luke 19:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the new information needs to be tweaked and streamlined; I was merely restoring the raw information. With regard to the price fixing, my mistake on that one (though we should probably put up Andersen at some point). Idag (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. It doesn't have any press notice at all, and (as with most lawsuits) the RIAA itself isn't even a named defendant. It'll get a story if there's a decent chance of certification; maybe they'll be one after tomorrow, but we shouldn't cover it without these stories. Wikipedia does not exist to advertise lawsuits. Cool Hand Luke 20:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm wrong about that. This case does have some coverage, much about the original RICO claims. It doesn't look like anyone reported that those claims have been dropped, but this lawsuit is probably more notable than a lot of them now in the article. I'll take a detailed look at this later, and remove anything that doesn't seem to have a solid secondary basis. Cool Hand Luke 20:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV 2

I put up the original NPOV tag because this article stuck the filesharing/copyright lawsuits that RIAA was involved in into a separate article, resulting in a POV fork. Since this information has been restored to this article, there is no longer a POV problem. While some folks may object to the lawsuits being included here, they were reported by major news organizations, and since they were an important component of RIAA's actions in the last 5-8 years, there is no undue weight in going into more detail. Therefore, I propose removing the tag. Idag (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there don't appear to be any objections, I'm taking the POV tag off. Idag (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I just made an objection by re-adding the tag. The lawsuit section is not neutral in either article. It engages in a lot of synthesis based upon primary court documents, even including the arguments of individual parties that did not prevail in court. Much of the section is POV advocacy and should be removed. Cool Hand Luke 14:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please discuss things on the talk page instead of waiting for edits to appear and then reverting them. Your objection appears to be based on WP:Synth, not WP:NPOV. The lawsuits happened and they were important. Do you have an actual argument for why including a discussion of them is POV? Idag (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed all of the primary court documents content in the lawsuits section. The only one left is Lindor, and only because that one was successful. Idag (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not yet successful. The magistrate judge granted leave to have the claim added because it's "not clearly frivolous," which is the legal standard. So far, no court in the country has decided that statutory damages are unconstitutional; it's undue weight and biased to include one client's affirmative defense. I do appreciate the other changes though. I think the lawsuits section is the only POV issue. Cool Hand Luke 16:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally that would be correct, but this affirmative defense raises a novel legal issue about something that a reader of this section would probably be interested in. The wording makes it clear that the magistrate only ruled that this defense was "not frivolous." Short of cutting it out entirely, I'm not sure what else can be done with regard to that case to make it sound more neutral, and I'd be hesitant to cut it out entirely because it is an interesting and relevant legal issue. Idag (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that someone is allowed to file claims in a lawsuit does not make mentioning it WP:WEIGHTy, or neutral; plenty of record company claims are not frivolous either, but we don't list any. Listing this one—in spite of very little (if any) reliable third-party coverage—is an undue weight problem, and typical of the systematic bias of this article. See, lots of legal claims are "not frivolous"—frivolousness is very hard standard to break under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because of the Rules' liberal pleading requirements.

So: this one should be cut too. It'll be big news if the claim succeeds, and it might might be worth including if it survives a motion for summary judgment and gets some press, but until then it's just unimportant subtrivia pushing the POV of Lindor's attorney, who probably wrote this section. Cool Hand Luke 05:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

An "actual argument"? Please don't be insulting. I didn't say discussion of the lawsuits was POV. Where did you get that impression?

Including the arguments of individual parties—arguments that were not meritorious—creates a bias in those descriptions. And the synthesis is biased in one direction as well. Bias is the main problem with the section. Cool Hand Luke 15:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed those sources. The remaining sources, with the one exception noted above are all secondary and do not involve synthesis. Idag (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How about a rewrite?

As you can probably tell, I dislike the current section. I think the selection of cases by an active attorney skewed the selection from the beginning. Instead of discussing individual cases, I propose we write a paragraph about typical press/scholarship reactions and counterclaims against the RIAA lawsuits. So instead of mentioning that Lindor has challenged the constitutionality of statutory fees, we would just say that they've been challenged—more than one defendant has raised a constitutionality defense, and there are also professor law blogs and maybe even journal articles opining about the issue.

I would like this section to move away from discussion of individual cases, which I this is undue weight, and toward broader themes that have been discussed in a lot of secondary sources. I don't have very much time right now, but some claims that come to mind are:

• Constitutionality of statutory fees
• Allegedly illegal tactics involved in gathering evidence/MediaSentry
• RICO
• ect.

We would summarize scholarly and judicial output related to each type of claim. I think this approach is more consistent with an encyclopedia. Cool Hand Luke 05:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not be averse to that. I was going to do that anyway, but I left the current section up as a placeholder until I get a bit more time. I'm betting that we'll be able to find some decent law review articles that discuss this whole thing. Idag (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)