Talk:Recording Industry Association of America/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old comments

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

Look, I hate the RIAA too, but...

"The RIAA suggests that DRM restrictions should remain in effect under all circumstances, even if it potentially endangers lives."

I know that they did actually say that, but it's still unprofessional to put that there. It obviously wasn't supposed to be taken in that context.

In what other context could you possibly take that pathetic statement by the RIAA?

"The RIAA has been more focused since 2005 on University and college-aged students, with the purpose stated by the RIAA to deter and discourage unethical habits by youth on the verge of entering the world community."

That also needs citation. Antisthenex 18:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed Text

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)

---

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)

---

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)

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

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)

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?

Who cares? I really, really doubt there are any _normal_ people in this world that acctually likes the RIAA. I mean... the article about nazi germany says they burned jews... this article says the RIAA is a bunch of bastards. Is there a Wikipedia policy I'm unaware of, "Don't be mean to nasty people?" Atzel 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say that this article is indeed biased against the RIAA, but the facts pretty much dictate the bias, just like how the articles for the KKK and Nazi Party are arguably biased against their subjects. For that matter, I can think of more good things to say about the Nazi Party than I can to say about the RIAA. --Poochy 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Check this site out. http://www.musiccreators.ca/ Its a coalition formed by canadian musicians who aren't against the RIAA, but, condemn such radical measures as to suing people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.46.230 (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

History and Legal Power

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)

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)

So does every other company on the planet. Robust Physique 07:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

"persecuted", heh.

The RIAA and the MIAA are evil. They may in fact be the Devil's own agents on earth, here to bring about apocalypse in all it's glory, jadda jadda jadda. Seriously though. Yes, they are evil, from the perspective that they are out to gain profit, regardless of who they need to stomp on. Atzel 16:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Non americana

any chance of comparisons with international bodies? If they exist?

This article really needs to be rewritten, and that would be a good thing to include. ~MDD4696 01:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

International bodies do exist. IFPI seams to be following the search and sue strategy of RIAA in Europe, working with local authorities, ISPs and copyright enforcement associations. Like RIAA, its actions are starting to became controversial. In a recent action, IFPI and Belgian ISPs violated European Data Privacy laws, by sharing the identity of users involved in P2P song trading, without any court order. Currently it's actions are centered in South Europeen countries, where piracy levels are higher. --Netshark 17:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason why so many people illegally download is because the actual music costs too much (9 bucks for an album???)..good thing i dont listen to music :P 71.250.195.65 02:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There's the Swedish Anti-Piracy Agency which is affiliated with the MIAA. Note that despite the "official" sounding name, it's completely unrelated to the goverment and pretty much universially hated. [4] Atzel

17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In Australia there is the ARIA (Australian Recording Industry Assosiation) an 'ARIA' is also an award given out by the ARIA. Rudraksha 05:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added it in the "similar organisations" section, but feel free to change the wording on it. Remember, you can always be bold and add it yourself :D --h2g2bob 21:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Links

Is the Boycott RIAA link considered neutral? UrbenLegend 18:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well... one could justify the link because the association is directly related to the RIAA. I think that link is the least of our worries on this article, however. ~MDD4696 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Hello! I've made some pretty big changes over the past few days, mostly in how it's organised and trying to make it less POV. This is really just to let you all know in case you're interested. Actually It'd be really handy for someone to say if it's still POV, as it's quite tricky for me to see (because I did the edits). --H2g2bob 13:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Expansion and POV Tags

If nobody objects, I'd like to suggest removing the Expansion and POV tags. It's not really missing any major sections, and it hasn't got any major POV I can see. Does everybody agree with this, or does it still need more work? --H2g2bob 18:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tags now - if you think it still needs work, I'll put therm back --H2g2bob 00:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking - the article in it's current state is pretty much NPOV, and doesn't need expansion. However, I expect this can change at any moment, given the feelings for this organisation. Sfacets 04:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but if it goes POV again we can fix it or stick the POV tag back up. --H2g2bob 17:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Article needs to be more balanced.

While I strongly oppose the way the RIAA operates, and the record companies monopoly on music, this article seems to be slanted. WikiPedia requires articles have a neutral POV. Please help to make this article more neutral.

Articnomad 20:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You should have seen it before ;-) I have tried to clean up this article, and at the moment I don't really think this is too bad as far as POV-ness goes. If there is any POV, please let me know and I'll try to fix it, or you can fix it yorself, if you like.

This article is a prime target for POV edits though, so you might like to keep an eye on it in your watchlist. --H2g2bob 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a misguided project to make an article "balanced" when there is so little good to be said about them! - CyberAnth 09:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a majority of the criticism has to be taken to another article page. and that this page should solely be on the RIAA, its interests, functions, etc. and a paragraph on controversy/criticism which should link to another listing. - Ashton V. 16:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

I've removed the text added by User:206.13.34.2 (website) because it's POV, plus that's mentioned in the criticism section. --H2g2bob 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Not completely fact

I am concerned that some things said in this article are not completely neutral and state an opinion more than they state fact. Take this sentance from Anti-Piracy for example: This suggests that people do not need or have the right to back up anything that does not have a high failure rate.

I think this article should be kept an eye on for vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.124.32 (talk • contribs)

If you spot any opinion in this, be bold and just edit it out. I did the last major edit of this and removed or edited a lot of statements like that (and worse), but it's more than likely I've missed a load. So, feel free to edit it!

I've removed the bit you mentioned. (I also expanded the "DRM restrictions..." bit after it for clarity, which I was meaning to do before but forgot)

As for vandalism, it is a target, but most obvious vandalism gets reverted very quickly. More subtle vandalism usually gets picked up by people with the page in their watchlists. If you spot any vandalism, just edit it out. --H2g2bob 03:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

potentially endangers lives???

"The RIAA suggests that DRM restrictions should remain in effect under all circumstances, even if it potentially endangers lives.[9]"

Huh?? I read the cited source and find nothing to substantiate this claim. I think the RIAA are slimes but this is completely innapropriate verbiage.

---

It's true: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=984

specifically, some trade groups were trying to make an exception for sitiuations similar to when Sony had been selling audio CDs which installed a root-kit based DRM system on every computer they were put in. I believe the concern is that future RIAA DRM solutions may also compromise computer systrems in unexpected ways, and that the user needed the legal ability to remove it, should this be the case.

none the less, the paragraph in question seems out of place and biased at the moment.

youtube users' "own works"

"The RIAA has recently sent cease-and-desist letters to YouTube users for publishing their own works without licensing.[28]"

Own works? The source cited actually describes the riaa sending cease and desist letters to people uploading videos using unlicensed music. The claim is heavily misleading, since it suggests the riaa wants these people to license their own work, when it in fact wants them to license the music which they include.

The only evidence the source provides for that is a dead link. I'm removing it for now, though if someone could turn up a copy of one of the letters, I suppose it might be worth mentioning it as overzealous on the grounds that the music is of a very low quality. --Cruci 13:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Established Category

Category:Recording Industry Association of America itself is a member of Category:1952 establishments. Why is that? Shouldn't this topic be a member of "1952 establishments" directly, and not the RIAA category? -- Mikeblas 18:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

piracy

"The RIAA is a critic of music file-sharing, and has long contended that sharing of copyrighted music is a form of piracy, applying the well-known computing term to music. The RIAA especially targets music files uploaded onto the Internet using peer-to-peer software, a practice which the RIAA claims costs $4.2 billion worldwide."

"Piracy" has been used to describe copyright infringement long before it was applied to computers; the following [5] has it listed as first recorded in 1701. I think the phrasing here is ridiculous; music file-sharing is objectively piracy (in the sense of "2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy." [6], whatever your opinion of the rights and wrongs of it. I'm changing this to "The RIAA is a fierce opponent of music file-sharing, or music piracy." --Cruci 13:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Toksyuryel has changed my edit to say that the RIAA "asserts" that music file-sharing is piracy. As I have pointed out on his talk page, it is piracy by the definition of merriam-webster, dictionary.com, wiktionary, cambridge dictionaries online and wikipedia's disambiguation page for piracy. He claims the RIAA invented the term, and that it is only an opinion because "the majority of music listeners and music artists (not labels, artists) do not believe it is piracy in any way", and so has reverted my change (twice) without justifying himself on the talk page. I'm seriously unimpressed, and waiting for him to show up here to explain himself. That his latest edit summary points out that "Wikipedia is not for opinions or interpertations. It is for facts" seems nothing short of bizarre. --Cruci 01:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk of "piracy" or "freedom" is deliberatly emotional language used to manipulate the emotions of people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a blog or a rant site. Language about copyright and fair use and facts that follow the money are far more encyclopedic than talk of piracy or freedom. WAS 4.250 03:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Point of view, redux

This was discussed before, but this article has some serious POV issues. It focuses much more on peer to peer lawsuits, and criticism thereof, than anything else about the organization.

A couple of parts caught my eye: 1) The first sentence about the RIAA website is "The RIAA's website is an obvious target for some hackers [crackers] who oppose the RIAA's practices" 2) "The RIAA suggests that DRM restrictions should remain in effect under all circumstances, even if it potentially endangers lives."

I will reorganize the website section, and remove the latter comment. More work is needed to clean this up to the appropriate standard, though.--Djedi 08:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've given up on describing file-sharing as piracy, given that it just gets reverted --Cruci 12:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Name tags to litigation documents

For those contributors who want access to the actual litigation documents, I've finally figured out how to use anchor name tags, which makes it a bit easier to access each case file. You can check out the Table of Cases, which is updated periodically, to get the name tags.

-Ray Beckerman

PS Earlier today I created a link to the Table of Cases in the main body of the article, and someone removed it. Does Wikipedia have anti-troll safeguards? If not, I'd rather not spend the time putting in information that the RIAA can so easily remove.

results of lawsuits?

The article mentions that the RIAA has filed many lawsuits, but only mentions that the RIAA backed out of three of them. What about the rest? Does the RIAA win these suits, in general? More wins than losses?

I am not aware of any trials.

I am not aware of any summary judgment results one way or the other except the BMG v. Gonzalez case, where the defendant admitted wholesale copying of plaintiffs' song files without authorization.

I am not aware of any dismissals, except for Priority Records v. Brittany Chan, where the RIAA was suing a 14-year-old, and failed to follow the judge's direction to submit a proposal for appointment of a guardian ad litem and for the RIAA's payment of the guardian's fees.

So bottom line, it's too early to tell, at least based on the cases of which I am aware.

Organization of this page?

I am knowledgeable about the RIAA litigations. I think this page needs to be reorganized.

There should be a heading: Litigations against p2p suppliers.

There should be subheads for each major case. E.g., MGM v. Grokster, Arista v. Limewire, etc.

There should be another heading: Litigations against consumers.

Under that there should be subheadings for Copyright Law Issues (where there should be headings for "Downloading", "Distributing", and for "Making Available for Distribution") and Procedures (with subheadings for "The John Doe Stage", Initiating Litigations Against Named Consumers, Pretrial Discovery, Summary Judgment, Trial, Default Judgment, Judgment Enforcement, Bankruptcy.)

Ray 17:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)RayBeckerman

Don't forget litigation against technology manufacturers, like RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems Inc. (9th affirms denial of RIAA-sought injunction against manufacture and distribution of the Rio MP3 player), and litigation against licensees and business partners, like Atlantic Recording Corp. et al. v. XM Satellite Radio Inc. Matt Fitzpatrick 06:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"online media distribution system"

This phrase is a self-serving neologism that does not appear outside RIAA and MPAA court filings. As used by the RIAA and MPAA, the phrase means exactly the same thing as "peer-to-peer file sharing network," except that it attempts to engender two legal conclusions: 1) that file sharing constitutes distribution under copyright law, and 2) that file sharing networks are primarily designed to facilitate distribution of media content. These implications are highly controversial, and not well settled in any jurisdiction, so I doubt this sort of conclusory language is helpful in an encyclopedic article, especially when the term "peer-to-peer file sharing network" is vastly more accepted.

For this reason, I suggest replacing the above phrase with the more widely accepted phrase, or, if the particular network is known, the name of that network ("FastTrack," for example). Alternatively, if it is helpful to retain this phrase as an example of the subject's viewpoint and rhetoric, the phrase should be conspicuously qualified as such an example. Matt Fitzpatrick 06:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

GIVE ME YOUR LUNCH MONEY

Shouldn't this page discuss how RIAA sues 12 year old kids? Coderx 17:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, by my understanding, the RIAA seldom sues minors. This is because they appear to follow the chain of evidence from MediaSentry, to ISP, to account holder, then stop, unless the account holder fights back or names names. Priority v. Brittany Chan is the exception, not the rule. I'd suspect it's a little more common that they target or sue deceased individuals, people who moved away, or people who just moved in, due to the nature of their investigation. Matt Fitzpatrick 22:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, The RIAA follows the trail from the IP address used to download the file, to ISP, to user. However it is fairly easy to beat the RIAA by saying that an IP address is not a person and therefore is inconclusive. It onl works if more than one person uses the computer or if you have an unsecured wireless network --12.160.240.140 22:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"SELDOM"?! To me, sueing kids is a binary option. Either you do or you don't!

why?

why was my section removed?

"The RIAA's Executive members are a bunch of rich idiots who need to be shot in the knees then castrated and finally have their eyeballs removed, all without anesthesia."

give me one good reason that the previous statement should not be included?? It is a fact and clearly stated in the book "Reasons the RIAA Should not Exist" by Peter Kausmith

Hmm.... I wonder why? Soniczip 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Piracy is a mess

Okay, I have been trying for some time now to consolidate all information in piracy into one comprehensive article. Originally this was through significant additions to the article on copyright infringement, but piracy lies somewhat beyond the scope of that article. I just discovered the article on copyright infringement of software, and VCD peddler yesterday. As well, you can find significant discussions in the articles on Bittorrent, RIAA and related articles. I was in the process of creating a proposed article in my user namespace to be at Piracy (information), but in light of the widespread discussion of this issue I've realized that this is not something that I can do alone.

So, I'm asking for help, or at least discussion of ways to clear up the present situation. Please comment on the proposed article's talk page, so that we can keep discussion centralized... despite the insanity that attempts to cover this rather complex topic. --IntrigueBlue 06:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

RIAA recording specifications - lack of

I am a new DJ. I was trying to find basic information for the standards to which commercial recordings are made, such as frequency ranges / limits & stereo seperation accross that frequency range , etc. I went to the RIAA www site. I could not even find the famed RIAA equalization curve for vinyl recording , let alone any modern specifications. Read between the lines - all I could find was information on copyright infringement. Now , I have friends that are musicians , and everybody deserves to make a living. It seemed to me that the RIAA has neglected it's original purpose. By the way , does anyone know of the source for this information? Please post it here.

this might do you some good... http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/RIAA_equalization aboxbayz 03:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Cartel" Appellation

While it could certainly be argued that the RIAA is a cartel, as it hasn't legaly been defined as such (as might be seen in action by the federal government) but does self identify as a trade group (not necessarily a mutually incompatible situation) I think it would be better to leave the less accusatory latter description in the title, to reduce the POV of that section, while refering to its possible nature as a cartel later in the article. Icelight 06:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ta, there is already a mention of cartel-like bahaviour in the criticism section --h2g2bob 13:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lawsuit $

I've removed this sentence: "The RIAA claims in public statements that their crusade is to benefit the artists, however, not one cent of the lawsuits to date has been paid to any recording artist ."

I don't think the RIAA ever claimed the suits were going to actually result in compensation for artists, but rather that artists would benefit from increased sales because lawsuits deterred file-sharers. Because frankly, in terms of money, these suits are pocket change to the record companies, and especially because those sued were heavy downloaders, the little money that was won would not spread out over the possibly thousands of artists whose music had been copied. Additionally, this sentence just struck me as whiny and desperate. Whirlingdervish 22:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

This page is a complete mess. It's clear that the editors have no desire to provide encyclopedic information on the RIAA as almost all of the article focuses solely on one part of their operation. Clearly their anti-piracy efforts and related criticism are remarkable but they're hardly all that the RIAA is. Where is the information about the group's creation? Their gold-record certification program? Anything other than being the evil nazis that stop people from stealing from them? The Masked Debater 18:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Do add any decent information to this page and hack out any biased information. To be honest, it's surprisingly difficult to find out about the RIAA's history - the RIAA website isn't much help, and the other online encyclopedias have no information either. The rest of the web is like this page, only worse. --h2g2bob 21:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

The whole criticism section has been (You know, the part where they sue kids, dead people and old ladies?) removed. Huh, wonder who would of had the motive to do that. Who, oh possibly who. Wikipedia is not CENSORED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.4.240 (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

it's been over 4 months? (20th Oct 08)

I agree with you on this one. It is a very biased article in favour of the RIAA. Bonzostar (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's still gone. Seems very peculiar that an article on such a controversial subject is so in favor of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.214.149 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article has three sections on the RIAA suing various defendants. Its just not piled together in a "Criticism" section. Idag (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the article should be flagged for bias. It contains no criticism section, only has one section where it mentions the lawsuits that the RIAA is mostly known for. In addition to this I feel that the selection of defendants section should be expanded so that it mentions the problems with their systems (such as suing university printers http://torrentfreak.com/bitaudit-the-tool-you-dont-want-anti-pirates-to-have-100628/ ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.195.9.50 (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Fraud case brought against RIAA

Shahanda Moelle Moursy of North Carolina is suing four record companies, the RIAA, and two of the RIAA's investigative firms. Among the complaints are fraud and abuse of the court system for a public intimidation campaign.

I'm not sure if this is notable enough for the article yet, but if it gets to trial it probably will be, perhaps even meriting its own separate article. For anyone who wants to keep up with it, here are some links:

• http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18654.
• http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/01/174249
• http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-sued-fo...l-sham-090301/
• http://digg.com/music/RIAA_Sued_for_...and_Legal_Sham
• http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...99874238501080 Equazcion •✗/C • 22:27, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)

If she wins, then we could include it. Idag (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Trials aren't noteworthy enough for Wikipedia? --77.109.213.122 (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

neutrality

A section specifically dedicated to the most frequently cited criticisms would be the minimum needed to bring this into a half-neutral direction. It should definitely include the word "criticism" in the section header. Currently, the word "criticism" does not even once occur anywhere in the article. 78.34.152.54 (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have reliably cited criticism then add it. Also note that separate criticism sections are discouraged. Better to balance the whole article by interweaving criticism in with the rest of the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not neutral in the matter though. And I'm not an editor. 78.34.180.107 (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your neutrality tag is unjustified. It's normally good practice before tagging articles to actually read the article, rather than just word searching it. You'll see there is criticism in the article.

• The RIAA's policy and method of suing individuals for copyright infringement is criticized.
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union and Public Citizen oppose the ability of the RIAA and other companies to "strip Internet users of anonymity without allowing them to challenge the order in court
• The RIAA's criticized methods of identifying individual users has led to..
• The "Work Made for Hire" controversy
• MC Lars's single "Download This Song" criticized the RIAA ..

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is actually pretty heavy on criticism. It's incorporated into each relevant section of the article. This is preferred to having "POV" sections. Cool Hand Luke 23:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is very, vey bad. It needs to be completely rewritten, because it's only bashing on RIAA, not giving information about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars Jan Zeeuw (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's way too kind on those cheaters. It fails completely to cite several instances where RIAA has kept money intended for artists as well as lacks even a mention of the fact that RIAA has been sued by artists due to their scamming. --77.109.213.122 (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Collection of royalties?

From the article: "The RIAA also participates in the collection, administration and distribution of music licenses and royalties."

How so? According to the archives, isn't that what SoundExchange does? And if the RIAA collects royalties, shouldn't it then be categorised with Category:Copyright collection societies? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Efforts Against Filesharing

"The RIAA opposes unauthorized sharing of its music by using terrorism tactics against single moms." This seems... over the top. Chaotic42 (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and criticism?

From what I saw on the article today, quite a lot of criticism and controversies have been removed... for instance

As of late 2008 they have announced they will stop their lawsuits and instead are attempting to work with ISPs who will use a three strike warning system for file sharing, and upon the third strike will cut off internet service all together. However as of 2009 no major ISPs have announced, and Verizon has publicly denied any involvement with this plan.

Whatever happened to the part where RIAA has been said that their lawsuits became a PR disaster.[7]

And that's not the end of it, RIAA, over it's short history, had even acknowledged that they had sued over 18,000 individuals, with other estimates of up to 35,000 lawsuits filed by the RIAA; these are figures significant enough for the article.[8]

Some studies conducted since the RIAA began its campaign against peer-to-peer file-sharing have concluded that losses incurred per download range from negligible to very small.

I can hardly see how the initial number of $4.5 million[9] or even the number after the trial, $675,000 is small, or even affordable for a student. Or how $1.92 million can be small for a mother of four.

And 750 per song in the "early settlement program" is hardly "negligible" either. This article needs extensive editing for POV, and I will put up a POV tag shortly--K_H^{Wiknerd(talk)} 14:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

---

This paragraph has been deleted, without much reason nor discussion? I hope you don't mind if I asked why?

The RIAA's policy and method of suing individuals for copyright infringement is criticized. Brad Templeton of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has called the RIAA's lawsuits "spamigation" and implied they are done merely to intimidate people.

And the whole "cultural references" section has been deleted without reason nor discussion?

It seems there are some biased editors/RIAA employees here.

Yeah, propaganda is what they do. --77.109.213.122 (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references

• "Weird Al" Yankovic's single "Don't Download This Song" satirizes the RIAA's lawsuits against copyright infringers.
• The March 4, 2007 FoxTrot strip also satirized the RIAA's lawsuits, where Jason tried to teach his iguana Quincy to download music, because "it's one thing for them to go after single moms, widows, grandmothers, dead people and children... but sue an iguana?! That'd be insane!"

• The Machinae Supremacy song "Legion of Stoopid" refers to the company as the "Recording Industry Assholes of America."
• MC Lars's single "Download This Song" criticized the RIAA and the music industry in general, mentioning the RIAA's lawsuits against "little kids downloading hit songs."
• Billy Joel said in an interview that his first album Cold Spring Harbor wasn't worth the money to buy, and urges people to steal it if they can manage it.
• After being asked to compose a Christmas Song safe for download Jonathan Coulton released 'Podsafe Christmas Song' which contained the lyrics "Don't think us rude, we don't want to get sued/by the thugs at the RIAA."
• After the release of the album Year Zero, Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails told fans in Australia during tour to "STEAL IT. Steal away. Steal and steal and steal some more and give it to all your friends and keep on stealin’. Because one way or another, these motherfuckers will get it through their head that they’re ripping people off and that’s not right." Reznor has openly opposed the RIAA, and later left Interscope, his record company at the time.

I will be edit those back in if there unless you disagree... with reason to do so, of course.--K_H^{Wiknerd(talk)} 14:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

To address your concerns point by point;

1. "Whatever happened to the part where RIAA has been said that their lawsuits became a PR disaster." - Your cite doesn't back this statement up. And it's from a blog anyway. Blogs are not acceptable cites.
2. "And that's not the end of it, RIAA, over it's short history, had even acknowledged that they had sued over 18,000 individuals" This is not a criticism or controversy. It's a fact. If you want to cite it as such do so.
3. "I can hardly see how the initial number of $4.5 million or even the number after the trial, $675,000 is small .... And 750 per song in the "early settlement program" is hardly "negligible" either." These are your opinions. Are you suggesting your opinion should act as balance to these cited studies?
4. "It seems there are some biased editors/RIAA employees here." Please do not cast accusations.
5. "This paragraph has been deleted, without much reason nor discussion? I hope you don't mind if I asked why?" - It's cited from a blog. Blogs are not acceptable cites.
6. "Cultural references". These sections tend to be random collections of trivia, so the least we can ask of them is they are accurate and cited.

• "Weird Al" Yankovic - No cite.
• FoxTrot - Cited cartoon makes no mention of RIAA. Relevance is down to an editor's interpretation.
• Billy Joel - No cite and no suggestion of any mention of RIAA.
• Jonathan Coulton - No cite.
• Trent Reznor - Cite refers to Universal Music Australia and The Australian Recording Industry Association. Neither of these are the RIAA.

Having explained the above questions of neutrality, can I ask you which parts of the article you believe "are written like an advertisement"? Otherwise could you please remove this tag.

Which parts require "clean up"? Otherwise could you please remove this tag.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've been watching this article for a while now and besides reverting obvious vandalism I believe I have not contributed any content to the article nor deleted any content. I watch this article because I know it's a magnet for trouble. Many people have strong opinions for or against the RIAA and they like to make them known. Anyways, I also noticed that little by little some content has been taken out but I haven't reverted the deletions because when I compare the current version of the article with older versions, the newer version seems to be more neutral. The current version provides the basic background information that is be expected of any Wikipedia article and that includes information on the controversial activity that the RIAA has engaged in. For the most part the way it is now, the article states the information and allows for the reader to make their own opinions on the organization, which is the way it should be. We as Wikipedia editors should not try to imply to readers that any entity or thing is good or bad regardless of how right or common our beliefs are.

The "Cultural references" section you [Wiknerd] mention that was removed was actually more like "a list of people who hate the RIAA" and only two of the cultural references were cited. The editor who removed that section clearly stated in their edit summary that this section was "unbalanced" (not adhering to a neutral point of view) and lacking sources. On the other hand, there is some information of enough importance that is missing from the article and some of the sections of the article are ripe for a re-write. If you intend to contribute to the article I would like you to keep in mind that the RIAA is a controversial organization and that it's hard to keep any article about such things neutral. Stick to the facts, cite plenty of reliable third party sources, and avoid including statements which tend to not be relevant like, "[famous person's name here] disagrees with RIAA", unless you are also going to include a differing statement like, "[other relevant person's name here] agrees with RIAA". By the way, thanks for discussing before editing. --Nova Weaver (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Regardless, the article has an abundance of the material about the functioning and the "usefulness" (i.e. "Goals of the RIAA"?) of the RIAA, but not the criticism nor damage they cause. I think that may be improved. I have removed the tags, but in my opinion that article is still quite far from presenting all sides. --K_H^{Wiknerd(talk)} 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a small suggestion. Why not put something like "discuss on the talk page before editing"? That might allow more time for unsubstantiated claims or biased sources to be filtered out?--K_H^{Wiknerd(talk)} 22:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Rephrasing needed for this sentence?

While looking for unsourced statements I came across this:

The RIAA's criticized methods of identifying individual users has led to the issuing of subpoenas to a dead grandmother, an elderly computer novice, and even those without any computer at all.

Which does not really make sense, particularly the part in bold. Maybe can be more properly phrased as:

The criticized methods of the RIAA used to identify individual users has led to the issuing of subpoenas to a dead grandmother, an elderly computer novice, and even those without any computer at all.

(Though I still feel slightly giddy about the wording of the first few words, it's certainly an improvement)

I hope I'm not getting the wrong meaning of this sentence/mistranslated the gist?--K_H^{Wiknerd(talk)} 23:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Meaningless sentence

Studies conducted since the association began its campaign against peer-to-peer file-sharing have concluded that losses incurred per download range from negligible[13][14] to substantial.

Well yes, we might expect losses to be somewhere between those extremes. Is the sentence intended to mean that some studies suggest losses to be negligible and some studies suggest them to be substantial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.112.67 (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad Link in Cite

The reference, #15, under "Efforts against infringement of members' copyrights" does not lead to the document cited. It's a broken link, and leads to an error page. If the document doesn't exist, the reference should be removed and the sentence changed to reflect that. If the document has been moved, the link should be corrected. Unfortunately, I'm not nearly Wikipedia-savvy enough to do any of this just yet. Could somebody take care of it? 69.118.137.231 (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

RIAA not founded primarily primarily to administer the RIAA equalization curve

I don't think that the RIAA equalization curve was the original primary mission of RIAA. In looking for a citation for when the RIAA curve was defined I see lots of references to variations on the quote:

"The RIAA was formed in 1952 primarily to administer the RIAA equalization curve, a technical standard of frequency response applied to vinyl records during manufacturing and playback."

But I can not find any citations to back up this claim of RIAA's primary mission. My google search results feel like a lot of sources that are plagiarizing Wikipedia. Robert.Harker (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Supporters Needed

There needs to be a "hitlist" of companies and organizations who support the RIAA, lets get this laundry out in the air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.182.226 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confused about the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not about getting things "out in the air". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not that much. About 80% of the memers are somehow related to Sony, Vivendi (Universal), EMI and Warner. Make a simple distribution contract with one of them and you become a RIAA member automatically. Another trick to bloat the members quantity is to list every single subsidiary of a label and to split every company in seperate pieces. E.g. the entries Nettwerk, Nettwerk Records and Nettwerk/Red are actually the Nettwerk Music Group. Nettwerks distribution partners are Warner and Sony. It is a lobbiest thing to look bigger than they really are.

The RIAA is a body for market control. The major labels are trying to control the ways of digital disrtbution like they control the distribution of physical media. It is a complicated game, but normally the RIAA should be on the target of the FTC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.234.108.116 (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Tagged article with a viewpoints maintenance tag

I believe this article doesn't properly include the significant criticisms frequently levied against the RIAA. A dedicated section discussing the criticisms and controversies surrounding the organization should be implemented in the same manner as comparable articles. ☉ nbmatt 14:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sections devoted to criticisms of the article subject are generally discouraged, for good reason. There are already other articles that discuss the issues involved. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Recording Industry Association of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070310202314/http://www.poly.rpi.edu:80/article_view.php3?view=2599&part=1 to http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=2599&part=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Recording Industry Association of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?id=7B0D4A07-0D23-A750-0BE1-22882C5C2F13

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)