RIAA telepathy: reading Masnick’s mind
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- “Mike Masnick, a reliable RIAA critic, recently posted another piece about the Performance Rights Act. The case he makes is colorful (the PRA is called both ’silly’ and ‘ridiculous’ before the first graph is even finished), well written and grounded in enough truth to appear compelling, but ultimately a distorted and misleading review of the facts and history. Masnick appears to cherry-pick the facts (or purported facts) most helpful to his argument and avoid the rest.”
So says the RIAA blog.
Blog ? RIAA blog !?
Didn’t know they even had one. But they do, kind of, although it’s more of a lame stab at one, really.
It goes on. And on. And on. And on, starting off with words of wisdom from an RIAA ancient, long-gone RIAA boss Jay Berman, quoting him on something he said in the last century about the Performance Rights in Sound Recordings Act of 1995.
“Well, well, well,” posts Mike in TechDirt, continuing »»»
Just a few months ago we noted that EMI had just created what was being called the first major record label blog, which seemed a bit late to the game. However, someone just informed me that the RIAA actually has its own “Music Notes” blog, which I hadn’t known existed before. But in checking it out, I discovered that it had an entire post claiming to read my mind. Wow! I’m honored, guys, really. But, like your business strategy, your mind reader is a bit off.
First off, they call me a “reliable RIAA critic,” which is not really accurate at all. I only criticize dumb strategies, such as the ones that have driven your most faithful customers to talk of boycotts and swear never to buy products you’re associated with. That’s not criticism of the organization. That’s trying to help you stop screwing up so badly. I’m criticizing consistently bad decision making, not the organization itself, which was, at one time, well poised to embrace a wonderful opportunity online, but screwed it all up in the most spectacular fashion imaginable.
But, from there they get deep into my mind, and claim that I “like to throw in “RIAA” or “Recording Industry” in headlines to generate clicks.” Don’t flatter yourself, folks. It’s got nothing to do with clicks. If I wanted clicks, I’d write about the latest iPhone or celebrities. Stuff about you guys doesn’t generate nearly as many clicks as you might think. Most people wrote off the RIAA long ago. Besides, our business model has nothing to do with “clicks.” But, I guess, considering your inability to figure out your own business model problems, it’s no surprise that you wouldn’t understand our business model. But, for your information, I write about the RIAA because I find it fascinating that one organization could make so many ridiculously bad mistakes over and over again, taking itself from a massive position of opportunity, to one where it’s become hated by nearly everyone from artists to customers alike. It’s a stunning real-time case study in destroying your own industry.
I also write so much about the industry because what’s happening in the recording industry is what’s about to happen in a bunch of other industries — from newspapers to healthcare to energy to financial services to consumer packaged goods. And I’m hoping that with enough evidence we can warn off organizations in those industries from making the same mistakes you’ve made and continue to make. You’re a warning sign and a live case study that hopefully others will see in time.
Oh, as for the specific charges in the blog post? Amusingly, they pin language that’s not mine on me — my post was talking about Jesse Walker’s Reason article and quoted extensively from that — and then don’t actually respond to it. Instead they respond to totally different charges with selective “cherry-picking” of facts and a nice out of context quote (exactly what they accuse me of doing). Even better, they argue against a total strawman, claiming that the reason I’m against the Performance Rights Act is because I think the money will just go to the labels rather than artists. That’s not the case (even if a significant portion does go to the labels no matter what). My complaint is that they’re double and triple charging via a tax on those who promote their music, rather than having to actually do any work to give anyone a reason to buy. Update: Even better, as was pointed out in the comments, one of the “poster boys” used by the RIAA in that blog post about someone who “didn’t get paid” from his music being on radio is Jack Ely from the Kingsmen, who wrote the song “Louie Louie.” Only problem? Jack Ely has said that music should be given away for free and money should be made on performing live. Ooooooops.
“So,” Mike adds, ” I’m honored — really — that the RIAA thinks I’m a critic and worthy of a personal attack on its blog.
“But rather than assuming I’m here to attack you, maybe (just maybe) stop and look at what I’ve actually said. I suggested suing Napster was dumb and shutting it down would be a massive mistake leading to widespread file sharing programs that were harder to stop and track. Check. I’ve suggested that suing file sharers wouldn’t slow down the pace of file sharing and would create massive backlash against the RIAA. Check. I’ve suggested that smart artists can embrace file sharing and new technologies to their own advantage to make more money. Check. Perhaps you should have turned your mind reading powers to that part of my brain.
“Or, you know, you could have just given us a call. I would have been more than happy to stop by and explain this all to you in 1998. Could have saved you a lot of trouble, heartache and lawyer fees.”
(Cheers, Marc)
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
TechDirt – RIAA Has A Blog? And They Use It To Read My Mind!, June 24, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
One question:
Who on earth would want to read a blog written by the RIAA?
The only demographic I can think of: comedy writers.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
and they dont allow responses to articles, I wonder why…
June 25th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Jon,
I have a suggestion for the RIAA blog… how they could build readership.
You know how my blog posts the publicly filed litigation documents?
Maybe the RIAA could start posting all the things they have been hiding under confidentiality orders.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
The legal community would be grateful.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
On the RIAA’s blog they state the jury that was picked for that woman who got the millions in fines, was representative of the population (something along those lines).
They state those in favor of p2p or those that think the internet is the lawless wild west are a minority (something along those lines).
Lots of creative bullshit on their blog.
check: http://techdirt.com/articles/20090623/1651345334.shtml
June 25th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
“Maybe the RIAA could start posting all the things they have been hiding under confidentiality orders.”
Excellent idea, Ray. I mean, the RIAA and the Big 4 are all about honesty and integrity, right?
Cheers!
June 25th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
heh, surfer, one of the first cartel blogs online was EMI (if I recall right). It’s stated some place on p2pnet.
The TOS for writing comments on the EMI blog stated, what you write they own in perpetuity.
lol
Most shills don’t allow comments, or they will claim they own what you think and write (in perpetuity).
It’s the way of the wild west
June 25th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
“The TOS for writing comments on the EMI blog stated, what you write they own in perpetuity.”
That alright, really.
They can own “Fuck the RIAA”, in all its inherent forms, for all I care!
(It’s basically all they’re gonna get.)
: )
June 25th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I mentioned before that the Jammie case was a focus group of 12 sheeple brainwashed by the MAFIAA, so yes, I think they are a representative sampling of the result of years of misinformation, lies, bullshit ’studies’ financed by the cartel, and just outright equine excretion touted as truths, marched out to the lamescream media as gospel.
June 25th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
@ Ray,
Good thing i didnt have anything to drink when i read that 1st comment!!
And good to see you out here hanging with us “pirates”
build your own & stw
June 25th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
BTW, the MAFIAAS and music industry as a whole have been distorting the truth for so long, that they actually believe their own BS. Maybe they use the same reality distortion field that Jobs uses!!
build your own & stw
June 25th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I can’t speak for other countries, but in the U.S. ridiculous jury decisions are not surprising. You have to be either rich, on welfare, or an idiot to serve on a jury here. Trials can drag on for months or longer, and jury pay averages $40.00 a day. This isn’t enough to make rent and pay bills for most people, especially in high rent areas like the Northeast(Boston, New York). Potential job loss is also a factor, rest assured if you are gone from work for months, your name goes to the top of the layoff list. Authorities try to bullshit you with “it’s your civic duty” crap, meanwhile the judges and lawyers are all making over $80,000 per year, some well above that. When they are willing to show up for work for $5.00 an hour, then I’ll listen to the speech about “civic responsibility”. Naturally not wanting to lose their house, car ect working for $40.00 a day, most people come up with ways to avoid serving on a jury. The only people who can afford to spend weeks on a jury are welfare people, many of which are uneducated. There are a lot more of them than rich people(who I would guess may also decide they don’t want to work for $40.00 a day) so guess who predominates the all American Jury…
June 26th, 2009 at 4:09 am
A quote from I-don’t-remember-where:
“Any twelve people who can’t get themselves out of jury duty are not my peers.”