Cluelessness and the RIAA

The Supreme Court is hearing the case of MGM v. Grokster. This case is being pushed by the major Hollywood Studios, as well as the RIAA.

There is only one word to describe the RIAA, and their associated record companies: CLUELESS.

True, these entities, with a little bit of help from a few musicians who have chimed in, have garnered a certain amount of public sympathy about fighting these “evil criminals” who download and share music that is, as a rule, inferior to purchased products.

Yes, the old adage “You get what you pay for” certainly applies to shared music files.

Before you listen to the RIAA’s case that they have made before the media and decide if they are right, here are a few questions to ponder:

(1) Why was no stink raised by the RIAA in the 70’s and 80’s about “borrowing” albums and recording them onto cassettes? Everybody I knew did it.

(2) Did you buy a DAT recorder when they became available worldwide in the late 80’s? No? Did you know the RIAA managed to squash an entire technology before you had a chance to buy it in the US?

(3) In 1985, when CD’s first hit the market, the medium was pricey. Digital recording was likewise extremely expensive. CD’s retailed for around 16 bucks. Twenty years later, the cost for the disk has dropped to pennies, and my kid makes digital recordings in his bedroom. Why are CD’s still retailing for roughly the same price?

After years of fighting online music sales demanded by the public, the RIAA has recently consented to promoting it. I guess the facts of its potential for profitability finally sunk into some extremely thick skulls. Music should be MUCH CHEAPER for ALL in digital format, because it only has to be stored digitally in a few places and made available for download, as opposed to stamping out and distributing hundreds of thousands of CD’s.

Maybe the courts should look into the business dealings of the RIAA. What exactly do they DO, anyway?