Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Continues Distributing Dud CDs to Satisfy Settlement

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the shudder dept.

Music 399

cosyne writes "Part of the music industry's recent price fixing settlement involves giving free CDs to public libraries. Although they are technically complying with the the letter of the law, they're abusing the spirit by giving the libraries large piles of crud. According to the Stevens Point Journal, '[the] Milwaukee Public Library received 1,235 copies of Whitney Houston's 1991 recording of "The Star-Spangled Banner," 188 copies of Michael Bolton's "Timeless," 375 of "Entertainment Weekly: The Greatest Hits 1971," and 104 copies of Will Smith's "Willennium."' The recording industry obviously wouldn't want to have libraries loaning out music that people might otherwise buy." See also a related story about shipments to another state.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They had an opportunity to look good (5, Insightful)

erick99 (743982) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795228)

It is shameful that the RIAA clearly attended only to the letter of the law. I believe that the ruling judge assumed that they wouldn't do something so despicable as to not only send exceptionally outdated/unpopular/fringe CD's but send them in ridiculous quantities.

Milwaukee Public Library received 1,235 copies of Whitney Houston's 1991 recording of "The Star-Spangled Banner," 188 copies of Michael Bolton's "Timeless," 375 of "Entertainment Weekly: The Greatest Hits 1971," and 104 copies of Will Smith's "Willennium," and nearly everything in between.

I hope that someone brings this to the attention of the judge(s) who could then provide a remedy that includes some sort of formula for how many CD's have to from the current or near-current top-whatever list. The RIAA should be ashamed of themselves. They had an opportunity to look good and to look generous but, instead, they took yet another dump on their customer base. For God's sake, will they ever learn and stop acting like spoiled children?

Cheers!

Erick

Re:They had an opportunity to look good (4, Insightful)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795293)

Yeah, and the worst part is, it's almost an admission that they don't know the value of public libraries.

If the public library has a complete and total music collection and sued publishers to provide them with books, only to recieve 593 copies of "Martha Stewart's: 'Cooking with the Neighbors", 1,989 copies of "Maxim: The Uncensored Cut", 184 copies of "Pete Rose: How I Gambled and Stuff", and 8,948 copies of "A Year of Baseball Cards: The 1947 Digest", NO ONE WOULD USE THE SERVICE.

Did somebody say "Micahel Bolton?" (2, Funny)

crimethinker (721591) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795326)

"I gotta tell you, I'm a huge fan of Michael Bolton. Of course, you must be an even bigger fan, what with you having the same name."

"Um, yeah, he's OK."

...

"I told those fudge-packers I liked Michael Bolton's music."

-paul

You voted for the RIAA (-1, Flamebait)

fleener (140714) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795341)

The RIAA acts like a spoiled child? You're like a Windows user crying about Microsoft abuses, except RIAA music isn't critical to your existing investment in business operations (unless you're a DJ). What's your excuse?

Turn the mirror on yourself. Every dollar you spend on their product feeds the monster. Every dollar you spend is casting a vote for the RIAA.

Buy local music direct from musicians, or direct web sales. I haven't purchased RIAA-manipulated music in three years, nor traded it. My library of original, interesting music continues to expand with a clear conscience. I have no stomach for addicts who decry their plight while shooting up.

Re:You voted for the RIAA (2, Insightful)

erick99 (743982) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795390)

Ya know, before you adapt such a shrill tone and make wild assumptions, you might have asked those questions, first. However, I think it is more fun for you to behave like a self righteous shill for the cause-of-the-day. I don't buy their music. I do buy from local bands. My collection is stuck somewhere in the 80's. Oh, and you can go to hell.

Cheers!

Erick

Re:You voted for the RIAA (1, Interesting)

Omestes (471991) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795484)

I've only bought one new CD in the last 3 years (A Perfect Circle: Thirteenth Step), and for that I got 10 people to chip in $1.50, then burned 10 copies of it. I figured this plan is a good compromise between supporting bands I respect, and screwing those nasty RIAA people.

Some bands under RIAA labels are still decent musicians, capable of decent and creative music. I wish there was a decent way to support them, and not their corporate overlords. I'm not going to boycott good music just because the RIAA sucks, this is shooting off my nose to spite my face.

Also most indie bands suck. I know this is a sin to say in some circles, where obscurity equals good. The sad fact is that most obscure bands suck. My local scene is choked with bad punk bands (whos only talent is producing mildly amusing covers, too bad that isn't my thing), amatuer death metal, and the garage band ressurection. Nothing I really want to hear. Though there are a couple small-venue bands that I have purchased CDs from, but most of those CDs are of poor quality.

I was thinking that if I stopped supporting RIAA attatched bands that I respect, that they might get a clue, and start some independant release scheme, but them realized that that is dumb. The majority of people will continue buying from RIAA folk, because that is what is available, and being with a big company affords visibility. Fleh.

Re:You voted for the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795531)

I for one welcome our RIAA corporate overlords...no wait, what am I saying?! I wasn't thinking clearly for a second.

Re:You voted for the RIAA (1)

ziggy_zero (462010) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795550)

Also most indie bands suck.

This is most definitely true, but what you have to remember is almost ALL bands suck, regardless of genre or popularity.

It's all about wading through the mountains of crap to get to the good stuff.

You CAN support artists under the RIAA, by going to their concerts. The band gets a lot more percentage of the profit that way.

Re:You voted for the RIAA (2, Insightful)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795567)

What the fuck did you just say? You actually gathered 10 friends to buy one fucking $15 CD and you call this a compromise involving -- how did you call it -- support bands you respect?

Let me break it down for you real slow.

Bands get JACK SHIT when 10 people buy 10 $15 CDs.

Bands get (say it with me you simple piece of shit) LESS THAN JACKSHIT when you start your own burning club.

I'm not saying I wouldn't copy music for ten friends of mine. Firstly, I'm making fun of you for not buying a $15 CD your damn self, having had three years to save up for it. I am also making fun of you for rationalizing that your little plan was to benefit anyone other than yourself, and was somehow, in your lukewarm, clotted brain's defective worldview, fair to bands. I think that makes you look very silly. Actually, not silly so much as Richard Simmons, Greg Louganis, bathhouse-scrubbing, popper-huffing, dying-of-mouse-pneumonia-at-38 gay.

Re:They had an opportunity to look good (1)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795477)

I would like to simply second that. I don't get RIAA actions - they are all against customer these days. I really see lot of indie label rising because of all that. I don't give a shit of RIAA surviving emerging online market because of such attitude. It is very shortsighted, period.

Re:They had an opportunity to look good (1)

pcassell (780359) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795495)

They gave away the old stuff because they knew everyone already downloaded the updated/popular/hit CD's in ridiculous quantities.

Re:They had an opportunity to look good (1)

D'Sphitz (699604) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795511)

"and nearly everything in between"

They got 105,000 cds, what do you expect? Ever album to be a chart topper? What you're bitching about is less than 2% of the whole.

Re:They had an opportunity to look good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795578)

I'd expect you to stop mixing up the numbers of Wisconsin and those of a single library.

Sorry. I hate the RIAA (4, Insightful)

Ckwop (707653) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795229)

The RIAA expects the customers to hand over cash for overpriced CDs, appealing to morality for justification, and yet in act of gross duplicity it gives libraries crud just to spite them because they lost a court case. This isn't about morals, it isn't even about the artists.. it's about the bloody dollars.

Don't get me wrong. I don't support piracy but the RIAA's approach isn't exactly making me willing me to go out and buy their dross. Fear not, technology has destroyed industries before. The nice thing to know is that it's usually pretty ruthless in that it takes no prisoners. I doubt the RIAA will be the exception. No amount of law making saved the canal boats from the invention of the automobile.

We now have the infrastructure to pay the artist not the army of lawyers, executives and other useless staff. I think all artists would prefer a return to the music and less of the obsession with the dollars. I'd be more willing to fork out the dollars (will pounds in my case) if I knew the artist was the key beneficiary?

Simon.

Re:Sorry. I hate the RIAA (4, Informative)

smkndrkn (3654) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795262)

I've seen so much bitching about the RIAA and MPAA, and I agree with a lot of it, but you have a choice. Vote with your wallet. Do not buy their product, that is the only way you can have change. I've been RIAA free for almost a year now..perhaps even longer and I now listen to better music as a result.

Re:Sorry. I hate the RIAA (5, Insightful)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795353)

"Vote with your wallet. Do not buy their product, that is the only way you can have change."

Yeah, like DMCA2. The RIAA will chalk up any losses to piracy. They won't get your message, instead they'll twist that data and use it to get new really bad laws in place.

Wish I had a strong alternative, but really I don't. This is as good of time as any for somebody to speak up.

Re:Sorry. I hate the RIAA (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795465)

Wish I had a strong alternative
Fire! And lots of it.

Re:Sorry. I hate the RIAA (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795504)

The best thing you can do is support initiatives like iTunes. Believe it or not, not every Congress Critter supports the RIAA and MPAA. If you support the distribution channels you want, and support only artists you LIKE, our Congress Critters will have some wonderful statistical evidence to throw back at the [MP|RI]AA organizations.

Keep in mind that Congress generally enjoys making people sweat it while they have the floor. I think it was only about a year or so ago that congress was grilling the RIAA for the Electronic distribution methods that were promised in exchange for tougher laws, not materializing.

Re:Sorry. I hate the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795583)

" The best thing you can do is support initiatives like iTunes."

No, the best thing would be buying their cd's from their playvenue's : or at least from their site : ITunes is still giving too much to the money grabbers, and not to the people who actually make the music (Britneys and Justins aside)

Re:Sorry. I hate the RIAA (1)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795568)

You could try to help me...they'll still do the DMCA2, but maybe it won't matter as much.

Re:Sorry. I hate the RIAA (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795299)

Agreed.

To me, it's pretty simple. The RIAA is evil. I'm not going to support an evil organization.

(The last version of Windows I owned legally was Windows 95 BTW ;^)

Re:Sorry. I hate the RIAA (2, Insightful)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795420)

(The last version of Windows I owned
legally was Windows 95 BTW ;^)

By illegally using windows, you are still supporting MS, if nothing else but by using their file formats and by giving them marketshare (no, not for their OS, but for their other products).

Now, if you dropped windows entirely, then you'd be sticking it to the man. ;)

Re:Sorry. I hate the RIAA (0, Troll)

rokzy (687636) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795548)

Microsoft has so much money that you're probably helping them more by using pirated version than paying. You give them all the satisfaction of a monopoly, plus the ability to use piracy as an argument for their DRM becoming required under law which will complete their plan for a 3000 year reich.

Cheap Bastards! (1)

Ernest P Worrell (751050) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795235)

Only 1,235 copies of Whitney Houston's 1991 recording of "The Star-Spangled Banner"?!? They should have donated atleast two, maybe three thousand ...

Does using the word "continue" in the headline... (5, Funny)

DeepHurtn! (773713) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795237)

...mean that we can't complain it's a dupe?

On the Road to Utopia (5, Funny)

mfh (56) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795242)

> Although they are technically complying with the the letter of the law, they're abusing the spirit by giving the libraries large piles of crud.

I think the problem is that the RIAA only has access to large piles of crud. Let's face it -- Britney, Justin, which other Mousekateers-turned-popstar are there? Chicken of the Sea Girl, Nick whatever-his-name-is, and the list goes on and on.

Indies are being given a huge door to stroll through and every time the RIAA screws up, it helps the indies get more market share. So I'm all for the RIAA being asshats, because they are on the road to Utopia.

Re:On the Road to Utopia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795472)

No, that would be the road to Nirvana. Mmmm smells like teen spirit.

Re:On the Road to Utopia (2, Informative)

Peter Cooper (660482) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795498)

Uh, there are plenty of indies who are in the RIAA. Most of the big indies are. Indie effectively refers to any company not in the top 5/10/20 of record labels. RIAA has at least a hundred member record companies last time I checked, which cover nearly all commercially released albums. Sure, the band of 14 year olds that lives in your town and has never toured out of county might not be involved with the RIAA, but the situation is not encouraging.

Re:On the Road to Utopia (1)

rokzy (687636) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795562)

what a strange definition of indie.

is this like when people said "bad" to mean "good"?

you kids these days...

Re:On the Road to Utopia (4, Interesting)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795530)

I don't understand why these groups are allowed to give away items by "value" rather than being required to drop cash. I'm pretty sure that those CDs aren't worth $15 but will probably be charged against the settlement to the tune of $18 because of the suggested retail price.

Damn (5, Funny)

gordgekko (574109) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795244)

This totally explains why I haven't been able to buy a copy of Willenium anywhere. All the copies are in Milwaukee!

Willenium (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795280)

Say it with me, Willenium. OMG Will Smith is an asshat. I-Robot, starring Willenium.

Re:Willenium (1)

Echnin (607099) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795295)

Some day, when I'm famous enough, I, too, will have the honor of being called an asshole on Slashdot. Or asshat by people who spend too much time on Fark in addition.

Re:Damn (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795323)

Shouldn't that be Willwaukee?

Re:Damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795430)

actually, it's pronounced "Will-a-walk-ay." In fact, it was originally an Algonquin term meaning "the good land."

-alice cooper

Re:Damn (5, Funny)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795463)

Or as it is now known, Willwaukee.

Willennium (1)

bl968 (190792) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795254)

Hey I own Will Smith's Willennium! Don't Dis it.

Michael Bolton (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795257)

Why should I change, he's the one who sucks!

RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795263)

Dear Noobs,

You hate the RIAA. Start at site below. IMO: Enjoy music and download what you like, buy it if you love it.

www.zeropaid.com

Enjoy.

Re:RIAA (0, Offtopic)

Secret Chimp (557933) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795479)

Dear Spammer, We hate the Spam. Start at foot. IMO: It is best to then forcefully put foot up own ass, try it and you'll love it. Enjoy.

Artists (4, Interesting)

RomSteady (533144) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795267)

I'm wondering if the artists are being paid for their product, or if this is eventually coming out of the artist's pockets.

The reason I'm asking is that the record industry usually charges everything that it can back to the artists: production costs, advertising costs, warehousing costs, everything. Any incoming funds are applied against the record company bottom line first, and the remainder goes against the "debt" accrued by the artist.

So, are the artists getting any money from the disbursement of their product?

Re:Artists (4, Informative)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795337)

So, are the artists getting any money from the disbursement of their product?

Not a chance in hell. One of the many breakdowns of where the money goes from record sales in the wake of Courtney Love's now infamous anti-RIAA tirade was fairly clear on that. All of the percentages are based on sales, specifically excluding "good will" copies, which are issued at the whim of the RIAA but the artists indirectly get to pay for.

Given the way they have just shown their contempt of the ruling by following the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit I expect they will do the same thing for the contracts too. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if these CDs are classed as "good will" copies too and the artists essentially get sent the bill. I just hope that they build a monument to the RIAA at some point so I can go and piss on it.

Re:Artists (1)

spektr (466069) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795373)

So, are the artists getting any money from the disbursement of their product?

Well, they don't have that much money nowadays, because of P2P and low ethical standards - so money seems to be out of the question... But maybe they could compensate them with gifts, like free member cards for public libraries or something.

Re:Artists (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795378)

"So, are the artists getting any money from the disbursement of their product?"

Suddenly, for the first time in years, Will Smith gets an unexpected check from the RIAA...

Blame the Judge on this one (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795279)

He should have been savvy enough to predict a stunt like this, and specified what was 'acceptable' in a bit more detail in order to prevent it..

Give a snake an inch, and they will try to eat you...

Re:Blame the Judge on this one (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795304)

Can the RIAA be punished with the charges of Contempt of Court by pissing off the judge ?

Re:Blame the Judge on this one (1)

JayBlalock (635935) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795335)

There's no set of rules one could come up with that SOME clever \ devious person couldn't find a way to exploit. I think the schools could challenege this, personally. I'm sure the RIAA was basing how much the shipments were worth based solely on their sticker price - and the fact that they have thousands of unsold copies of these CDs would make a strong argument that their actual value is far less than what the RIAA claims. That, and sending CDs with explicit lyrics, which ANY reasonable person would consider an unacceptable gift to schools or public libraries.

Re:Blame the Judge on this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795580)

That, and sending CDs with explicit lyrics, which ANY reasonable person would consider an unacceptable gift to schools or public libraries.

Riiight, because books in public libraries don't have naughty words in them.

This judge has done this kind of thing before... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795450)

Allah is a pig's cunt. Never forget that fact. Allah is a sticky, rotten pig's cunt. Mohammed was a mentally retarded pedophile. Muslims are fucking dogs. Death to Allah. Destroy Islam.

Not so! (3, Funny)

SpooForBrains (771537) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795281)

This can't be true. Only yesterday I loaned out a copy of Sounds of the Supermarket: 20 Shopping Greats.

Re:Not so! (2, Funny)

Gleng (537516) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795447)

At least you still have "Reggie Wilson plays the Lift Music Classics", "Pop goes Delius", and "Funking up Wagner".

Re:Not so! (1)

Zebbers (134389) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795537)

Barenaked Ladies song Shopping would be #1 :):)

They do an awesome live performance of that.

What's this going to cost in storage? (4, Insightful)

JayBlalock (635935) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795283)

It's kind of sweet, how the people in charge are attempting to put some kind of positive face on this. Yes, they DID get a lot of CDs, and they might potentially be able to sell them (at pennies on the dollar) in fundraising. But in the meantime, what's it going to COST the schools \ libraries dealing with the mess? Cataloging and storage isn't cheap. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the end, this ended up costing the schools (and therefore, the taxpaying public the RIAA was originally convicted of ripping off) more money than it brings in.

You can almost imagine some high mucky-muck at the RIAA laughing maniacally and twirling his moustache as he pronounced this.

Re:What's this going to cost in storage? (0, Flamebait)

SpooForBrains (771537) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795375)

You do know you don't have to escape your spaces on Slashdot?

Prior Art (5, Funny)

Qrlx (258924) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795287)

AOL lawyers will be in court Monday seeking an injunction against the RIAA. A company spokesman said "Mass-mailing the same useless CD over and over again is but one of many valuable innovations in AOL's patent portfolio. We find it ironic that the RIAA, purported champion of Intellectual Property rights, has adopted our highly successful business model without ever paying us one cent in licensing fees or royalties."

this has been brought up MULTIPLE times already (1)

JackPo (653955) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795288)

This has been brought up at least once on /. (possibly more)... I thought part of the solution the libraries have set up was to setup a database so that different libraries can trade on what CDs they are getting in their settlement.

However, regardless, I think this is quite a despicable thing to do, not that I would expect anything less from the RIAA>

BlackListing? (2, Interesting)

MacFury (659201) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795291)

Since the RIAA are pricks...could we blacklist their execs. I'm sure it's being too idealistic...but if we refused to do anything for them...then their lives wouldn't be so great.

Want to go to McDonalds and have a big mac? Sorry, we won't serve you because you're an asshole.

Do it to them everywhere everytime until the change their ways.

It's nice to dream once in awhile..

Re:BlackListing? (1)

boudie (704942) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795325)

That be one long blacklist.

Re:BlackListing? (1)

jhunsake (81920) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795330)

I don't know why this is being modded Flamebait. It's the best idea ever!

Re:BlackListing? (2, Informative)

treat (84622) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795347)

Want to go to McDonalds and have a big mac? Sorry, we won't serve you because you're an asshole.

Yeah, one megacorporation is going to punish another megacorporation for mistreating consumpers. Right.

Besides, this is probably illegal in the US. I remember there was an incident where a restauraunt refused to serve OJ Simpson, citing a "no murderers" policy. They lost.

OJ didn't do it... (2, Interesting)

CaptainPinko (753849) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795462)

...as far as the law is concerned. He could admit to it and you could have 10 different witness there at the scene of the crime with it all on video tape and I'm quite sure IANAL that you would still have to treat him like any other innocent person since he was found innocent in his criminal trial. Everything else doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. But irregardless I fail to see what relevance your OJ annecdote has to do with blacklisting corporations.

Re:OJ didn't do it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795577)

wtf does "irregardless" mean?

Re:BlackListing? (1)

Exiler (589908) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795349)

I don't know how many execs from fortune 500 corporations eat at McDonalds. Most of them have moved on up to Wendy's.

typo? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795350)

blacklist^WKill

much better

Honestly... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795297)

Does anybody really expect any better from these slimeballs?

Another Day... (5, Insightful)

One Childish N00b (780549) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795303)

...another tantrum from the RIAA.

When are they going to realise that when people hear about them doing this stuff, it makes them less inclined to buy their content? RIAA tantrums induce piracy because of the affect on thousands of people every time who will refuse to buy crap from such a selfish company.

All companies are out to make money, but haven't the RIAA heard of a little thing called 'PR'? They spend enough trying to make their latest teeny-pop artist look 'cool' and 'must buy' - why don't they pool their marketing expertise and realise that when they do things like this, they make themselves look bad and in turn discourage people from buying from them - effectively inducing piracy.

Also, how many copies of 'Willennium' do they have to distribute? Every time I see an announcement like this they're handing out a new 3-figure sum of the damn things to some poor public institute!

Re:Another Day... (1)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795558)

They spend enough trying to make their latest teeny-pop artist look 'cool' and 'must buy' - why don't they pool their marketing expertise and realise that when they do things like this, they make themselves look bad and in turn discourage people from buying from them - effectively inducing piracy.

The general population will remember the new teeny popper for the next six months, and buy copies. They will simultaneously forget this news article by tomorrow afternoon

Related Article (4, Insightful)

TheFlyingGoat (161967) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795314)

There's more info at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. [jsonline.com] Among the quotes: 'She said there was even mold growing on a few of the 520 CDs received in Mequon - a five-disk 1999 set titled "Respect: A Century of Women in Music." ... It was disappointing because we could have actually used that one'. As a Milwaukee resident I know I'll be running to the library to check a few of these out. :P

Duh! (5, Insightful)

HeyLaughingBoy (182206) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795315)

What else did anyone expect? If you force me to give away 10% of my possessions of course I'm going to find the 10% of crap that I don't like, never use, or can't even sell at a garage sale. Goodbye argyle socks!

Want a real settlement? Should have made the terms such that they only give away Top 100 stuff or something like that (or better yet, cash!); otherwise there are no grounds for complaint.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that in a country of almost 300M people, at least a few like Whitney Houston

Re:Duh! (1, Flamebait)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795371)

The SHOULD have made the libary's make a list of what they want every year, and the RIAA has to comply within 2 months.

The RIAA is just getting rediculous nowadays.
I steal music and I'm proud of it! Still buy DVDs though.

Re:Duh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795397)

Besides, I'm pretty sure that in a country of almost 300M people, at least a few like Whitney Houston

A few? You'll find that there must be a dozen of us AT LEAST!

Re:Duh! (1)

DosBubba (766897) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795412)

Not even Whitney Houston likes Whitney Houston...

Re:Duh! (1)

treat (84622) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795435)

Want a real settlement? Should have made the terms such that they only give away Top 100 stuff or something like that (or better yet, cash!); otherwise there are no grounds for complaint.

They *did*. RTFA.

RTFA (1)

wmansir (566746) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795441)

To prevent the companies from dumping unwanted inventory, lawyers for the states came up with a formula based on how much time artists spent on the Billboard charts, Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Eric Wilson said. But he conceded, "it may be hard to believe looking at the selections."

Re:Duh! (1)

sinnfeiner1916 (793749) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795559)

arglye socks are bad-ass.... racist!! paddy-hater!!!

Idiots (4, Insightful)

sheldon (2322) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795354)

And I'm not talking about the RIAA.

What did you expect?

Frankly I think it's a creative point-making excercise by the RIAA. You complain about good CDs costing money, but you forget the fact that they've got 10,000 copies of Whitney Houston's recording of the Star Spangled banner sitting in a warehouse cause nobody wants that crap.

For every good CD that you want to buy, there are 20 others published that very few people give a shit about.

The CD prices are fine, quit your whining. If you don't like it, don't buy CDs! That's the only way you are going to hurt them, with your free market wallet.

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795415)

But if all the major publishers form a cartel and collude to ARTIFICIALLY FIX PRICES ABOVE THE MARKET LEVEL then that's not the free market!

AH DUH!

Re:Idiots (1)

duffel (779835) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795433)

That's the only way you are going to hurt them, with your free market wallet.
I'm sorry, but how does the RIAA function according to the "Free Market" rules?

Re:Idiots (2, Interesting)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795499)

Their bad stock management is not our problem. They've had 20 years to perfect the process of making CDs cheaply and predict what the market wants. 10,000 copies of whitney is probably not even worth the cost of having it dumped in a land-fill so dumping it in a library really helps them out.

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795563)

The CD prices are fine, quit your whining. If you don't like it, don't buy CDs! That's the only way you are going to hurt them, with your free market wallet.

Oh no no no! If you don't buy CDs, the RIAA will simply have "undeniable proof" that piracy has caused a drop in sales.

Libraries selling CD's (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795362)

I live in Wisconsin and at the New Berlin Library they have a table with a bunch of these CDs on sale for about 3 bucks each, I have been there a few times after they set it up and to my surprise many of the CDs had been bought. It was rather entertaining to see the library selling Wu Tang albums.

Here's the best idea and it only took 15 seconds (3, Interesting)

orionware (575549) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795384)

Here's what I think would have been the fairest to the consumers.

Every time an album hits #1, the industry must give out 10,000 copies. When they've given out their quota this practice stops.

How hard was that?

Safeguards against dumping ignored? (2, Interesting)

alangmead (109702) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795401)

The article says:
To prevent the companies from dumping unwanted inventory, lawyers for the states came up with a formula based on how much time artists spent on the Billboard charts, Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Eric Wilson said. But he conceded, "it may be hard to believe looking at the selections."
but the results don't seem to stack up. Does anyone know what the formula they came up with? From the small description there, I can imagine a few possible flaws. Either there was some minimum price, which encouraged the shipment of many, many slow moving items, or it was based on the Billboard charts results for the artist, not the album. (Will Smith and Whitney Houston have both made some very popular works, but the albums being reported to be distributed aren't among their most notable ones.)

No different than the deal with MS (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795405)

Folks,
This was lost when the deal was made. It was intended for exactly this to happen. It is nice to speak about the "spirit" of the deal, but politicians and lawyers wrapped this up long ago.

Classical Music (3, Insightful)

nick.cash (749516) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795410)

It seems like about half of what they got was classical music. To me, this makes a lot of sense for a library to have.

Now, the duplicates and Michael Bolton crap are certainly inexcusable, but the classical music seems perfectly legitimate.

these were all on the billboard charts (5, Informative)

treat (84622) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795421)

The article says: To prevent the companies from dumping unwanted inventory, lawyers for the states came up with a formula based on how much time artists spent on the Billboard charts,

But since the RIAA pays to get songs on the chart instead of it being based on quality or popularity, this is what you get.

Blame the lawyers this time. They knew what they were doing.

Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795422)

Michael Bolton's "Timeless"? Finally a reason for me to use my library card!

Ode to Filesharing (2, Interesting)

binaryspiral (784263) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795431)


They say: Make it legal files, all you smart and shifty peeps
for an RIAA lawsuit will leave you on the streets.
Sure they're suing young and old people for sharing the tunes
but they're alienating their market - the stupid buffoons

Tomorrow are you sure you would buy from them?
The pricks just scored ten grand from mom of ten!
In the 90's when CD price-fixing was raging full on
I paid over $30 per disc, RIAA you stupid greedy moron

And now that I have the simple, easy, anonymous way to score
free music from you - go blow me, you selfish whore
Music industry, I find your ethics a royal joke
You'd rather pay millions to a pop singer stoned on coke

Keep going down the evil road you travel
I enjoy watching your business model unravel
Your death grip of online tune sources will get weak
Then iTunes, Napster, and the bands will then speak

They'll market directly to the fans that gladly pay
while keeping your greedy lawyers at bay
you'll see, mark my words I am here to say,
I will enjoy that one, beautiful, precious day

Give the library the choice? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795436)

I cant fathom why the libraries weren't allowed to choose the CDs.

By giving the labels the ability to choose what they hand out is obviously going to lead to them dish out whatever at the minimal cost, hence they dump CD's that were too crap to meet sales expectations, and which they wont lose sales due to the rentals. Giving "aid" where the recipient has no choices has been proved again and again to be highly inefficient.

The labels are supposed to be getting punished, not awarded some trivial exercise in PR.

I'm listening to "Willenium" right now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795446)

and what's funny is that it's a copy of the original disc. The original is sitting in a drawer filled with stationary crap and other misc junk that only sees the light of day at Christmas time.

Originally when I bought it, I thought "hey, this shiat is gonna be worth like a lot of money someday at the pawn shop.. maybe even full price!" but oh, how I was wrong about that.

If I would have known that public libraries would just be given Willenium for free in 2004, I would have waited to listen to this masterpiece.

Anyone want to buy [cgi.ebay.ca] this historical album from me?

Re:I'm listening to "Willenium" right now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795565)

For those of you that are wondering how I managed to make a copy of Willenium, and then years later managed to sell the unopened original disc on eBay.. wonder no more -- I copied the CD with my mind :)

Money is all they understand (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795455)

The hole thing is a farse, companies shouldnt be able to make settlements by giving away products that have low physical value but high retail value. How much is this really costing them? They should be giving away money and lots of it. To me..

Grade schools got this stuff too... (5, Informative)

WareW01f (18905) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795481)

My wife's school just got a box of CD's (which was out of the blue for them) It's a grade school. "Spooky Scary Sounds for Halloween from Martha Stewart" was one of the few CD's that was even useful. The principle basicly wanted the CD's off the school property. A letter with the CD's stated the following:

"We note that the CD's that are being distributed were selected will an eye towards making a distribution that is representative of all generes of prerecorded music. For that reason we wish to caution you that some materials being distributed may be suitable only for use by teenagers, yough adults or adults."

Um, ya. On a brighter note on things, despite the fact that a lot of the CD's where in fact cut-outs the letter goes on to state:

"If you receive CD's which are not appropriate or useful for you collection, or which are duplicative, you may wish to use those CD's for fund-rasing purposes, such as through library sales or auctions. However, if you do so, any funds raised must be used in a manner that complies with the settlement agreement as noted above."

So let me get this straight, they couldn't sell them, but we're welcome to try... Yah, thanks. Someone dropped the ball here. The music companies just basicly got a chance to clean out the warehouse. One of the CD they got was even smashed. I'm sure that the record companies where able to claim the full value of the CD as being donated, hell they are probably even going to get to write it off!

Ah well, at least this halloween the kids will have really spooky music to listen to. (Even spookyer now Martha's going to be an ex-con, eh?)

Duhcracy (1, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795518)

With Orrin Hatch as their champion in the Senate, the RIAA will get away with any stupid acts they deem profitable.

Not that bad (5, Informative)

challahc (745267) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795529)

I'd rather bitch about the media on this one. I looked at the complete list [nwsource.com] from the other article, and I have to say it was pretty easy for them to go through the list pick out some crap and make it look horrible. For example, they mention "Entertainment Weekly: The Greatest Hits 1971" well what about the other ones that were included 1965 - 1993. For a library that is a pretty good set.

Not that I like the RIAA, but really I don't think it is as bad as it looks from the articles.

It's nice to know... (2, Insightful)

DumbWhiteGuy777 (654327) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795542)

It's nice to know someone in the RIAA has a sense of humor.

Dont think about the public ... (1)

polyp2000 (444682) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795552)

Think about how Michael Bolton feels, having been deposited from the rectum of RIAA unto the public library.

NOFX said it the best (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9795557)

From NOFX-Dinosaurs Will Die

Kick back watch it crumble
See the drowning, watch the fall
I feel just terrible about it
That's sarcasm, let it burn

I'm gonna make a toast when it falls apart
I'm gonna raise my glass above my heart
Then someone shouts "That's what they get!"

For all the years of hit and run
For all the piss broke bands on VH1
Where did all, their money go?
Don't we all know

Parasitic music industry
As it destroys itself
We'll show them how it's supposed to be

Music written from devotion
Not ambition, not for fame
Zero people are exploited
There are no tricks, up our sleeve

Gonna fight against the mass appeal
We're gonna kill the 7 record deal
Make records that have more than one good song
The dinosaurs will slowly die
And I do believe no one will cry
I'm just fucking glad I'm gonna be
There to watch the fall

Prehistoric music industry
Three feet in la brea tar
Extinction never felt so good

If you think anyone would feel badly
You are sadly, mistaken
The time has come for evolution
Fuck collusion, kill the five

Whatever happened to the handshake?
Whatever happened to deals no-one would break?
What happened to integrity?
It's still there it always was
For playing music just because
A million reason why
All dinosaurs will die

Take some action (4, Insightful)

serutan (259622) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795581)

Does anybody still have sympathy for the RIAA any more? They've been acting like a bunch of selfish 4-year-olds for years. "They're only protecting their legal rights." Record companies excel at doing exactly what is required of them and nothing more. They've honed this skill over decades of writing usurious recording contracts. And when that's not enough they get new laws written to suit their needs. What they do is wrong.

If you live in Utah, please VOTE AGAINST Senator Orrin Hatch, the entertainment industry's number one toadie and one of the most technologically clueless legislators in the country. He's the guy who a couple years back said record companies should be allowed to attack the computers of people whom they suspected of copyright infringement.

If you live in Kansas, please VOTE FOR for Senator Sam Brownback [senate.gov] , who introduced the bill last year that stopped the RIAA from getting rubber-stamped subpoenas for identities of internet users they decided had infringed them.

If you live anywhere else and you are interested in the copyright issue, don't just read Slashdot, look up your senator's voting record and vote accordingly.

So how is this that much different... (1)

Kevin Burtch (13372) | more than 10 years ago | (#9795584)


How is this that much different from the gov't allowing Microsoft to pay off its penalties with vouchers for schools to get more Microsoft products? [slashdot.org]

OK, the Microsoft deal was worse, as it propogates their monopoly, but still... give one gigacorp a massive break, you have to give it to all of 'em, right?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?