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 Denies Hypocrisy in Royalties Dustup

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the not-our-problem dept.

Music 85

Hairless ape writes "The RIAA is reacting to a story pointing out the group's hypocrisy in its attempts to have songwriter royalties lowered. The issue stems from attempts to get webcasters to pay fixed royalty rates. 'In short, the contention was that the RIAA wanted to pay a percentage of its revenue to songwriters as its profits have fallen, but pushed for a fixed per-stream when it came to earning money from webcasters.' The RIAA says that's not so, and that SoundExchange offered a similar model to webcasters. Either way, the rates sought by the two groups would have bankrupted many webcasters. 'Now you know; it wasn't about hypocrisy, but one of the seven deadly sins may still have been involved.'"

cancel ×

85 comments

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

Deadly sins? (1, Funny)

charlesbakerharris (623282) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729480)

Since when was hypocrisy one of the seven deadly sins?

Re:Deadly sins? (2, Funny)

bagboy (630125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729524)

I think he is referring to - gluttony.

Re:Deadly sins? (2, Informative)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729774)

I would think greed would be more fitting. Glutteny has to do with overconsuming food and drink.

Re:Deadly sins? (1, Interesting)

bagboy (630125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729834)

True.. but gluttony fits there "smorgashboard-all-you-can-eat" mentality when it comes to ways of skimming off the top.....

Re:Deadly sins? (-1, Redundant)

bagboy (630125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729914)

sorry. not "there" but "their"

Re:Deadly sins? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729928)

True, but the traditional definition of the sin was literally eating and drinking too much, and the traditional definition of greed was accumulation of material things. Related, but not quite the same.

Re:Deadly sins? (3, Funny)

GaratNW (978516) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730742)

I think slashdot needs a new positive (+1) rating.. Pedantic. Because.. here, it really is raised to an artform. :)

Re:Deadly sins? (0, Troll)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22731174)

Well I wouldn't have said anything except we are talking about the Seven Deadly Sins. So without that line, you end up not having seven, you have a lesser number, with others being redundent.

Besides, someone was pedantic to me.. so there.

Re:Deadly sins? (1)

h3llfish (663057) | more than 6 years ago | (#22731228)

Thanks for the lesson in theology, but I'm pretty sure was joking. Read up on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm [wikipedia.org]

And whoever modded this guy up needs to take the same remedial course on humor.

Re:Deadly sins? (1)

ds_job (896062) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729816)

I thought it was Stupidity.
Althought I can't see it on the new [timesonline.co.uk] list...

Re:Deadly sins? (2, Insightful)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729904)

Stupidity, alas, is too often a virtue, and not a sin.

Re:Deadly sins? (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 6 years ago | (#22732356)

There is a Chinese poem that goes something like "Many people wish their children to be intelligent. I, having wrecked my life through intelligence, only hope that the baby is stupid. Then he will have a tranquil life and go on to crown his career by becoming a government minister."

Truly the RIAA must be one of the most tranquil organizations on the face of the planet.

Re:Deadly sins? (0, Offtopic)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730148)

Traditional or revised list?

Presumably they are running afoul of New Deadly Sin's numbers 4, 5, 6, and perhaps 7 (see below)

The new deadly sins [npr.org] are:

1.) genetic modification

better get rid of rice, and just about every other staple in our diet. All are the result of selective breeding (i.e. GM) over hundreds of
years. Oh, and shoot the dog.

2.) carrying out experiments on humans

Every psychology experiment, every modern medicine, you name it,you're going to hell!

3.) polluting the environment

We're all doomed. Doomed! Guess we'd better all go live in a shack like the unabomber.

4) causing social injustice

Like say, stripping women of their right to choose whether or not to carry a child inside their body? Whose idea of social injustice shall we use. Karl Marx's? George W. Bush's? The "Pedophile Two-step Shuffle" Pope's?

5.) causing poverty

How exactly? By tithing the faithful, or encouraging couples to have too many children, or denying women access to birth control and abortion? By mismanaging national monetary policy, devaluing the currency, inciting a housing bubble, followed by a housing collapse and mortgage crisis?

6.) becoming obscenely wealthy

Like say ... I dunno ... the Pope? Oh yeah, he gets to fake out God by telling him he's personally living a vow of poverty...it's the church that puts him up in his fine palatial rooms, with his fancy clothes, fancy hat, wine, meals, pope-mobile, personal jet, etc etc. For that matter, what is "obscenely wealthy" and who gets to decide? To be safe, guess we'd all better opt for poverty, and head-butt the economy even further.

7.) taking drugs

Better put those aspirin away! Anyone with health problems, tough shit. Die! And you mentally ill folks on your anti-psychotics, put down the pill bottle, get out there and go on a killing spree! After all, murder isn't one of the Deadly sins, but by God, taking your medication is!

Presumably they are running afoul of New Deadly Sin's numbers

(Anyone who still believes in religion in general, and Catholicism in particular, after the Vatican puts out this kind of silliness needs their head examined).

Re:Deadly sins? (0, Troll)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730400)

Anyone who constantly modifies their religion to try to appeal to current society obviously thinks that they know better than their god. Roman Catholocism isn't really an example of religion, it's an example of crooks trying to take a religion and use it for their own profit (kind of like "health and wealth" or whatever style preachers in the US, who promise life will be all peachy if you become a Christian, despite the bible showing nothing of the sort).

And yes, the list is stupid.

Re:Deadly sins? (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729940)

Of the seven deadly sins, lust and avarice are my favorites.

Re:Deadly sins? (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730142)

Re:Deadly sins? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 6 years ago | (#22731138)

It may not be a deadly sin, but Dante puts hypocrites at the 8th level of hell [utexas.edu] , putting it at almost the worst sin in his mind. And people have also quoted the bible, so I won't do that... but suffice it to say that hypocrisy is a very bad thing to most people. Saying you shouldn't steal while taking someone else's money doesn't sit as well with people as if you had just stolen it because you needed/wanted it.

Presumably one of the Vatican's new deadly sins (3, Interesting)

giafly (926567) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729556)

Polluting of the environment, genetic modification, carrying out experiments on humans, causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy and taking drugs all constitute mortal sins, according to Girotti.
Vatican dusts down deadly sin list [businessgreen.com]

Actually at least six of these new seven deadly sins apply to the RIAA, starting with "polluting the environment".

Re:Presumably one of the Vatican's new deadly sins (2, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729808)

Actually at least six of these new seven deadly sins apply to the RIAA, starting with "polluting the environment".

A little off topic, but why am I suddenly reminded of all those AOL CD's? :P

Re:Presumably one of the Vatican's new deadly sins (2, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730746)

Gah. It still is hypocrisy.

From their argument, they are implying that consumers are only buying individual songs, but that they, the overly generous music labels are paying songwriters and musicians as if we bought the whole album.

Revenue may be down, but payouts are down as well. The music industry hasn't been lowering the price of CD's OR lowing the price of individual songs on iTunes or Amazon. If anything, the majors 'profit margin' has increased, because they have significantly lower expenses AND get significantly higher revenue [as a percentage of the retail price] of digital downloads.

This 'proposal' is just a straight money grab, plain and simple.

Good little capitalists (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730094)

The RIAA wants to maximize its revenue streams while minimizing costs.

All businesses strive for this. This is the holy grail of capitalism. This is what makes a business successful. There is nothing hypocritical about it.

There is a fuzzy area between greed and self-interest. The accusations "they are making too much money" or "they are charging too much" or "they are paying too little for their resources" are all pretty baseless in a free market.

The accusations "they are monopolizing their market," or "they are introducing artificial scarcity" or "they are erecting artificial barriers to entry to their market" are all very valid accusations, from a capitalistic perspective, because these things destroy a free market and prevent others from being good capitalists.

I think the RIAA is guilty of all six of the above accusations, but only the last three have any real merit in the secular world (IMO).

As an aside, "causing poverty" is SUCH a gimme. Anything that involves the accumulation of a scarce resource can be seen as "causing poverty." We are all, and always will be, guilty of that deadly sin, the Church included.

Re:Good little capitalists (1)

Brad Eleven (165911) | more than 6 years ago | (#22732416)

The hypocrisy lies in their creed:

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.

If they really wanted to foster such a climate, they'd stop wasting their time on the petty pursuits that simply increase their lawyers' billable hours.

Reminds me of a certain "war"... in fact, several current "wars" (hint: they all start with "The War On").

Re:Presumably one of the Vatican's new deadly sins (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22732904)

Polluting of the environment
Everyone's guilty of that, and I don't see why the RIAA is especially guilty.

genetic modification
Let me guess, the exception, right?

carrying out experiments on humans
Other than studies and surveys (which are experiments on human behaviour), what exactly have they done?

causing social injustice
I'll give you that. They were certainly instrumental in unbalancing copyright law.

causing poverty
I don't think they've done much of that. If you're going to cite the artists as an example, I'd like to point out that every single one of those artists signed by their choice.

becoming obscenely wealthy
Typical. There's no mention on how they became extremely wealthy, or whether they've earned it. You can become obscenely wealthy by helping people, or by entertaining them, etc. That's not sinful, abusing that wealth is.

taking drugs
That's probably the epitome of here-say.

So, we've got definitely one, possibly one or two more. Sinful, but not that sinful.

Fourteen deadly sins (0, Offtopic)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729578)

This might be offtopic, but I'm willing to risk it. There are now fourteen deadly sins.

Article here. [allheadlinenews.com]

Mgr Girotti named the new mortal sins to be (1)genetic modification; (2) human experimentations, (3) polluting the environment; (4) social injustice; (5) causing poverty; (6) financial gluttony; and (7) taking drugs.

So, let's see. The RIAA is certainly guilty of the new 4, 5, and 6. They're also guilty of 3 if you count noise pollution from crappy manufactured pop bands. And probably 7, I think that's pretty much a given too if you read any of their justifications on their behavior.

So, all they have to do is clone Lance Bass and they'll have a hat trick on the new list.

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (1)

JK_the_Slacker (1175625) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729610)

So, all they have to do is clone Lance Bass and they'll have a hat trick on the new list.

Okay, but what about human experimentation? *cringes*

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (1)

Van Cutter Romney (973766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729656)

In that case everyone's going to hell!

Lets see ..

(1)genetic modification - everyone from the biotech industry
(2) human experimentations - sadists
(3) polluting the environment - everyone who drives a car; nuclear power plant owners; electricity consumers
(4) social injustice - anyone earning more than 100K p.a. and not making a tax deductible donation (St. Peter will have to check with the IRS)
(5) causing poverty - some from the list above; politicians
(6) financial gluttony - anybody who is the subject of CNBC's American Greed [cnbc.com]
(7) taking drugs - hippies

Anyone I missed?

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (5, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729880)

In that case everyone's going to hell!
Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? No one is without sin, so everyone must ask for God's forgiveness. Vendor lock-in.

I wonder if the alcohol that Christ made out of water counts as drugs or not? If not, I'd like to hear why alcohol is not a drug.

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (2, Insightful)

nedwidek (98930) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730048)

Because it's legal and the government gets their cut?

I'd like to hear why alcohol is not a drug (1)

MooseTick (895855) | more than 6 years ago | (#22731380)

According to everyone's friend, Wikipedia, a drug is defined as "any substance that alters normal bodily function".

Using that definition, alcohols would be considered a drug. Of course, food, water, air, and every other foreign object introduced into a body could be classified as a drug. Your normal body function is to die. Taking drugs like food and water alter that and keep you alive. Air has that nasty habit also. I say let's ban drugs and see how long the human race lasts!

Re: I'd like to hear why alcohol is not a drug (0, Offtopic)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22731480)

Taking drugs like food and water alter that and keep you alive. Air has that nasty habit also.
Not to take anything away from your comment, but wouldn't air, food, and water fall into the "normal bodily function" category? :)

Re: I'd like to hear why alcohol is not a drug (0, Offtopic)

Smordnys s'regrepsA (1160895) | more than 6 years ago | (#22731742)

You could say the same thing if you constantly had a low level of, say... caffeine in your body. *Caffeine is very normal in my bodily functions.

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#22731756)

I wonder if the alcohol that Christ made out of water counts as drugs or not? If not, I'd like to hear why alcohol is not a drug.

Well, some religions (such as Southern Baptists) hold that alcohol is verboten. Others (such as Rastafarianism) have no problems with drugs. Most religions seem to uphold drinking as a celebratory or social act, and are silent on other drugs. So, I would say that religions tend to lump drugs and alcohol together, but the US is where they sent all the Christian groups that thought alcohol was too far.

From a non-religious point-of-view, the problem most people have with drugs is their addictive nature. Even Mills, the ultimate in 'do your own thing' said the one legitimate time to step in is when a person is removing their own freedom by signing themselves into slavery. Well, many people claim that hardcore drugs do that, because of their addictive nature.

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22733440)

FYI: "Wine" in the Bible is grape juice. Alcohol is regarded as "Strong Drink."

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22733910)

That is not entirely true. While alcohol is indeed referred to as "strong drink", there are numerous references to good ol' alcoholic wine: see here [tektonics.org] .

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (2, Interesting)

mjwx (966435) | more than 6 years ago | (#22735666)

Ayn Rand was a hack and a plagiarist.
The whole idea of atlas shrugged was taken from the idea of using guilt as leverage in religion. Here's an oft quoted part changed to fit a religious context:

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power the Church has is the power to punish sinners. When there aren't enough sinners, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a sin that it becomes impossible for men to live without sin.
. The whole idea is to make people think they are doing bad things in order to lay guilt on people. The Church also provides a convenient way to eliminate guilt in exchange for belief (not to mention nominal donations). The Church would happily consider alcohol a drug because then a few quiet drinks with friends becomes a horrible crime in the eyes of the priests, the thing is they don't want you to stop, they want you to keep "sinning" as it is the only thing that can keep you coming back to them for forgiveness.

People wonder why some governments (as in the US govt) has such a close association to the church.

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22735728)

By what standard does the US government have a close association to "the church"? I don't even know what church that would be.

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 6 years ago | (#22736122)

Modus Operandi's are practically identical, by "the church" this applies to most theist churches. To be more accurate however how many US presidents have not been Christian? How many senators are not Religious? (willing to bet the vast majority (75%) are Christians in some flavour or another).

Connection enough?

At least the Australian government is honest about it, you have to be a member of the church of England to be a member of parliament.

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22737356)

So, what is the problem? The US government is carrying out the will of the people? Any democracy made up of 90% Christians is going to be represented by mostly Christians.

At least the Australian government is honest about it, you have to be a member of the church of England to be a member of parliament.
This is absurd unless your goal is to disenfranchise.

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 6 years ago | (#22746034)

So, what is the problem? The US government is carrying out the will of the people? Any democracy made up of 90% Christians is going to be represented by mostly Christians.
So much for for the vaunted separation of church and state. Maybe not so bad for you but IMO, any theocratic state is bad.

At least the Australian government is honest about it, you have to be a member of the church of England to be a member of parliament.
This is absurd unless your goal is to disenfranchise.
Honesty not something you want from government?

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#22746246)

So much for for the vaunted separation of church and state.
I don't know what you are getting at. What social code should the US follow that would make it more separated? About the only thing I can think of is getting "In God We Trust" off of the currency. There's no government-sponsored church of any kind, no church is taxed, and there is broad freedom of assembly. Hell, even whack-job Scientology is permitted.

Honesty not something you want from government?
Honesty is disclosure, not forcing your politicians to join some bullshit church. Some of our most prominent politicians are Jewish. Many of them are Catholic... How would that go over if they had to convert to the Church of England (Episcopal here in the US)?

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 6 years ago | (#22736140)

I should have been more specific, by close association I mean more in terms of the way they operate, Modus Operandi.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, if life just had an edit button.

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22736776)

If not, I'd like to hear why alcohol is not a drug

Because the CIA can't sell it in low rent black neighborhoods, addict the residents, arrest them for distribution/possession/use, imprison them as slave labor, and remove them from voting rosters forever.... It just isn't addictive enough.

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22737098)

(3) polluting the environment - everyone who drives a car; nuclear power plant owners; electricity consumers

I guess one could define 'polluting the X' as increasing the amount of entropy in X. I'd like the morons who came up with those sins to define exactly how much pollution gets me in hell :)

I take it the pope will nevermore travel by car/plane/bicycle and will not wear any clothes?

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (5, Funny)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729680)

Hear me! Oh, Hear me! All pay heed! The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen (crash)...Oy! ten-- ten commandments, for all to obey!

When you're ripping people off (0, Troll)

crovira (10242) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729826)

you could/should at least give attribution.

That old joke comes via Mel Brooks in "The History Of The World: Part I"

Practice what you preach...

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (2, Insightful)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729756)

#1, genetic modification. We will jail all who grow roses and all who have fruit orchards?
#2, human experimentation. What's wrong with medical research, psychological research, etc.?
#3, #4, #5 need definition
#6, punish success and all suffer
#7, only the drugs you don't happen to like. Does everyone agree on which drugs are bad?

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22734900)

#7, only the drugs you don't happen to like. Does everyone agree on which drugs are bad?
Unfortunately, the crackheads get rather twitchy about the subject and the pot smokers have trouble seeing the issue at hand in the first place (that damn Glaucoma).

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729782)

So, let's see. The RIAA is certainly guilty of the new 4, 5, and 6

Nothing new here... just because these sins were just recently listed didn't mean that the riaa execs weren't going to hell anyway: They were accusing innocents of "stealing" their "property" (that's perjury), engaging in monopolistic practices and asking too much of punitive damages (which would go against "thou shalt not steal"), etc. They were evil, and they know it.

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (1)

carpe.cervisiam (900585) | more than 6 years ago | (#22735520)

Actually more like "bearing false witness" than perjury, as in "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (1)

Gutboy (587531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730916)

(1) Would this cover gene therapy?
(2) I guess we'll never have cures for any more diseases, or does drug trials not count as human experimentation?
(3) CO2 emmissions? Everyone does it. Not even counting waste products (or trash).
(4) The Catholic church wants to talk about social injustice? Maybe they should clean their own house first.
(5) How much does the church pull in each year? it is important for all parishoners to understand that giving is not optional (it is actually one of the six precepts of the Church) [memorare.com]
(6) See above.
(7) No more medications for you. Or are there 'good' drugs and 'bad' drugs?

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22731822)

Oh yeah, I know it's all extra silly. But the blurb made me think of it, and my SlashKarma could stand taking a hit for the sake of posting something interesting.

My list like yours would look like this:

(1) Does this cover reproduction? You're mixing your genetic material with someone else.
(2) Technically, human experimentation would apply to your tailor. He fits pants to you, then modifies them, then fits them again...it's experimentation with a human involved.
(3) Polluting the environment is recursive. Say a Hail Mary to be forgiven, exhale CO2, have to say another one...
(4) Like, moving pedophile priests around rather than tossing them out? That kind of social injustice?
(5) Everything causes poverty. If nobody used gas, it would be cheap. If nobody ate lettuce, it would be cheap. Everything you use causes poverty. See a demand curve [wikipedia.org] for more info.
(6) How about this? [vaticanbankclaims.com]
(7) Sugar is a drug. [lurj.org]

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (1)

andphi (899406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22739442)

(3) Polluting the environment is recursive. Say a Hail Mary to be forgiven, exhale CO2, have to say another one...

But, the O2 we convert to CO2 and then we exhale is the same CO2 other organisms convert to O2 and then exhale. Is that pollution or just the proper working of a closed system?

Re:Fourteen deadly sins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22737112)

This might be offtopic, but I'm willing to risk it. There are now fourteen deadly sins.

[Enter Pope Benedict XVI, cardinal Biggles, Cardinal Fang and Cardinal Ximinez]
Tremble in fear, sinners, for you have committed all seven of the deadly sins! Greed, sloth, lust, avarice, wrath, gluttony, pride and genetic manipulation... hold on, I'll come in again. [Exit]

Payola? (5, Funny)

Van Cutter Romney (973766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729584)

Sounds like Payola all over. Maybe we'll get Eliot Spitzer to prosecute RIAA again ... Oh, wait!

Re:Payola? (-1, Redundant)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729658)

Doubt it. He's kind of busy defending his own self. Not to mention that he now has zero cred for any prosecutions.

Re:Payola? (3, Informative)

Ctrl-Z (28806) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729730)

That was captured in "Oh, wait!"

Re:Payola? (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#22734036)

Damn. I completely missed the "Oh, wait!"

<VOICE type="Emily-Latella">
That's very different. Never mind.
</VOICE>

Re:Payola? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22729778)

That wind in your hair...that's from the joke flying over your head.

Re:Payola? (3, Funny)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729890)

Maybe we'll get Eliot Spitzer to prosecute RIAA again

He's too busy working up his bid to run for president.

Hey! It worked for Bill.

Re:Payola? (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730134)

I don't get it.

If he had a prostitution bill comin at him, why didn't he just pay it?

Oh, wait...

I thought there was 14 now? (1)

n3tcat (664243) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729614)

Perhaps the new deadly sin of "excessive wealth" would cover this as well.

Summary Lies (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22729640)

Now you know; it wasn't about hypocrisy, but one of the seven deadly sins may still have been involved.
Could the slashdot editors at least pretend to understand the english language? The slashdot story is written to strongly imply that the quote above comes from the RIAA. But, it's not from the RIAA, it's just some blogger's snarky comment about the RIAA...

News? (4, Funny)

Gat0r30y (957941) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729726)

Unscrupulous organization denies blatant hypocrisy. Details at 11.

Re:News? (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729870)

Oh, it's newsworthy. How else are people supposed to know that this unscrupulous organization exists and to steer clear of it if we don't hear about it every day?

At least it is legal (2, Insightful)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729742)

Even if it isn't fair - at least it is legal. The RIAA sometimes has problems with that, too.

I can just imagine the courtroom now... (1)

pigs,3different1s (949056) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729874)

RIAA Lawyer:

I know you are, but what am I?

Maybe now... (2, Insightful)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 6 years ago | (#22729906)

...that everyone knows what we already know, people like my mother who think most artists make millions from CD sales will get the picture: the RIAA doesn't care about artists' profit- just its own.

Why the painfully inane comments today? (5, Insightful)

DarkSkiesAhead (562955) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730160)


I came into this thread with 10 shiny new mod points hoping to find someone insightful, but found not a single comment in the entire thread worth promotion. What's happened to slashdot? A story on a hot subject, and I see nothing but off-topic trolls and insipid banter about deadly sins taken out of context from the description at the top of the page. Not a single comment on the actual article.

Anyway, the RIAA's attempt to dodge the charge of hypocrisy is equally lame. First the new deal gives ridiculous profit to SoundExchange (30% of gross). And even though they do have a 'plan' to share with artists (an inequitable one, albeit), the lack of expediency is directly adding to the profit of the RIAA through this process. The artists are clearly an afterthought. The RIAA can't come close to hiding their real motivation: profit for its members at all costs, regardless of artists rights/needs.

Re:Why the painfully inane comments today? (5, Funny)

ohzero (525786) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730244)

If you outlaw copyrighted webcasting by making it cost prohibitive, only outlaws who don't care about cost prohibitive copyrighted webcasting will webcast.

Re:Why the painfully inane comments today? (5, Funny)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730330)

I see nothing but off-topic trolls and insipid banter about deadly sins taken out of context from the description at the top of the page. Not a single comment on the actual article.
I hate to say this since you have a lower UID than I do but, You must be new here.

Re:Why the painfully inane comments today? (1)

trongey (21550) | more than 6 years ago | (#22731194)

I came into this thread ... hoping to find someone insightful...
You came into the discussion of a flamebait article hoping to find insightful comment?
Did you forget you were on the internet?

Re:Why the painfully inane comments today? (1)

nickyj (142376) | more than 6 years ago | (#22731256)

What else is new? RIAA wants to get rid of webcasters. First they failed at outlawing them. Now they want to tax them, where the RIAA sets the price and takes the money, so that webcasting doesn't become a good business model anymore. And let's not forget the screwing of the artists from this new found money.

I seriously don't listen to any music that I don't have already. I only get music from friends and only if they highly recommend it, and I still don't listen to most of that. 90% of my music listening is from the music I bought years ago which is less than 50 CDs. I never listen to the radio: too many ads and annoying disc jockeys, and music I couldn't give a rat's ass about.

Don't think I never listen to music. I listen to it everyday, on my 40 minute commute to work, at work for 9 hours, in the car wherever I go. But I only listen to the same stuff I have been listening to for 10 years at least. Once in a while I'll pop in a CD that a friend lends or gives me, but I always switch back in about 1 week to my music.

Re:Why the painfully inane comments today? (1)

mindmatternotmattere (692986) | more than 6 years ago | (#22733888)

All the old guys just read... ow! it hurts to type.

Re:Why the painfully inane comments today? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22735370)

A story on a hot subject...
Yeah, it would have been cool if Slashdot had found a story on this hot subject. Instead, the editors posted a misleading summary of an incoherent blog post.

You're at the wrong website.

Re:Why the painfully inane comments today? (1)

invader_vim (1243902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22736146)

First the new deal gives ridiculous profit to SoundExchange (30% of gross).

Especially when satellite radio networks pay 7.5%. And no tenable reason given by SoundExchange as to why it should be different, especially as internet radio revenue tends to be much smaller than traditional commercial radio stations.

the lack of expediency is directly adding to the profit of the RIAA through this process. The artists are clearly an afterthought. The RIAA can't come close to hiding their real motivation: profit for its members at all costs, regardless of artists rights/needs.

What sucks even more is that you have to become a member of SoundExchange to claim the royalties, too. Otherwise, SoundExchange 'holds' them for you, regardless of whether your label is RIAA-affiliated. (How else can they pay for the cocaine to snort off hookers' backs?)


Even though my band is independent, with distribution through an independent UK label, the RIAA (via SoundExchange) still gets my royalties. As an artist (in Australia) who has had work played on internet radio (station based in New York) it sickens me that the US Government accepted the RIAA proposal for this in the first place (i.e. the creation of SoundExchange). SoundExchange should never have been allowed to come into existence.


30%? I will never see a dime from American internet radio.



So yeah, you're right. The artist doesn't figure into the RIAA's reasoning. Especially as they are reasoning on behalf of artists and labels who are not part of the RIAA.

Seven (4, Funny)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730224)

  1. Envy- of the artists and their fame.
  2. Greed- self explanatory.
  3. Gluttony- eating and boozing it up with all that cash from those royalties.
  4. Lust- for control and power over the music industry.
  5. Pride- in their "holier than thou" facade as guardians of truth and justice.
  6. Rage- hm, I guess that one is just reserved for everyone who hates the living hell out of the RIAA.

Re:Seven (5, Funny)

Hillgiant (916436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730586)

What? No Sloth? (you lazy bastard)

Re:Seven (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22736830)

Sloth? Too lazy to come up with a new business model that counters piracy, I guess.

Re:Seven (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22730634)

Rage- hm, I guess that one is just reserved for everyone who hates the living hell out of the RIAA.
I always thought it was wrath. As in to cause undue strife and suffering upon others...

Re:Seven (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22731282)

Hey, you missed one! You forgot...oh, never mind, it's just too much work.

Hypocrisy is a rhetorical toy/attack dog (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730708)

Hypocrisy is about advocating different rules/moral postulates for similar situations.

For example, consider the assertion "When Mary goes to the store to do her shopping, she should ask for a reusable bag instead of plastic ones. But when Jack went to the store the other day and asked for plastic bags for his shopping, that was quite okay."

The key here is the concept of "Similar", and how it "unsimilar" situations are NOT hypocritical.

Let's consider the events that led up to the claim. For example, that Jack was going to leave the country the day after and move to a remote island. In that case buying a reusable bag would have been meaningless, because he would never have been able to use it again. So it would not be a similar situation, and so it would not be hypocritical of him to get plastic bags.

Let's say that Jack was actually just going to move to Canada, and so he would have to bring his reusable bag with him in a small car. This situation is somewhat similar. Some people would think the claim would be hypocritical, others would not.

Let's say that Jack was in a really big hurry for a good reason and so didn't have time to ask for and pay for reusable bags from the till person. This situation is quite similar to Mary's, and so many people would think the claim is hypocritical. Not everyone.

Everything therefore depends on whether the situations are SIMILAR, because if they are, you MUST apply the same rule, but if they are not, then you don't have to.

However, in the material reality we live in, no situation is ever IDENTICAL to any other, because of the fractal-like state of events. You will therefore always be able to find some difference between any two cases X and Y. The question of how significant that difference is is up to individual interpretation, and individual interpretation is up to presentation, oratory, language used, etc. An accusation of hypocrisy will therefore try to present as minimal the differences between X and Y, while the defense is to maximise them.

To the extreme, you can accuse anyone of being a hypocrite because you can take any two concepts and abstract them to be identical. Ex:

* "Obama is a hypocrite - he claims to stand for personal freedoms, but wants to take away the freedom of a company executive to outline his view and present it to politicians".

* "Clinton is a hypocrite - she claims to stand for personal freedoms, but wants to take away the freedom of choice of not paying for someone else's medical bills".

* "McCain is a hypocrite - he claims to stand for personal freedoms, but wants to punish people for exercising that freedom to aid Hugo Chavez"

Famous last words: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22730760)

"I am not a crook."

Captcha is "traitor". How fitting.

everyone's best interests. (0, Troll)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 6 years ago | (#22731374)

I have an idea. Artist royalties should be ZERO, the cost of each music recording should be $100 or higher, the penalty for downloading one MP3 should be the death penalty, and the RIAA should openly keep ALL of the money. That would be in the best interests of both the public and the artists.

I call... (0)

scubamage (727538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22731792)

bullshit! Darn you to heck you RIAA fibbers!
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>