RIAA's Letter to Sen. Coleman Filled With Misleading Information

By George Ziemann -- October 13, 2003

We found a copy of the full text of the RIAA's letter at Boycott-RIAA. This was written in response to Senator Coleman's request for information on how the recording industry's "sue everyone" approach intended on only targeting serious offenders. As is everything which emanates from the RIAA, this letter, which carries the signature of Cary Sherman, current figurehead of the organization, is a perfect example of how this entire anti-consumer campaign has been run ever since the Napster hearings. With lies, deception and an utter disrespect for the truth.

So let's examine this statement of purported fact and take a close look at the RIAA's defense, separating the truth from the lies, line by line. All indented sections are my responses, the main body of text is the content of the RIAA letter.

Senator Norm Coleman
Chairman
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-6250

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your letter of July 31, 2003, and to provide information regarding the recording industry's current efforts to fight online music piracy.

Gee, they didn't even make it through the first sentence, Go right for the "piracy" word because they love it so much. Terrorists are like that. Has anyone seen one scrap of empirical data to support this myth? REAL data?

As you know, the Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA") is the trade association representing the United States recording industry.

Oh really? So they suddenly don't represent the interests of Universal Music (owned by Vivendi - France), BMG (Germany), Sony (Japan) or EMI (Great Britain)? Sorry, just went back and checked the RIAA's membership and they're all still on the list. 80 percent of the RIAA's controlling members are foreign-owned. This organization does NOT represent the United States recording industry.

RIAA members, comprised of hundreds of record labels, create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90 percent of all sound recordings legitimately sold in the United States.

More lies. The RIAA represents less than 10 percent of the world's recording artists. They are the distinct minority and the rest of us are sick and tired to being referred to as illegitimate because we know who the real bastards are. The independents outnumber the majors by more than 10 to 1. The RIAA simply refuses to acknowledge us and therefore sees barring us from the marketplace as their just duty.

We understand that you have questions regarding RIAA's announcement on June 25, 2003, to collect evidence against individual computer users who are illegally offering for copying substantial amounts of copyrighted music over peer-to-peer networks. RIAA welcomes this occasion to explain our efforts to combat the devastating effects that the massive illegal copying on peer-to-peer networks is having on the music industry.

Once again, where is the proof behind this statement? Empirical data. Got any?

The problems currently facing the music industry will, as broadband expands, soon be the problems of all copyright holders.

And who is pushing broadband the hardest right now? AOL, which also owns Warner Music. And who makes the CD burners that are the source of so much consternation? Sony. These guys are killing themselves. It's not the public's fault.

This is a point of national importance, as the copyright industries constitute five percent of the Gross Domestic Product and copyrighted works are the single largest United States export.

You'll notice that first they refer to the copyright "holders" and then the copyright "industries." Heard them mention the creators and writers yet? That's not who they're talking about, that's why. All of these cries for the copyright holders, owners, intellectual property owners and other indirect references which appear to be talking about the artists have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CREATORS of the copyrighted works. This is the greatest fabrication of the entire spiel, an attempt to make everyone think that they are protecting the artists. The real truth is this -- by the time the RIAA becomes concerned about a copyright, they author has already lost their right to the work, having been contracturally removed from it by a recording contract.

Yeah, yeah, I know, the artists will eventually regain control in 35 years. Sure they will...

Before turning to your questions, we wish to provide some background information, because our actions are not occurring in a vacuum and are the product of much deliberation. The decision to enforce our rights against egregious infringers was taken only after suffering years of mounting harm.

What exactly is this mounting harm? Once again, vague references with no supporting data. There is never any supporting data in the RIAA spiels, which are really starting to sound eerily familiar when compared to information from the Dept. of Homeland Security.

The music industry first tried to use an aggressive public education campaign to discourage the unauthorized distribution of recordings, by explaining to the public that online piracy is not only illegal, but robs songwriters and recording artists of their livelihoods, stifles the careers of up- and-coming musicians, and threatens the jobs of tens of thousands of less celebrated people in the music industry.

Unfortunately for the RIAA, everyone saw right through these lies and it just pissed off the record-buying public when they were classified as thieves just because they wanted to listen to something besides Clear Channel's nationally canned broadcasts of the exact same thing in every city. We can still copy music by recording directly from the radio. Is broadcasting piracy? Same thing, different data stream without the element of choice.

Nothing stifles the careers of up-and coming musicians more than the RIAA's domination of the market, stranglehold on the media, bullying tactics to keep independent music off the airwaves, off of Internet webcasts, prohibit them from access to legitimate sales venues, declare them to be illegitimate and otherwise block us from market access.

Those "less celebrated people" are mostly label vultures -- the A&R people, promoters, PR goons, accountants and lawyers. They're less celebrated because everyone who knows how the industry works hates them with a passion.

The music industry also pursued lawsuits against the peer-to-peer systems, which are knowingly facilitating the illegal distribution of copyrighted recordings on a massive scale.

It really bothers the RIAA that they have no control over what people listen to now. They spend an average of $4 billion annually sending out free physical copies of music. The Internet is the greatest free promotional tool to ever come along. One virtually free crappy compressed copy of a CD track (audibly inferior, technically a vague remnant of the original recording) can be listened to by everyone in the world anytime. All you have to do is post it on a web site and you've got a potential global audience. The big problem is that the independent acts can access this same promotional tool. THat's the real thorn in the RIAA's side.

Most important, the music industry has aggressively licensed legitimate online music services to offer legal alternatives to consumers.

Please note that these "legitimate online music services" that they speak so highly about are almost all "pay-per-listen", one of the concerns of the Assistant Secretary of Commerce when the DMCA was originally passed. As you can see, this concern was well-founded.

Only after these steps did not stem the tidal wave of illegal conduct has RIAA resorted to its current course, pursuing the users of peer-to-peer networks who are distributing substantial amounts of unauthorized copies of recordings. And there is one point on which all of the courts have agreed: these users are violating the copyright laws.

This is primarily because the RIAA has successfully misrepresented mp3 files as "exact copies" of a CD track, while nothing could be further from the truth. At best, these mp3 copies are a derivative work. While they strongly resemble the original copyrighted material, this is akin to claiming that a Reader's Digest condensed book is the original. In both cases, this only appears to be the truth until you compare the two side by side. Both have the majority of the information removed, leaving enough to recognize the work while failing to accurately reproduce it.

Our heightened enforcement efforts are deliberately occurring now: when, as a result of the music industry's extensive educational efforts, the public is more aware than ever before of the illegality and consequences of online piracy and, at the same time, the number of legitimate online music sources is exploding, giving music lovers a multitude of options for legally obtaining music online.

And yet, the true music lovers are well aware of the terrorist approach to selling music. We're not buying no matter how much perfume you put on this turd of an idea.

The Piracy Problem Facing the Music Industry

In the past three years, shipments of recorded music in the United States have fallen by an astounding 26 percent, from 1.16 billion units in 1999 to 860 million units in 2002.

Anyone own stocks? Been watching the Dow Jones Industrial average over the past 3 years? How far has it dropped? About 25 percent? Hmmm... And even if I started to send you down that idea successfully, note the wording in this statement -- SHIPMENTS have fallen by 26 percent. They could have pulled back that far by simply ceasing to keep shipping out free goods, those huge numbers which are shipped and never returned or reported as sold. These numbers also represent, which was conveniently omitted, NET AFTER RETURNS.

This is a completely fabricated number, based on nothing tangible. It could mean nothing more than returns are way up. Or they just decided to only fulfill a portion of orders. Even less goods provided to the "music clubs" which got caught selling CDs at swap meets and not paying the songwriters proper royalties.

I'd love for the Senate Committee to simply ask to see the data from which these figures were determined. How many units were manufactured? How many were returned? The artists have been trying to find out this info for years. It is mysteriously never available. Word is that there are no manufacturing records kept.

And worldwide, the recording industry has shrunk from a $40 billion industry in 2000 down to a $32 billion industry in 2002.

That's only a 20 percent drop. What happened to a 26 percent decline? Oh, we're not using the same years any longer. So we mix numbers by selecting different groups until they fit the story that's being told.

They also conveniently forgot to mention that the number of new releases between 1999 and 2001 declined by about 20 percent. Artist rosters have been cut, fewer new recordings are being put into the distribution chain and there is an almost proportional decline in sales vs. new releases.

This is their own damn fault. They did it to themselves. Less new product, less sales. This is a lesson they should have learned around 1996 when they tried the same thing. Back then, the story was that the market contracted, since they didn't have file-sharing to blame it on.. In fact, they were the ones who contracted it back them and they did it the same way -- fewer new titles.

Hit records ­ which are critical to the long-term health of the music industry and enable investment in new artists and new music ­ have suffered most dramatically. In 2000, the ten top-selling albums in the United States sold a total of 60 million units. In 2001, that number dropped to 40 million. Last year, it totaled just 34 million.

Now I'm really suspicious. You see, 1999 was the recording industry's banner year, the biggest ever. But that's twice in a row that they sacrificed a slightly higher number to start from 2000. Let's see, what happened in 2000? Oh yeah, the RIAA started calling music fans pirates and criminals. They took Napster down.

What I see is a direct correlation between the RIAA's efforts to litigate against P2P (not to mention consumers) and declining sales. After all, they are attacking their core demographic -- people who avidly listen to music.

And this goes back to what was said just above. The industry slashed the number of new releases and now they are crying about a natural cause and effect, blaming everyone in sight without taking responsibility for their own ineptitude.

The root cause for this drastic decline in record sales is the astronomical rate of music piracy on the Internet. Computer users illegally download more than 2.6 billion copyrighted files (mostly recordings) every month. At any given moment, well over five million users are online offering well over 1 billion files for copying through various peer-to-peer networks.

In 2002, the best selling album (by Eminem) was also the most downloaded song. The RIAA refuses to acknowledge the promotional benefit from offering music over the internet. That is why the independent artists are embracing the Internet, file-sharing and mp3 files. It's not theft, they are our damn ads.

The root cause of declining sales is calling customers thieves and rasing CD prices while complaining about everything but the quality of their recordings. The prices have gone up drastically in the last few years, while the general economy is in a decline. Combine this with a reduced number of new releases and you have a formula for certain business failure in an industry which relies so heavily on the whims of the consumer.

Right now, we're not very amused or entertained by this terrorist activity and we're not giving the RIAA our money. That's our whim right now. The RIAA better get used to it.

Peer-to-peer networks allow a user to make media files, including recordings, stored on that user's computer available for copying by others; to search for media files stored on other users' computers; and to transfer exact copies of the contents of other users' media files to that user's own computer. A song can be copied and distributed in this manner an unlimited number of times, without any degradation in sound quality. And unlike traditional music piracy, piracy through networks is viral: unless the user takes affirmative steps to prevent it, the user automatically and immediately begins offering the files that the user copied to millions of other users.

Blah, blah blah. A lot of information indicating nothing of pertinent value.

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the distribution that occurs on peer-to-peer networks is unauthorized.

Considering the overwhelming amount of authorized music available on the Internet (which I will highlight a little further down), this is a direct misrepresentation. The RIAA refuses to take notice the existence of the tens of thousands of independent artists who are freely offering their music for Internet distribution. As such, they are in no position to qualify what the "overwhelming majority" is. Where are the true stats. Does someone have a record of which songs are being downloaded? I think not. On what is this statement based, if not pure imagination?

It is widely recognized and acknowledged that individuals who engage in such unauthorized distribution ­ either by making recordings available for others to copy or by making copies of others' files ­ are committing a clear violation of the copyright laws. The courts have been unanimous on this point. As the Ninth Circuit explained in the Napster case, "a majority of Napster users use the service to download and upload copyrighted music. . . . And by doing that, . . . the uses constitute direct infringement of plaintiffs' musical compositions, recordings." Judge Wilson quoted this language in the recent Grokster case, and similarly recognized that many Grokster and Streamcast users were downloading copyrighted music, "thereby infring[ing] [copyright owners'] rights of reproduction and distribution." Most recently, in a case involving Aimster, Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit noted that Aimster users who were distributing or making copies of copyrighted music were copyright infringers, and that there was no evidence in the record before him that Aimster "has ever been used for a noninfringing use."

There is a big problem with the judge's wording (apparently all taken out of context, judging by the use of ellipses (...) throughout). To put it simply, downloading and sharing copyrighted material is not inherently illegal. I am offering Hayden's Wall's entire CD for free downloading, sharing and redistributing. And we have several other artists who are offering some of their songs in this manner. There is nothing illegal about this activity.

It all depends on the copyright "owner." In our case, the artists own the copyrights. We can do whatever we want with our music. Janis Ian would like to be able to say the same thing, but she isn't the owner of her copyrights, the labels are. The major acts have no say in the actions of the labels.

According to a November 2002 survey by Peter D. Hart Research, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, consumers who say they are illegally downloading more music report that they are purchasing less music. The same survey found that the main reason consumers are not buying more music is that they get a lot of what they want for free by illegally downloading or copying it from others. In a similar study conducted in May 2002 by Peter D. Hart Research, among 12- to 18-year-olds, 35 percent say the first thing they will do after hearing a new song that they like is download it, versus just 10 percent who will buy it. Among 19- to 24-year-olds, 32 percent download the new song first, versus 9 percent who will buy it.

This survey was funded by the recording industry, who expects 12-year-olds to shell out $20 on a regular basis for CDs. When I was a kid, we taped off the radio. Then again, when I was a kid you could hear things on the radio that we might consider buying.

These findings are bolstered by a June 2003 Edison Media Research report which found that "among the heaviest downloaders, 48% say they no longer have to buy CDs because they could download music for free over the Internet" ­ an increase of 61 percent in just one year. It is thus not surprising that, while sales of music CDs are dropping, sales of blank CDs (onto which downloaded recordings can be copied) have increased dramatically, by more than 30 percent in 2002. Sales of blank CDs now outstrip sales of music CDs by a more than 2-to-1 margin.

Yes, let's talk about blank CDs. As the country's independent artists now have better tools on their desktop than George Martin had when he produced the Beatles, guess what? We're burning our own CDs. Or having them sent out to places like DiskMakers.com, who will do the same thing is large quantities. With about 90,000 independent acts that are all producing recorded music, is it any surprise that CD blanks are selling like hotcakes? Especially since the price keeps dropping, making it more and more affordable for the do-it-yourself studio to create a viable product?

As for declining sales, that's just within the RIAA membership. The independent market is growing rapidly. That is where all the blanks are going and the RIAA is just pissed because we're making our own product without going through them. The increase in blank CDs has nothing to do with file-sharing and their sales decline that can be directly stated with hard data. It is all supposition, grounded in opinion instead of fact.

These findings are consistent with the skyrocketing number of users of peer-to-peer networks. As of July 2002, Kazaa ­ the most popular peer-to-peer network by far ­ boasted 100 million registered users. By May 2003, Kazaa had become the world's most downloaded software program of any kind, with 230.3 million downloads.

We love Kazaa, even if I have a Mac and can't use it. So we have employed the services of several Kazaa users who are posting nothing but authorized music, including all of the material found at FairForShare. As it becomes easier and easier to find and identify the authorized files, the non-infringing uses will quickly outnumber the "bad" files (any music emanating from an RIAA label), which we hope to make readily identifiable as tainted.

Although these peer-to-peer networks are well aware of the rampant illegal copying that occurs over their systems, they have taken no concrete steps to stop it, and in fact, they encourage and enable that conduct, while at the same time taking steps to shield themselves from liability. They provide no meaningful warning to their users that uploading or downloading copyrighted recordings violates the law. They provide no filter to prevent exchange of copyrighted material, even though many provide filters that at least attempt to block pornography and viruses. And the peer-to-peer networks establish "default" settings that, unless affirmatively changed by the user, automatically make the files on the user's hard drive available for copying by anyone else on the network. As Judge Wilson observed in the movie and music industries' case against Grokster, Streamcast, and Kazaa, these peer-to-peer networks "may have intentionally structured their businesses to avoid secondary liability for copyright infringement, while benefiting financially from the illicit draw of their wares." Indeed, Kazaa has established itself in the country of Vanuatu, while the illegal activities on its network are causing the loss of numerous jobs in the music industry in the United States.

Once again, the implication that the RIAA is a United States company. They keep forgetting about France, Germany, Great Britain and Japan. As for intentionally structuring their businesses for a specific purpose, that's what the RIAA is all about. The bullets were still flying in Iraq when Hilary Rosen suggested it was time to increase the royalty rate. So Kazaa outsmarted them. Too bad Napster wasn't so lucky.

The Availability of Legal Online Music

The widespread availability of free illegal copies to download through these peer-to-peer networks has greatly interfered with the development of legitimate online sources of music. But music lovers need not break the law to obtain their favorite music online. The music industry continues to respond to consumer demand by making its music available to a wide range of authorized online subscription, streaming, and download services that make it easier than ever for fans to get music legally on the Internet. There are now many legal and inexpensive ways to get music online. In the United States market alone, there are dozens of excellent legitimate online services that offer a variety of choices to enjoy and purchase online music.

The key word here is "purchase." You gotta "pay-to-play" and that's what is wrong with almost all of these services. Just the fact that they are recommended by the RIAA should be enough to put them on a list of things which should be avoided by true music fans and independent artists at all costs.

These services include: aolmusic.com, apple.com/music, audiocandy.com, bestbuy.com, bet.com, buymusic.com, catsmusic.com, CircuitCity.com, collegeconcerts.com, cornercd.com, dimple.com, dothehole.com, earwax.com, efetus.com, emusic.com, exitosmusical.com, facethemusic.com, fullaudio.com, FYE.com, galleryofsound.com, independentrecord.com, instavid.com, latinoise.com, liquid.com, burnitfirst.com, listen.com, mainstreetmusic.com, millenniummusic.com, miramag.com, mp3.com, mtv.com, musicmatch.com, musicmillennium.com, musicnet.com, musicrebellion.com, netscape.com/music, newworldrecord.com, phillysoulclassics.com, pressplay.com, qhut.com, rasputinmusic.com, real.com/realone/rhapsody, recordandtapetraders.com, rollingstone.com, samgoody.com, spinner.com, streamwaves.com, tophitsmusic.com, towerrecords.com, windowsmedia.com.

I notice they left out all of the free sites. They don't want anyone to know about the music that is available without trying to overcharge the consumer by making them pay for low quality mp3 files. Of course, we have songs on AzOz, but we highly recommend these sites as well -- DMusic.com (more than 4,000 acts, including names like Blues Traveler), Garageband.com (more than 64,000 acts -- all independent), Vitaminic.com and IUMA.com. One of the latter two sites has more than 250,000 songs posted by more than 100,000 artists and both are simply huge.

But the RIAA can't force us to charge listeners, so we'll never get mentioned. We're not "legitimate" in their eyes. We don't see online music as a market; we see it as our advertising opportunity and promotional link to the consumer, which we revere as fans, not condemn as pirates and thieves.

And let's not forget the Internet Archive, an educationally funded venture which has a massive collection of live recordings, all authorized by the artists, many of which are openly encouraging the recording of live shows because the RIAA does not own nor control those recordings and it's one of the few opportunities for them to go around the record labels and actually make some money.

Indeed, the number of legitimate online sources of music is continuing to increase. Additional major retailers and software companies ­ including companies that are household names ­ plan to enter the online market within the next six months.

The Music Industry's Massive Educational Campaign

The music industry has, for a number of years, undertaken a massive campaign to educate consumers regarding the illegality of the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted music online. Recording industry leaders, along with an unprecedented coalition of other groups like the National Music Publishers' Association, the Country Music Association, the Gospel Music Association, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, American Federation of Musicians, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, the Songwriters Guild of America, Nashville Songwriters Association International, National Association of Recording Merchandisers, and many others, as well as individual songwriters, recording artists, retailers, and record companies have been educating music fans that the epidemic of illegal distribution of music not only robs songwriters and recording artists of their livelihoods, but also undermines the future of music itself by depriving the industry of the resources it needs to find and develop new talent. In addition, it threatens the jobs of tens of thousands of less celebrated people in the music industry, from engineers and technicians to warehouse workers and record store clerks.

We'd like to thank the RIAA for the comprehensive list of people who have little to no concern for the promotion of the arts and science of recorded music, which is exactly why you don't see the National Academy for Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS -- the people who vote on the Grammy Award) included. This movement is desecrating the recording arts and science by doing everything in its power to stifle technological process until they can figure out how to overcharge for it. NARAS voted not to support suing consumers.

Which brings me to ASCAP. William Thomas, ASCAP's Chief of Staff, has written to me to tell me that ASCAP and NARAS got together and informed the RIAA that neither group supported suing consumers. Additionally, he informed me that ASCAP basically does nothing for the artists. By their presence on this list, it is obvious that ASCAP cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

As for the American Federation of Musicians, let's just say that there is a reason I live in a right-to-work state.

The message of this campaign has been very clear: copying or distributing copyrighted music over the Internet without permission is stealing, plain and simple.

Same objection as above. It is only stealing if the copyright owner doesn't want you to do it.

Downloading illegal copies is no different than shoplifting CDs out of a record store, and uploading those recordings for others to illegally copy is no different than handing out stolen CDs on the street corner ­ and the act of downloading or uploading music on peer-to-peer networks is not an anonymous one. This message has been conveyed to the public in a series of print and broadcast ads featuring more than a hundred major artists and songwriters who ask their fans to stop stealing their music. These ads have appeared in a wide variety of outlets, including USA Today, BET, and MTV. The Grammy award-winning artists participating in this campaign range from country artists Brooks & Dunn and Martina McBride to rock artist Peter Gabriel to Christian artist Steven Curtis Chapman to opera star Luciano Pavarotti to hip hop artists DMX and Missy Elliot to legends Stevie Wonder, Brian Wilson, Don Henley and Elton John, among many others. Other participants include songwriters, session musicians, and retail store owners discussing the impact of music piracy in terms of lost sales, lost jobs, and closed stores.

As the boycott against everything RIAA steps into a higher gear, these are the very artists who have the most to be concerned about. The impact of calling music fans criminals will certainly be fatal to their careers. As someone who almost never downloads a song and spends most of my Internet music time uploading new tracks for public consumption by potential fans, I feel that artists with this viewpoint are simply afraid to compete with the independent acts on a level playing field.

With this in mind, these are the artists whose music I will never again purchase or even listen to and certainly not anyone I would honor by performing versions of their songs in public.

This antipiracy message is also featured on a music industry website, www.musicunited.org, which contains a number of clips from this educational campaign. The website also includes a wide array of pertinent information, including a description of the governing law, a list of legal online music sources, a guide for parents, as well as step-by-step instructions on how to disable or uninstall peer-to-peer software used to illegally offer music for copying. Since April 2003, RIAA has been sending Instant Messages ­ and has now sent well over 4 million ­ directly to infringers on peer-to-peer networks. These messages inform infringers that their actions are illegal and direct them to the Music United website (www.musicunited.org) for information on how they can avoid breaking the law. While some users are responding to RIAA's messages by ceasing their illegal conduct, others have chosen to react by questioning RIAA's enforcement campaign rather than their own conduct. Kazaa, far from cooperating with this attempt to educate its users about the law, reconfigured the newest version of its software to disable the instant messaging system, thereby preventing RIAA from sending messages to Kazaa's newest users. Kazaa did not, however, change its "default" settings, which, as noted above, automatically make each user's files available for copying by others.

Wait a minute, you left out a part. What about planting viruses and infected songs on the Internet? What about posting phony music files with obscenities provided by Madonna? What about invading the privacy of millions of Internet users? What about all of the illegal stormtrooper tactics used to manipulate P2P users into violating the rules so that they can sue them for violating the rules.

How are CDs getting on the Internet before they are released anyway? Couldn't be a result of those "promotional" giveaways could it? Oh, no. How could I even imagine that the RIAA itself is fueling file-sharing by getting everything on the web prior to getting it on store shelves?

Moreover, prior to beginning our efforts to collect information on substantial infringers, RIAA publicly announced its intent to do so, giving infringers another opportunity to discontinue their illegal conduct. Since that announcement, virtually every major newspaper and television news channel, and hundreds of local news outlets, has covered RIAA's heightened enforcement efforts.

And still, the majority of "normal" everyday people that I talk to have no idea whatsoever who the RIAA is. I have to explain that it is "the people suing consumers for listening to music" before I get the nod of understanding. So how many millions were wasted on an advertising campaign that the general public simply ignored? And how many sales do you think were gained by telling people that if they wanted to look for new music they'd better have a lawyer?

The Information Subpoena Provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

This entire section is a bunch of legal smoke and mirrors. Since the recording industry basically wrote the DMCA, which totally removes the emphasis of the copyright laws from their original purposes -- 1) to promote the useful arts and sciences, and 2) to protect the authors and creators of copyrighted works -- and to place the legal power in the hands of the very publishers the copyright laws were designed to protect authors from, the recording industry attorneys know every sentence of this law.

After attending DMCA rulemaking hearings this spring (and being the only actual author of anything to appear, although the room was filled with representatives from "intellectual property owners") it is obvious that the DMCA was designed for one purpose only -- establishing complete control over the market for recorded music. At that hearing, I posed to the U.S. Copyright Office the question of how they intended to enforce the DMCA and trying to underscore the futility of trying to arrest every single US citizen.

This is, of course, the entire plan and has been all along. If they can't sell records, they'll sue people for listening to music. Because God forbid the consumer has the right to choose what music they prefer as opposed to being force-fed the next big thing, whether we want it or not.

The DMCA is the most counter-productive law ever penned, except perhaps Prohibition, does nothing for the creative community, invites invasion of privacy, has allowed unprecedented attacks on our educational institutions, and is so self-contradicting that even anyone with a shred of technical knowledge can easily see the immense stupidity of it.

Unfortunately, the Library of Congress is probably the most technically illiterate branch of the U.S. Government, judging from the blank stares of the Register of Copyrights and her attorneys whenever anything remotely resembling logic and computers was mentioned. These people were obviously poorly educated in computers, cannot discern between copy protection and an access control, don't know a bit from a byte and I am frankly surprised that any of them can even figure out e-mail, much less consider the details of the DMCA.

It is preposterous and I have to wonder how many members of Congress fall into this same category, allowing themselves to be regularly baffled by bullshit.

Mr. Chairman, I hope this letter fully responds to your inquiry. We at RIAA appreciate your interest in these matters and assure you that we have not taken these steps lightly. No industry likes to be in the position of suing those it hopes to convert to paying customers.

According from the recent press releases issued from the RIAA, they have no interest whatsoever in attracting customers and their best former customers are going to become their worst enemies. We who truly love music absolutely abhor what the RIAA has done to damage the music business, all the while trying to blame the consumer, who is searching harder now for new music than ever in the past. Instead of giving it to them, they are suing them.

You'll never convert us back. The damage has already been done.

But education alone has not worked, and we are faced with a massive problem that threatens not only the industry and everyone who works in it, but the very future of music itself.

The biggest threat to the future of music is the RIAA. That's why the independents are taking advantage of this moronic "sue 'em all" attitude to reinforce our fans with the knowledge that an RIAA recording is a sure sign that the artist on it has been, and will continue to be, financially raped for the profit of the label, has lost the rights to their songs and will not likely ever see a true reward for their effort. The publishers and distributors are clinging to their 85 percent of the sales, giving the poor artists as little as possible to fulfill the one-sided contracts which they signed.

If we're worried about the future of music, then let's talk contract reform within the state of California for starters.

Just like any retailer who pursues those who shoplift merchandise from their stores, the music industry is simply enforcing its property rights against those who are stealing its music.

Just one problem. When you steal a CD from a real store, the CD is gone and the retailer has no product to sell. When you copy a file from the Internet, it's still there. No one has stolen anything. The original has not been taken. This is a stale misrepresented comparison that is like comparing Apples to Oranges (or PCs).

One does not resemble the other.

And our efforts are having an effect.

They sure are. I hear that Vivendi's music sales are down 29% for the first half of 2003. We're not buying any more music. With each lawsuit, another few thousand customers will refuse to drop another dollar for such a self-serving group of terrorists.

The same day we brought suits against several college students who had set up and were running the unlicensed peer-to-peer systems on their college networks, many other students voluntarily shut down their similar networks on other campuses. We recognize that we cannot eradicate all illegal online copying ­ just as brick-and-mortar stores cannot prevent all shoplifting ­ yet we hope to create an environment where legitimate services can and will flourish.

So do we. The RIAA is neither invited nor welcome. It does not involve paying to listen to music. It does not involve charging the artists promotional fees. What it does involve is allowing the consumer to research and discover new music without the burden of a lawsuit hanging over their head. It is a legal, free alternative to the terrorists at the RIAA.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or concerns.

Sure, they'll answer you but they don't even respond to me. Never have. Not even after inviting comment on PBS from independent artists who feel they have had unreasonable barriers to gaining access to the market for recorded music. I wrote, They did not answer.

Try it Senator. Then have a normal person write to the RIAA and see what kind of response they get. I'll tell you -- none. I've written to these people at least a hundred times and they have never answered one single letter, request for data, or demand for clarification, much less a demand for negotiation with independent artists.

These people are in so much violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act that it's not funny and no one in the government is doing a damn thing about it. Of course, if you look at the list of campaign contributions, that one's not too hard to figure out. Best government money can buy, they say.

Good thing the RIAA is running out of money. The more desperate they become, the less government they'll be able to buy.

Sincerely,

Cary H. Sherman

Cary H. Sherman? I thought his middle name was Sue.