Would a Boycott of the MPAA/RIAA Help Matters? 702
ChrisGoodwin asks: "Why do geeks support MPAA and RIAA? Here on Slashdot, the talk is all about how evil the film and record companies are. But when the next Star Wars or Matrix or Lord of the Rings comes out, it's all about camping out to get tickets. According to RIAA's web site, member companies distribute 90% of the legitimate sound recordings in the United States; chances are, if you've ever bought music, you've given them money. (Take a look at their list of members.) Heck, most of the film companies own, are owned by, or share a corporate parent with a record company, and many of us get our internet access from part of the MPAA/RIAA conglomerate. So why is it? Why do we continue to buy their product? Why are we giving them money so that they can harass us? Why hasn't there been a call for a boycott of the record and film industries?" This is in the FAQ, but this is certainly a discussion worth having. With the pervasiveness of media in our society, for some it is not as easy as "boycott" or "no boycott", and it may be unfair to the artists we like for us to do so, and as Big Media diversifies, a boycott on movies and music may still not be enough. So do you feel a boycott of mass media will help matters, or would such be counter-productive in some way?
Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
Movies: Only attend matinees, if you MUST see it in a theatre.
DVD's: Only buy used. Period. It's not that difficult to find a pawn shop, or ebay, or whatever.
Music: Only buy used. Again, it's not that hard to find your favorite artists. Wanna support the artist? Go see their show, buy their ts-shirt or cd AT THE SHOW.
I utterly REFUSE to give those fsckers another dime that I don't absolutely have to.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe an additional way to help support your favorite artists is to steal their music, then donate to them anonymously...
Re:Yep (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yep (Score:3, Interesting)
His stuff is sufficiently obscure apparently that you can't even find it on p2p now that Audio Galaxy is gone. If more artists would do this we wouldn't have the RIAA to complain about for much longer.
It's the label that you're screwing over, not the artist. The artist doesn't usually even own those songs you've downloaded anymore. That he created them is irrelevant. He sold them to a record company in the hopes of large sums of money (from millions of $1 royalties I guess). He did this in the belief that getting signed to a label was the only way to produce music as a "day job", and that might even have been true as little as 5 years ago...
We didn't fsck the "music industry". The internet did. Its very existence makes them redundant.
Re:Yep (Score:3, Informative)
There are some artists who have big bucks and who also have a hate-on for RIAA. These artists need to get off their duff and help others record and sell their music without RIAA.
We're all savvy enough these days to be able to sample music through the Internet, and search out other people who share our taste in music. Getting known in the music community to the point which you can make a living off your music will not be difficult if you're any good at all.
Once a band realizes that the only thing RIAA's doing is bribing disk jockeys and five-fingering their freakin' wallets, it shouldn't take much smarts to understand that there's more money to be made through small-scale touring than there's ever to be made from RIAA.
That's where the RIAA-hating successful artists come in. A few million to get a non-profit music sharing/sales site set up would be just the ticket. Make it easy for people to explore musical styles, provide reasonable wages to employees, keep away from money-grubbin' CEOs, and have an up-front accounting of money flow.
I'd get a real kick out of seeing my $5 CD purchase get distributed fairly. Let me know how much of that money goes to web operations, how much to the band, how much to pay back Elton's loan.
I have no problem supporting artists that I like. I WANT to support them. But I'll be goddamned if I'll support the blood-sucking leeches and lawyers in RIAA!
Make it possible for me to help artists. Please.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Interesting)
Movies: Only attend matinees, if you MUST see it in a theatre.
DVD's: Only buy used. Period. It's not that difficult to find a pawn shop, or ebay, or whatever.
Music: Only buy used. Again, it's not that hard to find your favorite artists. Wanna support the artist? Go see their show, buy their ts-shirt or cd AT THE SHOW.
I utterly REFUSE to give those fsckers another dime that I don't absolutely have to."
This would not work. Period. All they'll see is that there's a decline in sales. Where do you think they'll place the blame? Hint: Their first assumption won't be that they're being boycotted.
At best, it'd backfire. Ironically, it'd probably be useful to give them more money. As silly as it sounds, the RIAA sounded incredibly idiotic when they claimed that Napster cut into their sales while they were at the peak of their sales.
I bet you a contributing factor to the dismissal of the SSSCA was that the MPAA couldn't make legitimate claims of losses. If people really did shift over to P2P like the *AA fears, then a different story might have emerged from that whole ordeal.
Re:Yep (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the RIAA appears to be attributing any declines in sales to piracy, but this tactic might be turned around, if some advertising money can be scraped together. Take out ads announcing the boycott, give enough details that people know how to participate, and then publicly take credit for further declines in sales. If the boycotters make enough noise, the boycotters' complaints (and not piracy) will be what comes to mind when 'reduced sales' is mentioned.
A well publicized campaign also allows attributing previous sales declines to reasons specified on the boycotters' complaint list (e.g. inflated prices due to monopolistic price fixing), further weakening the RIAA arguments.
Re:Yep (Score:3, Informative)
They aren't entitled to your money. They are businesses. If they threaten you because you refuse to give them money, that extortion and exactly the kinds of things that RICO laws are supposed to deal with. If anyone from the copyright industry ever threatens you if you tell them you don't want to give them money, do us all a favor and report them to your local A.G. and try to get them thrown in jail.
On another note, I agree with the boycott. Don't see LOTR tomorrow, k folx? Or, at least minimize the money you spend. Or try to donate money to the other side when you give money to them. Spread the word. It doesn't matter if the boycott fails. Every little bit helps. Just remember that this has to be a boycott (or a minimization) that lasts forever. They will never change and they will lie to get you to come back but don't listen to them. Just deny them the one thing they want: money.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yep (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
check them out:
matador [matadorrecords.com]
dischord [dischord.com]
touch and go [southern.com]
mint [mintrecs.com]
southern [southernrecords.com]
merge [mergerecords.com]
alternative tentacles [alternativetentacles.com]
or, for the fast route, hit the google listing of record labels:
http://directory.google.com/Top/Arts/Music/Record_ Labels/
[google.com]
Re:Yep (Score:3, Informative)
bang on. i've been in the music scene for about 15 years as a promoter, dj/radio hack, [cjsw.com] musician [nightgallerycabaret.com], etc. and i have seen a lot of bands get completely screwed by majors. the worst case was of the primrods who signed to dgc. after recording the album, the geffenites decided it wasn't commercially viable enough and decided to not release it. when the primrods tried to farm it out, geffen told them that was against their contract. the album was geffens and it would sit in the can. of course the primrods got no money for the album... eventually, geffen came to them to get back the advance paid to the band on the album (which was never released)sales. the primrods wound up in the hole, with an album that was never released.
eventually, the band broke up due to the pressure.
thanks mr. geffen, you destroyed the best band this city has ever seen.
don't take my word though, steve albini (who has probably produced at least three albums in your collection) did the math on why bands should stay away from the majors. it's
here. [avmrnetwork.com]
if you are in a rock band you must read this article. the primrods didn't.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know. I think movies are the only thing you should really see. Movies which run at 7-10 bucks are all in all a good value for the money. I don't feel ripped off if I go see a good movie at that price. Anyway, keep in mind that these movies cost often over 1.00E+8 dollars to make. It's reasonable for MPAA members to expect a healty 5 or 10 percent profit on they're effort.
It's buying the DVD, the tee-shirt, the action figures, the pop-corn, the lingere (hehe.... ok maybe goign a bit too far) thats where the rip off is, as the cost to product such spinoffs is almost noexistant, and profit can go up into rediculous amonts 30,40,50%... the sky's the limit really.
YOu want a boycott? Sure, but hit the where they're ripping you off, stop buying LOTR collectors edition DVDs and star wars for 30-40 bucks a pop.
Uncut scenes (Score:3, Insightful)
A review on Amazon says it all:
In every aspect, the extended-edition DVD of Peter Jackson's epic fantasy The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring blows away the theatrical-version DVD. No one who cares at all about the film should ever need to watch the original version again. Well, maybe the impatient and the squeamish will still prefer the theatrical version, because the extended edition makes a long film 30 minutes longer and there's a bit more violence (though both versions are rated PG-13). But the changes--sometimes whole scenes, sometimes merely a few seconds--make for a richer film. There's more of the spirit of J.R.R. Tolkien, embodied in more songs and a longer opening focusing on Hobbiton. There's more character development, and more background into what is to come in the two subsequent films, such as Galadriel's gifts to the Fellowship and Aragorn's burden of lineage. And some additions make more sense to the plot, or are merely worth seeing, such as the wood elves leaving Middle-earth or the view of Caras Galadhon (but sorry, there's still no Tom Bombadil).
Sorry (Score:4, Informative)
Movies: Only attend matinees, if you MUST see it in a theatre.
MPAA still gets a cut; even if not directly, the cost is offset in the feature price.
DVD's: Only buy used. Period. It's not that difficult to find a pawn shop, or ebay, or whatever.
Music: Only buy used. Again, it's not that hard to find your favorite artists.
Sorry, somebody originally had to buy it in the first place, which means that MPAA or RIAA still got its share. Creating a demand in the secondary market is only going to stimulate a surge in supply in the primary market.
Wanna support the artist? Go see their show, buy their ts-shirt or cd AT THE SHOW.
Sorry, the RIAA gets its cut here as well, at least from the CD sales (the T-shirt sales and concert tickets will vary depending on the artist's contract).
You are missing out on another thing: even if somehow the distribution channel is completely bypassed, that means that the artist didn't get paid either.
The problem with both RIAA and MPAA is that neither one consists of a single corporation, but that they are "trusts" which have succeeded in sustaining oligopoly power.
A boycott truly means: never watching movies outside of independent films, and never listening to music outside of independent music. Most of us (myself included here) are all consumerist victims to the mass market.
Sorry, we can't beat them using these tactics.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't bought a CD, DVD, etc. from any artist that is owned by the RIAA or MPAA in a year. I have told all my friends and family that I will not give them as gifts and that I prefer not to receive them as gifts either. And, I have explained to all those friends and family why.
I rent no movies.
I download no copyrighted tracks.
How do I survive without media?
I buy music from local bands that press their own CDs. I borrow movies from the public library. I use over-the-air broadcast TV only -- no cable or satellite. (My one vice is going to first-run movies at the theatre.)
Do you know what I found out? I don't need those people as much as I thought I did. Sure, sure, my little boycott won't put those guys out of business. I know that. But now I have my money instead of them. As for you, you must decide for yourself.
I doesn't work (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been doing this for years now, after having worked in the media. And you know what, they don't care and wouldn't notice if we all did it. Why? They never do an actually random sample when they do ratings. People such as my self are consider an anomoly and are automatically dropped - you can't even fill out the forms. They argue dropping the extremes makes for a better sample (like in some olympic judging), but they seem to always leave in the guy who has colostomy bag so he doesn't have to miss his show.
The important word here is that they are a cartell. In a monopoly, you have no choice. With a cartell, you have very very little choice. Boycotts do not work against monopolys, cartells, utilities and commodities. Sadly, it may be time for regulation - the ultimate vengence. However, after having read about their accounting practices, I don't see why they couldn't be taken down through the RICO laws.
Re:Yep (Score:2, Insightful)
The reality of boycotting and having an effect is slim, not to say that it can't happen. It's near impossible to get people to ban together if they don't think there is a diffect effect on them, and most people don't think the RIAA/MPAA's actions effect them.
Re:Yep (Score:3, Interesting)
Ignorance is bliss. They have no idea that these orginizations are "evil". because they don't feel the effects of it. Hell, we would either, if they didn't come after us for MP3 trading and trying to watch DVDs under Linux. We are members of the lunatic fringe here, and we are pissed as hell that the rest of the world doesn't understand our cry.
Regardless, I don't hold the MPAA/RIAA guilty. They are no less guilty of using the tools at their disposal than any other orginization interested in their own self preservation (including the FSF and our other favorite groups).
Listen, regardless of the backroom politics and other sundry bullshit, the DMCA was still passed into law. the RIAA had tons to do with it, but a congressperson still had to vote for it, and a president still had to sign it.
Why aren't we pissed at these people? Why the hell do most of these idiots [senate.gov] hang around forever? Why are we content yelling at the corporations? They're not doing anything they weren't granted permission to by the same jackass you probably voted for last election.
Lets stop handing the *AA groups the tools of evil, and force them to act for good.
We are so few (Score:5, Insightful)
Do not despair (Score:2, Funny)
Re:We are so few (Score:4, Funny)
How about taking the money you save . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
It's Simple Retaliation? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not quite as simple as a boycott.
Not Retaliation.... Competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Boycott! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Boycott! (Score:2)
A boycott is asinine (Score:2, Informative)
a) don't use file-sharing apps to copy/download media
b) don't understand the issues
c) don't really care
A boycott isn't effective if it's launched and maintained by a handful of geek activists.
I don't see any way a group of activists are going to get any significant portion of the populace to stop going to movies, stop listening to the radio, stop buying CDs, DVDs, tapes, video games, etc.
Silly.
Not Feasible (Score:5, Insightful)
No one wants to stop buying from their favorite artist, who is most likely distributed through the RIAA. And no one wants to miss a much-anticipated movie, even though the MPAA is involved. I don't want to say we have no willpower or convictions, but there are just things people will always want to see and hear, and these things are provided by an evil company. Asking someone to give up these things is maybe asking a bit too much. Sure there are those of us who don't want to see LOTR, but there's a good chunk who would stop at nothing to see it, despite its "evil" ties.
There have to be alternatives to a boycott. Because if you're basing your entire revolution on something of that magnitude, you're going to be sorely disappointed. The masses need their entertainment, and will get it from the easiest source.
Re:Not Feasible (Score:5, Insightful)
The message of a boycott is to say "Even though I like the product, even though I'm your target market, I hate what you're doing so much, I'll suffer to cause you pain".
Without that message, what are you saying? That you don't like them? That you don't respect them? They don't care if you like them! Unless you're willing to make it an ultimatum - change or else - they'll just tweak the product, the marketing, or the pricing until you give in.
Also, its a fallacy that huge numbers have to be involved. Remember, profits = revenue - expenses. The expenses are roughly the same for movies and music, regardless of numbers. So every dollar lost to revenue tends to directly effect profits. Turn off %10, even %5 and believe me they will feel it. Give that money to a non-offending vendor like Emusic (the one I use) and they'll feel it twice.
Re:Not Feasible (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah some artists aren't getting any money from me now. It's an unfortunate side effect but it also might help persuade them to move
If you want to make money in the music industry,w ear a suit and work in the office 9-5. Musicians don't make any of the money executives do.
Re:More feasible (Score:3, Interesting)
Take a look at websites like www.cdbaby.com that sell stuff by independent artists, you might be surprised at the quality of stuff they distribute.
That's easy (Score:2)
hmmm, when was the last full moon.....
I think today is a DMCA day, but I'll have to check my calendar.
---
Seriously, though, the biggest problem lies in organizing such and event. Sure, it could be done, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. (Especially since their products are so popular among so many. Most people probably wouldn't follow through with such a boycot even if you got them started.)
Re:That's easy (Score:2)
No, every day is "oppose entities/legislations such as the MPA*, RIA*, DMCA, Microsoft" day.
Please don't make the mistake that people oppose such evil forces based on fashion or a whim.
Re:That's easy (Score:2)
As for the kernel of truth behind that humor, statics seem to imply that people love the MPAA on Fridays, and some Wednesdays, especially around holidays, while Tuesday seems to be the day for the RIAA. Hence the running joke that most people boycott these companies for at least about 75% of every week. (I, on the other hand, prefer to boycott the MPAA every day except mondays or tuesdays, as I hate crowded theaters.)
As for the DMCA, yes, we hate that every day, but as it added variety to the joke, I left it in there. And not everyone hates microsoft. I don't like their business practices, but they are pretty much identical to any other large business. I do pity them for their huge codebase, and I'm willing to bet that at least half the engineers working there would love the opportunity to rewrite windows from the ground up, eliminating as much of the legacy code as they could. Imagine that...)
Re:That's easy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I do boycott the RIAA.
Re: I have boycotted movies.. (Score:2)
television also contributes to MPAA (Score:2)
Re:television also contributes to MPAA (Score:3, Insightful)
When you watch network television, you are contributing by being an eyeball.
Only if you're a Neilson family.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't like the terms that music is offered for sale under, so I don't buy it. I don't download it either, because I don't like stealing. I just let it pass into obscurity unnoticed.
Perhaps. (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck No. (Score:5, Insightful)
A better idea would be for us to find RIAA/MPAA a business model adapted to the digial age--one that's more effective than the "Street Performer's Protocol" and more flexible than the current "pay per copy."
(Of course I have an idea. I'll write a journal about it, and y'all can see it there!)
boycott is not the answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Why Boycott all of RIAA? (Score:5, Insightful)
We'd be much better off boycotting the Big 5 of the music industry - Sony, Warner, EMI, BMG, Universal, and leaving indie labels and musicians that need every last bit of support alone.
it won't work (Score:2)
Got news for ya: It won't get better. Ever.
The hard part... (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally no longer purchase new CD's unless I'm buying them directly from an unsigned artist. I go to the used record store if I want something published by a label. It might take a little while for something specific to show up but I always have a list of 20-30 CD's that I want to buy at a given time anyhow. I would certainly participate in an official boycott and do my best to explain the position to non-geeks. However, my gut instinct is that the only way you can get a boycott against the record companies to work is to say they're drowning bags of kittens to make CD's or something.
Don't expect any support from the media either...
brainwashed (Score:5, Informative)
yes but after The Two Towers (Score:2, Funny)
One year after the boycott... (Score:2, Insightful)
Boycott? (Score:3, Interesting)
don't want her to go the movies because of your beliefs.
I doubt she will care.
[sarcasm]I'm sure the looks you'll get when you explain to her why the **AA's are bad will justify it.[/sarcasm]
Those without children:is it ok to support a large corporation that's greedy? Well, apparently so, since the majority of
And when your child asks... (Score:2)
I doubt she will care.
And when your child asks "[Daddy | Mommy], where were you when they took our rights and our democracy away?" you can turn around and tell your child it is there fault, for whining about the latest Britney CD, rather than admitting that it wasn't the child asking that was the problem, it was the spinelessness of an adult who knew better, but chose spoiling their child over education, over their own principles, and over the future of that child's freedom.
Nice. You get to help flush your child's freedom down the drain and send the child on a guilt trip for your decisions, and your inaction, all in one. With parents like that, who needs pedophiles and predators?
Because... (Score:5, Funny)
I must watch it...
I must own it...
My own...
My preciousssssss
Boycotting RIAA since 2000... (Score:2)
If you want something done. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
otherwise, cut out your eyes and ears. 'cause, really, there's no way of stopping yourself from putting money into their hands. When you listen to the radio, you are supporting the RIAA via advertisers. Same with network television. a media boycott is just not feasible in a media saturated country (it's one of the US' largest exports)
Sort of already doing it ... (Score:2)
The only problem is that the RIAA (and soon the MPAA) are attributing their reduced revenues to piracy. After all, that's so much easier for their egos to handle than admitting they have a fucked up business model and are not responsive to their customers.
Re:Sort of already doing it ... (Score:3, Interesting)
First, manufacturing costs have been rapidly dropping. Has that translated into lower prices for end consumers? No. Has that translated into more royalties for the artists? No. So the raw materials suppliers (artists) and retail consumers (you and me) are both wondering where the money is going.
Second, new technologies have opened the door for cheaper distribution methods. The industry has made a step in this direction, but early reviews indicate it is not very sincere. The consumers are clamoring for using computers and networks for music distribution, but the industry doesn't really want to lose their control. Instead of the industry joining with consumers and better integrating music into people's psyche, they are taking an antagonistic view.
Third, new technologies are allowing consumers to integrate music into more parts of their life. Today one can easily listen to their favorite music from the moment they wake up, through their shower, drive to work, etc, until they go to sleep. Has the industry participated in this revolution? No. They have instead been figuring out ways to kill it. Again they are fighting to keep their customers from listening to music on their mp3 players, computers, etc.
Fourth, the marketing plans were born of an era when ideas could be pushed to consumers through a small number of controlled outlets (radio and tv stations). With the internet, consumers can easily talk amongst themselves about what is good and what isn't. It shocks me that the industry is not jumping on the internet and providing a service to match people with artists/songs based on their current listening preferences. Up until now they focused their marketing on a few groups (so as not to confuse the consumers). However with the internet, they can market many more groups to many more customers and in the process increase the amount of music that people listen to.
It's unbelievable. Consumers want to listen to music -- but the record industry doesn't seem interested in actually supplying them with the product they want. On the other side, their raw material suppliers (artists) are actively trying ways to circumvent the media giants and RIAA so they can feel their work is not being taken advantage of.
In any business when you've got both your customers and suppliers by the balls -- you should be commended for your business acumen. But you should also know that your situation is unique and it is only a matter of time before these people come back and break your balls.
The business model is shit because it is adverserial. Work with suppliers, customers and technology to create a win/win for everyone and then I'll say they have a good business model.
No, it wouldn't unless.. (Score:5, Insightful)
A bunch of people suddenly stopping use of a product(s) does not send a company a message. It must involve some sort of media frenzy so that the message is clear. If we just stop buying/supporting RIAA/MPAA without letting them know that there is a boycott, then they'll just see that as further justification that pirates are cutting into their profits.
Donate to the library! (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a simple way you can take action against the MPAA and RIAA. Donate your old music CDs and movie videos to your public library.
If you later decide that you want to hear or watch something you donated, just get it out of the library.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope Not Gonna Help at All! (Score:2)
Think of it this way...when little Susie wants the latest Disney POS on DVD...is Mommy gonna stop and think about the fact that they are an Evil Money Driven, DMCA supporter...or is she gonna make Susie happy...if Mommy is a geek maybe...but in 90%+ of those cases Mommy is the average uninformed consumer...
Boycott = less sales = "mp3s are killing us!!!" (Score:5, Insightful)
At least, that what's the RIAA is going to say.
It could hurt us too (Score:5, Interesting)
For this reason and because we geeks make up a small portion of all who give money to them, it's probably best for us to increase awareness of all the bad that the MPAA/RIAA are doing and support groups like the EFF.
Solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Why boycotts are a risky business (Score:5, Informative)
I was just pondering the practicalities of a RIAA boycot this morning (okay, who installed the trojan on my PC???
Unfortunately, such boycotts can backfire very, very badly.
Imagine if the
If CD sales remained unaffected then the RIAA could simply turn around and say that this proves most people are happy with their pricing, their product and their attitudes to the marketplace.
Or, even worse, if such a boycott did affect sales in a negative way, they'd simply say that this was due to piracy and that it endorses their stand on copy-protection, the DMCA, etc.
In effect, we'd be hoist by our own petard.
Anyone contemplating a boycott ought to be very sure they've got the numbers (and I'm talking *big* numbers) before they embark on such an action.
A better way might be to incite people to get active in starting a petition protesting the loss of fair use due to recent and proposed moves by the RIAA/MPAA.
This would have to be a petition where signatures are collected in ink, on sheets of paper. Cyber petitions are too easily discredited.
I'm sure, given the seven degrees of separation principle, that if everyone here solicited everyone they knew to sign such a petition, and got them to do likewise, it wouldn't be too hard to dump a very large truckload of dead-tree pulp and ink on the doorstep of Congress.
That's the way democracy works isn't it?
Demand (Score:2)
If you boycott the MPAA/RIAA, you give up certain luxuries. It's not like boycotting Ford -- you can't just buy a car from another manufacturer (although in the entertainment media case there are independent filmmakers and artists that don't sit under the guise of the MPAA/RIAA -- I encourage people to support them).
I say we boycott their business methods. Don't buy copy-protected CDs, do the usual congress-critter writing, etc., etc.
Boycotting is mostly useful when there is a viable alternative. While some people can find completely different forms of entertainment, the entertainment industry itself encompasses a lot of what we do. I don't think it's the right way to get them to change their business practices.
Now something I'm unclear of is, for example, the nature of Sony. I own a PS2. Does that mean that I'm supporting the xAA's? My assumption is that Sony Music and Sony Electronics are almost entirely different companies, but I'd need more clarification from other slashdotters.
It depends on its effectiveness (Score:2)
a) the boycott's effectiveness
b) your own scruples
Some will boycott reagrdless of its effectiveness, because they deem it immoral to do otherwise. I try as hard as possible to boycott all companies that use sweatshop/slave labour, and those that do a lot to damage our civil rights. But sometimes I find it would have too negative an impact on my lifestyle, e.g. not seeing any films or listening to any music, so I decide not to because the boycott would be ineffective.
A boycott of music and film is a pointless exercise, because you'll never get enough people doing it to make them notice. Hell, Esso (ExxonMobil outside the UK) don't even care when StopEsso slash their salkes by 40% a few days a year, and are constantly spreading the word to boycott Esso. But if people want to boycoot personally, good for them.
More effective forms of protest are to join/support/donate money to organisations that work for digital rights, and to try as hard as you can to spread the word and educate others.
Well .... (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I can tell (and this applies to me personally) the biggest gripe that people have about MPAA/RIAA is that they want to squelch a persons right to fair use. I don't think anyone begrudges their attempts to keep actually pirating at bay, it's only when these attempts prevent the legitimate owners from doing things that the copyright laws appear to allow is when hackles get raised. Please feel free to add anything else (like artists rights, but I don't really have an opinion on this personally as it is more contract law imho).
OK, so we want to make sure our fair use rights are kept intact. How is the best way to go about doing this? I see two possible approaches. One approach that falls into the category of "why can't we all just get along", is this.
The second approach (and probably more realistic) is to say, "hey, no matter what technology we throw at it, people will copy it". Fine, this is a valid point. But lets be realists here and accept that the MP/RIAA will not take this for an answer. So again, I think having us as a community help them come up with a solution to their needs that is mutually beneficial. Suggest alternatives, create/push these alternatives. Put youself into their shoes, say "I need to protect my IP from those who would illegally gain/attain it" and say, how would I solve this issue?
I guess both my suggestions fall into the category of, lets solve the problems instead of fighting wars. Not that I have anything against fighting wars, it's just that, like in "War Games", there can't be a winner. Sure we could "boycott", but would that REALLY do any good? We're just to small a segment to make any real impact with our wallets, but we could potentially make more impact with our heads.
What took you so long? (Score:3, Informative)
already do (Score:3, Insightful)
waste of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Boycotting is a complete waste of time in this case. We are not talking about boycotting fur which has a negative stigma attached to it, nor are we walking about sticking it to some small company that doesn't want to play by the rules. Media is just too pervasive in society and the next round of teenyboppers can keep the big media companies afloat with their rampant desire for the next N'Sync and Power Rangers.
Beyond that, while there are many Slashdotters who have no problem skipping Star Wars or LOTR until it comes out on video, ask them to not purchase the next Resident Evil when it comes out. Video games (something geeks love) and the movies are hopelessly intertwined. When you support the video game or the console (hello!?! PS2 is made by SONY!) you support the DRM bills we all hate.
If the geeks on Slashdot want to make a difference, they should
There are a lot of smart people reading Slashdot. I read a number of posts on any given topic that the author should just cut and paste into a letter, throw it in an envelope and send it to his or her legislator.
That is how you make a difference... not by boycotting.
-ATake the Lessig Challenge (Score:3, Interesting)
Give some of their bucks to EFF or EPIC. That doesn't mean "don't go to the movies"... it just means offset your media habit with some donations to the people who fight for you!
That's what I do. I give 65 USD every year to the EFF, and I don't spend any more than that on major-label music or movies.
Want to know more? Take the Lessig Challenge [slashdot.org]
Boycott Church, too? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why cant you... (Score:3, Informative)
See a movie, make a donation.
Then at least you're not contributing to the net evil.
A boycott would have to take 2 forms (Score:2, Insightful)
1. A true boycott
A true boycott would entail actaully going without a whole lot of entertainment. NOt listenign to any new albums or watching any new movies would probably be very unlikely for anyone, much less a (average) slashdot reader who enjoys that much more than football or clubs.
or
2 Piracy. That's the only way a boycott could work. Filesharing, vcd and dvd-r's(one of my friends has those and they work on just about every palyer you can find nowaday's) could effectively get the entire slashdot crowd entertainment without feeding the riaa/mpaa.
the only problem with option 2 is that is, well, illeagl. And many slashdotters value being somewhere other than jail.
I personally think no boycott will happen the **aa does something bad enough to make us either go without entertainment, or break the law in mass.
How about promoting alternatives (Score:2)
How about using the few alternatives that exist, allowing them to get bigger.
This is my list of sites for alternatives:
http://peace.tbcnet.com/music/
Please people, suggest more!
And here's something I have no idea about.
How about alternative movies?
Do sites exist for this?
Your publicity always works better if you be positive (promoting something), rather than being negative (boycotting something).
If you have no solution, but you complain, people just label you a lunatic.
Easy way to boycot MPAA (Score:2)
Options (Score:2)
Start communicating with the artists who support it. Provide and promote technical and ethic alternatives to it -- again, to the artists. Supporting a lobby group (such as the EFF) makes much more sense. Each time you 'reward' the MPAA, send an email (or better yet, break out that old pen and paper and WRITE a letter) to the artists involved saying how you enjoyed the show/music/whatever but share your concerns with the MPAA based association.
And KEEP doing it.
Focusing on the political arena is important, but it's only one battlefield. Choose where you fight this, find the best arena to combat this (one where the MPAA has less strength/interest) and don't let the fight stop.
Ok, show of hands here.... (Score:4, Insightful)
News flash -- this means that RIAA doesn't care about you. By definition, you are not their customer. Hell, you're not even close to their target demographic. Why would they care if you love/hate/support/boycott/praise/condemn them?
You, personally, have absolutely zero impact on their bottom line.
Zip
Nada
--
Uh yeah. (Score:2)
I guess there's always piracy, but it seems to me that's not much of a way to get what you want. "Until you cease your anti-fair use machinations in the name of piracy prevention, we will be forced to pirate stuff." And then we'll use murder to prevent abortion...
I've been boycotting since 1998 ... (Score:2)
Oh and if you're the RIAA or MPAA -- just kidding!
Too much trouble. (Score:2)
I don't think an outright boycott would make much sense. Too much work organizing and publicizing it. Some religious groups tried boycotting Disney a few years ago. Probably didn't accomplish much.
I think if those of us who dislike the **AA patronize various forms of live entertainment and otherwise occupy our geekly little minds with alternative channels and/or content, that will be good enough. And if we break down and see a movie once in a while, well, a few guilty pleasures won't make all that much of a difference anyway.
It's hard to beat a monopoly. (Score:2)
But why not go see independant films? Where am I going to see them? All of the theatres in town are owned by, or contract with... the MPAA. So even when I see a film that was entirely produced without the MPAA's involvement, I'm *still* paying them by seeing it in a theatre, where some fraction of the revenue will end up in their pockets.
Fine.. just buy DVD's and skip the Big Screen? No, foreign imports which might be MPAA-free are region encoded for somewhere that is not here. The DVD consortium is sleeping with the MPAA, so any DVD I purchase pays them indirectly as well. If I bypass the region encoding by using software or a reasonable player (Apex), then I'm violating the DMCA... which is sponsored -- errr supported -- by the MPAA.
Oh yes... I also like the internet. I can't get DSL at my house (HEY AMERITECH! Head? Ass?), so I have to go with a cable modem if I want any kind of bandwidth. Cable modem is from Charter Communications... a cable company... which makes money by sleeping with the MPAA through premium movie channels.
So, no movies... no internet... music? Nope, the RIAA is just as bad, and they also work with the MPAA, since having soundtrack albums does tie into their own revenue stream as well.
No movies, no internet, no music. Books? Better be careful.. I suspect some of the publishing houses have ties to the MPAA as well, especially those who publish movie novelizations.
How about I just sit in a chair on the porch and stare at the traffic? Surely that's ok. Well, maybe... although I did buy the chair at a store, which might have been owned by a company involved with the MPAA.
The MPAA/RIAA *is* a monopoly. If they aren't as much of one as AT&T was (is?), then they're well on the way.
middle ground (Score:2)
And since these guys use their PR arms to label infringers pirates, shouldn't we refer to them as something unpleasent, too? Like Cartels? It'd be a hellova thing if that caught on 8)
Simple: They have a Monopoly (Score:2)
Regardless of the industry, free markets do not remain free naturally. There will always be a tendency for companies to congolmerate in a free market because it gives them greater control over the market (making it less free for us and more profitable for them). This trend toward a controlled market can only be reversed by an enternal entity (i.e. the government). That's why anti-trust laws were invented...it'd just be nice if someone would bother to enforce them.
A *successful* boycott would help a lot (Score:3, Insightful)
An unsucessful boycott would simply demonstrate the impotence of the high-tech community with respect to any kind of political action, particularly since success in terms of affecting sales would require selling this outside the community, and would be worse than useless.
However, there will be a consumer boycott, and it will be effective. The next generation of DRM disabled audio gear with no analog or digital outputs, i.e. encrypted from source to speakers or CRT is on its way and was discussed yesterday here.
The public will scream its heads off when they find out what's in it, "You mean my VCR won't work, either?" and when they're told "DRM TV or NO TV", will be calling their Congresscritters telling them to tell the FCC to put off digital-only TV.
Hollywood won't lose any money over this, but the high-tech manufacturers who bought into Hollywood bullshit will lose billions, and a lot of jobs are going to get lost. Hopefully, including those of the CEOs who were stupid enough to roll over and play dead for their new masters.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I want to support the good stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
So what's the *practical* answer? What can drive the message home to the entertainment industry without making it cease to exist? From the point of view of the MPAA members, reduced movie attendance because of a grievance over their legal policies looks indistinguishable from reduced movie attendance because people don't like their movies. It just looks like there is less of an audience.
This is especially a problem with the kinds of movies geeks like to see. If the industry sees that geek-friendly movies are not doing well, their reaction is NOT going to be to change their legal policies to appeal to the geeks. Their reaction is going to be, "Oh, I guess we should stop making movies like this - they don't seem to do very well for some reason." And then no more movies we like get made.
So, yes, I *am* going to be giving my money to see The Two Towers - multiple times. But I will be sure to balance that out with donations to the EFF.
# geeks/ #ppl < .1% (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the time people on
-shane
Boycotting the MPAA and RIAA will have no effect. (Score:4, Interesting)
Boycotting the MPAA and RIAA won't do any good, for one major reason: the number of people who actually care about this issue is so small compared to the population at large that the RIAA and MPAA is unlikely to even notice that a boycott is occurring.
What WILL happen is that the people involved in the boycott will punish themselves, suffering weeks without internet access, movies, music, and so on, all just to find out that their suffering has all been in vain.
Then, there are the logistical problems. How, for instance, will boycotters coordinate their activities if they cannot read Slashdot because their ISP is their cable company? And, if they cannot coordinate their efforts, isn't it possible that at least some of them will never realize the boycott is over, ending up forty years from now like latter-day Rip Van Winkles, trying to plug decades-old Linux boxen into some hyper-modern network? Hair down to their ankles, teeth rotten away, eyes frozen into a thousand-yard stare?
Let alone the withdrawl symptoms they'll experience when they give up their favorite games. Public-service wards will fill with people whose thumbs continually twitch, twitch, twitch in a memorized UT sequence... Periodically they'll yell "BUY A BIGGER GUN!" The orderlies will be nervous wrecks. Electroshock will certainly follow.
No, friends, I think I'll pass. I think it will be a lot more fun if one of us creates a half-life mod oriented around the MPAA and/or RIAA headquarters and posts it to a friendly mirror. Surely at least ONE employee of one of these agencies reads slashdot? And, surely SOMEONE out there likes doing game mods, and has a few hours to spare?
I'd just like to see the boss battle against Valenti. THAT would be SOMETHING. Do a sort of "ROBOVALENTI" theme, maybe. Use really bad, color mug shots from the media. Animate it like on SouthPark. Maybe do something like the "bedroom" scene between Saddam and the devil? Um... Or not.
Boycott == piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
(irony intended)
Sound absurd? Not really. All of the television and much of the print news has some affiliation with the RIAA/MPAA. On the news, slumping music sales are attributed to piracy by kids. If THAT is true, then declining automobile sales must be caused by little green men from mars, because the media is pretty much ignoring the economy right now.
News outlets like CNN run -- unedited -- the RIAA's claim of 400 burners siezed in that NY piracy raid. Never mind that it is NOT TRUE, the news doesn't care about accuracy and even if they are aware of an error, they have a vested interest in the RIAA/MPAA.
Anyways, they'll just spin it so the boycott gets no mention, and dropping sales is because of filesharing on that evil Gnutella network, and obviously the RIAA needs a license to hack your system looking for loot... blah blah
-S
"They're grups! bonk, bonk, on the head."
Missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason the ??AA don't get my money is that my standards for what is 'good' are higher than 99% of the crap they generate. I'm just not interested. If they can find a way to make me interested, they'll get my money. This is the way most people think. The problem everyone seems to be having is that most people settle for what the ??AA is putting out, and it's not good enough for this crowd's tastes.
So what's your problem? Don't go to the movies. You won't be missed, and you won't miss it. Just don't whine about a useless and impractical boycott for ideology's sake. Heaven forbid, you might actually try doing something about it, like starting your own production house. But OMG, that'd require, like, getting off your ass and going outside. And being slightly intelligent and business-savvy. And dealing with liars, cheats, VCs, and all sorts of other unmentionables. Naw, much easier for you to sit down, bitch about how much life sucks on /., and munch Cheetos.
The Problems with a Boycott (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a difference here, of sorts, in that the MPAA actually has reasons to deserve the boycott and bad press. They're about as close to evil as a company can get. But it would still do no good.
We're not talking about something easy to get around. I cannot blame a company's product for actions on the company. I don't care how bad the RIAA is, I will still support the artists I love and get their CDs. Used isn't an option on New CDs, and that is the surefire way to guarantee that the artist will not get any money from your purchase. At least they get something from a retail sale.
As a proud member of the masses, I enjoy purchasing things like CDs, DVDs, and Video Games. There are incentives to buying a DVD these days. All those bonus features, deleted scenes, etc. There is no other medium that moves around the RIAA/MPAA that offers these things. This problem is not new, and will not go away, it just simply is part of capitalism.
There is no true alternative for a lot of entertainment venues out there. Movies are movies, and even if you download them, you trade quality and extras for that "freedom". And there is a rule... if enough people do it, and they actually lose money, then things will vanish. How many bands out there have been affected by poor album sales, and then been dropped by a label. There is no way that I can tell if they were killed off by KaZaA or the other Napster clones, but I'm sure at some point it helped. The same could some day be true with movies.
The problem is in what the RIAA does now, and how much of a drain they are. Boycotting perfectly good movies and artists will not make the RIAA/MPAA go away. It will strangle out the good artists, and we will be covered with every clone and "corporate success" artist out there. Even if the artists are only getting $1 a CD, they are still getting that dollar, and boycotting them affects that too.
What I would look at doing is trying, like some others, to bring the truth about the RIAA/MPAA to light for all to see. Passing around those articles, writing letters to congressmen, or making those visible posts. The
boycott-riaa (Score:4, Interesting)
We still get a large number of visitors who drop by the site on a daily basis, to check to see what the news is. Some of the most recent articles include: "RIAA's Statistics Don't Add Up to Piracy" (article) [boycott-riaa.com] and The RIAA's response to "How many CD Burners were there actually in the Queens Bust?"(article) [boycott-riaa.com] seems there were a heck of a lot less than the equivalent the stated. Straight from the horse's mouth
My personal boycotting lead me to start buying independent music and I've actually been buying more music than I ever did from RIAA artists and labels. Partially because its often cheaper, around $8.00 -$10.00, and partially because the music is often much better, than what the majors are putting out.
In 2001 RIAA sales were down 5% and they RIAA laid off 16 people in Jan 2002. This year the sales are down 7% to 9% (depending on whose numbers you read) hopefully we can look forward to more layoffs. Less staff less impact. The RIAA membership dues are a portion of the labels sales, lower sales=smaller budget=less impact.
Those that say there is no affect on the RIAA and MPAA are misguided. In the past 2 1/2 years I've bought over 150 CDs from independent musicians, money that went to them, not to RIAA labels. But the largest affect that has taken place is that people are begining to discover independent music, are buying it, ignoring the majors offerings, and as a result the RIAA is becoming the Maginot Line [www.dlc.fi] of the music industry. We make them irrelvant by bypassing them. What else is happening is that artists are beginning to wake up speaking out as well, Joni Mitchell, Janis Ian, Elton John, The RAC headed by Don Henley, just to name a few. The RIAA's positions coupled with a loss of sales, has come to the attention of Congress, The DOJ to name but a few and many former backers in congress are finding that the RIAA isn't always right or even telling them the truth. Unethical business practices are coming to light that have been the industry standard for years, that are forcing changes in the way the industry works, in their actions toward artists and consumers.
This is not an if/then type of thing, there are a lot of varibles involved, that each action has an effect somewhere, maybe very subtle, but the overall result is that while the RIAA is winning the battles, they are losing the war. And their desperation is showing.
No..it won't help...because..... (Score:3, Interesting)
The solution is the other way around, "artists and producers" need to "ignore" the RIAA/MPAA and find alternative distribution models, alternative promotion models, and change the way they deal with customers....as of now....every customer who pays $14 to a retailer, and gets one CD, is paying the retailer around $2, and the rest goes to RIAA distributors, who keep another dollar and a half, and pass on the rest to the record company. So the record company gets around US$ 10.5 per CD sold at full price.
Out of that, depending on how good a deal the lawyers of the band managed to cut out, the artist gets somewhere between US$1 to US$3 per disc, plus the check they got for recording if they were lucky. Record studios keep the rest, and account for production/promotion costs.
Let's say "Public Enemy" did an album, got paid US$2 a disc ("good" payment), and a bill of US$ 0.5 million for recording it (highly unlikely), and they sold a million copies, then overall, RIAA managed to get US$ 8 per disc, let's deduct US$ 1 for production (too much, but then let's take the worst case), and put a hefty big promotion worth US$ 1 million for the overall project, then too, the record label made a total of US$ 6 million on this recording in just the base first week/month sales of the album. Whereas artists made US$ 2.5 million, but then that's the best case for the artist, and the worst for the company.
In real world, not only do the artists get paid far less, they also loose the rights to their own work, and that means being unable to "re-sell" their own old music to another company, when their contract with one company expires, or breaks out.
The artist got only US$ 2.5 (in an optimal case) for 1 million copies of his album, lost his music; fans got Costlier CDs, RIAA got rich.
Let's say the artists did everything all by themselves, produce, market, promote and then sell, one album for US$ 7 for a physical "CD", and an electronic download for US$ 5.5 for the entire album download, or US$1.5 for the "best singles".
It costs US$ 0.5 million to get two weeks for a final recording in a good sound studio. It costs US$1 to make a CD with jewel case and covers, a nice poster and a nice lyrics booklet. Let's say they spent US$.5 million in making and spreading a music video, US$0.5 million in promos and adverts, and outsourced distribution from one of the underground low-price distribution networks, pay them US$ 1 per CD sold, the total cost, other than the artistic talent, comes to around US$ 3 to produce an album.
Let's say they sold 1 million CDs, because other than their talent, the marketing was better because they spent more money, and went the right way, and then, the album is cheaper, and has more goodies. They still own their music, they earn from the online sales in "full", and that single the public really fancied will sell so much for US$1.5 that it would make them even more money to pump into promos. This lands the band on a cash pit of over US$ 5 million, while making it cheaper for customers to acquire their music.
Now, obviously, a new artist won't have so much money to pump into all this, so the established ones need to begin on this first, and the others will soon latch on. Obviously, there will be other music companies, those who will be the "breeding ground" for new upcoming artists, invest in their effort, and overall, make money, but then, the internet makes it so much easier to begin small, and then grow up big for any artist.
Now, the dynamics for the movie industry are a little different, and i'm not so familiar with those, but i guess similar things apply there too, specifically in the DVD sales area.
So guys, it's the artists who need to "ignore" the RIAA/MPAA alliance, and find alternative means to reach their audience. Not the other way around.
Re:Why don't we boycott them??? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It would help if it ever happend. (Score:2)
In other words, people as a whole are selfish.
Re:Not a chance... (Score:2)
The Big ten [thenation.com]
Without the flash BS intro. (which did not come up in my Mozilla Browser)Feh (Score:3, Interesting)