Talk:Recording Industry Association of America/Archive 1

message: I think the RIAA cartoon image by MasterHomer is great!
Connelly 04:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old comments 

message: "The RIAA suggests that DRM restrictions should remain in effect under all circumstances, even if it potentially endangers lives."
I know that they did actually say that, but it's still unprofessional to put that there. It obviously wasn't supposed to be taken in that context.
In what other context could you possibly take that pathetic statement by the RIAA?
"The RIAA has been more focused since 2005 on University and college-aged students, with the purpose stated by the RIAA to deter and discourage unethical habits by youth on the verge of entering the world community."
That also needs citation.
Antisthenex 18:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look, I hate the RIAA too, but... 

message: Could the RIAA also track down al-Qaeda terrorists from file-sharing and downloading music illegally? I was wondering about illegally downloading or file-sharing music could be linked to terrorism (or, cyberterrorism which I could say). Aside from music, did the Arabs and/or terrorists (especially Saddam or Osama bin Laden) also use Kazaa to download confidential documents illegally?
:To the best of my knowledge, no P2P program has attempted to track down terrorists using their networks.  In all likelihood, I think the attempt would fail because terrorists are unlikely to use something so insecure to trade sensitive files. Tuf-Kat 03:37, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIAA vs. terrorism 

message: Does the RIAA violate the 8th amendment of the Constitution? I think that the RIAA are violating the 8th amendment - Excessive bails, fines and punishments prohibited. That means paying $150,000 or sometimes putting someone in prision is violating the U.S. Constitution
* No, the RIAA is a private-enterprise industry trade group, not a section of the government.  Constitutional issues do not apply directly to the RIAA. Soundguy99 07:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Against the RIAA 

message: Concerning the list of RIAA member companies, wouldn't it be better on a separate page. And of course the list should be wikified. -- Cabalamat 18:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of RIAA members 

message: The RIAA's criteria for picking lawsuit targets haven't been disclosed, but there's no reason to believe the suits are random.  RIAA says it's targeting particular sorts of users -- it's been explicit about trying to find uploaders of large numbers of popular music files -- and shows a particular interest in college students. Therefore, the "if the RIAA suits are random" discussion isn't that much more relevant than an "if the RIAA were a tree" discussion. Monicasdude 15:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Struck by lightning 

message: This article still has some serious NPOV issues (e.g. the line about "Mob-like practices" and the "absurd lawsuits.") --Fermatprime 21:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that's rhetorical but I'll answer it anyway: I generally don't fix NPOV if I share the same bias, since I'm afraid I'll just end up making it worse. --Fermatprime 00:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: It is the most noticeable feature of the entire article and a quite negative (read:POV) overtone. --Alterego 08:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But are the actions of the public not as noticible of a feature in the real world situation? Thepcnerd 02:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Alterego. I removed the logo. I happened to read this page and the logo is so prominent that I didn't even notice that the official RIAA logo was on the page. Also, I don't see why a logo of an activist group should accompany an article that is not about this activist group. If you want the logo, then create an article about the 'boycott riaa' organization. Han-Kwang  18:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-RIAA logo needs to go 

message: What exactly is the "honeysuckle" image? I checked the history to see if it was vandalism but couldn't tell. Paul 20:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honeysuckle 

message: I think there should be a mention of the RIAA backing the Digital Content Protection Act of 2006.   
I am not versed enough in the ways of wikiPOV and such to do it myself. -Hench 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital Content Protection Act of 2006 

message: Why is there not more information on how exactly music licencing works in the US? Could it be possible for an alternative to the RIAA to spring up? Do all US musical works have to flow through the RIAA hands? Scott Paeth 19:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and Legal Power 

message: any chance of comparisons with international bodies? If they exist?
:This article really needs to be rewritten, and that would be a good thing to include. ~MDD4696 01:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it in the "similar organisations" section, but feel free to change the wording on it. Remember, you can always be bold and add it yourself :D --h2g2bob 21:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non americana 

message: Is the Boycott RIAA link considered neutral? UrbenLegend 18:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... one could justify the link because the association is directly related to the RIAA. I think that link is the least of our worries on this article, however. ~MDD4696 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Hello! I've made some pretty big changes over the past few days, mostly in how it's organised and trying to make it less POV. This is really just to let you all know in case you're interested. Actually It'd be really handy for someone to say if it's still POV, as it's quite tricky for me to see (because I did the edits). --H2g2bob 13:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: If nobody objects, I'd like to suggest removing the Expansion and POV tags. It's not really missing any major sections, and it hasn't got any major POV I can see. Does everybody agree with this, or does it still need more work? --H2g2bob 18:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tags now - if you think it still needs work, I'll put therm back --H2g2bob 00:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's true, but if it goes POV again we can fix it or stick the POV tag back up. --H2g2bob 17:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Expansion and POV Tags 

message: I've removed the text added by User:206.13.34.2 (website) because it's POV, plus that's mentioned in the criticism section. --H2g2bob 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: I am concerned that some things said in this article
are not completely neutral and state an opinion more
than they state fact. Take this sentance from Anti-Piracy for
example:
This suggests that people do not need or have the right to back up anything that does not have a high failure rate.
I think this article should be kept an eye on for vandalism.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.124.32 (talk • contribs) 
: If you spot any opinion in this, be bold and just edit it out.  I did the last major edit of this and removed or edited a lot of statements like that (and worse), but it's more than likely I've missed a load. So, feel free to edit it!
: I've removed the bit you mentioned. (I also expanded the "DRM restrictions..." bit after it for clarity, which I was meaning to do before but forgot)
: As for vandalism, it is a target, but most obvious vandalism gets reverted very quickly. More subtle vandalism usually gets picked up by people with the page in their watchlists. If you spot any vandalism, just edit it out. --H2g2bob 03:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not completely fact 

message: "The RIAA has recently sent cease-and-desist letters to YouTube users for publishing their own works without licensing.[28]"
Own works? The source cited actually describes the riaa sending cease and desist letters to people uploading videos using unlicensed music. The claim is heavily misleading, since it suggests the riaa wants these people to license their own work, when it in fact wants them to license the music which they include.
The only evidence the source provides for that is a dead link. I'm removing it for now, though if someone could turn up a copy of one of the letters, I suppose it might be worth mentioning it as overzealous on the grounds that the music is of a very low quality. --Cruci 13:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  youtube users' "own works" 

message: :Category:Recording Industry Association of America itself is a member of :Category:1952 establishments. Why is that? Shouldn't this topic be a member of "1952 establishments" directly, and not the RIAA category? -- Mikeblas 18:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Established Category 

message: "The RIAA is a critic of music file-sharing, and has long contended that sharing of copyrighted music is a form of piracy, applying the well-known computing term to music. The RIAA especially targets music files uploaded onto the Internet using peer-to-peer software, a practice which the RIAA claims costs $4.2 billion worldwide."
"Piracy" has been used to describe copyright infringement long before it was applied to computers; the following  has it listed as first recorded in 1701. I think the phrasing here is ridiculous; music file-sharing is objectively piracy (in the sense of "2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy." , whatever your opinion of the rights and wrongs of it. I'm changing this to "The RIAA is a fierce opponent of music file-sharing, or music piracy." --Cruci 13:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Toksyuryel has changed my edit to say that the RIAA "asserts" that music file-sharing is piracy. As I have pointed out on his talk page, it is piracy by the definition of merriam-webster, dictionary.com, wiktionary, cambridge dictionaries online and wikipedia's disambiguation page for piracy. He claims the RIAA invented the term, and that it is only an opinion because "the majority of music listeners and music artists (not labels, artists) do not believe it is piracy in any way", and so has reverted my change (twice) without justifying himself on the talk page. I'm seriously unimpressed, and waiting for him to show up here to explain himself. That his latest edit  summary points out that "Wikipedia is not for opinions or interpertations. It is for facts" seems nothing short of bizarre. --Cruci 01:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  piracy 

message: This was discussed before, but this article has some serious POV issues.  It focuses much more on peer to peer lawsuits, and criticism thereof, than anything else about the organization.  
A couple of parts caught my eye:
1) The first sentence about the RIAA website is "The RIAA's website is an obvious target for some hackers [crackers] who oppose the RIAA's practices"
2) "The RIAA suggests that DRM restrictions should remain in effect under all circumstances, even if it potentially endangers lives."
I will reorganize the website section, and remove the latter comment.  More work is needed to clean this up to the appropriate standard, though.--Djedi 08:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I've given up on describing file-sharing as piracy, given that it just gets reverted --Cruci 12:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of view, redux 

message: I am knowledgeable about the RIAA litigations. I think this page needs to be reorganized. 
There should be a heading: Litigations against p2p suppliers. 
There should be subheads for each major case. E.g., MGM v. Grokster, Arista v. Limewire, etc. 
There should be another heading: Litigations against consumers. 
Under that there should be subheadings for Copyright Law Issues (where there should be headings for "Downloading", "Distributing", and for "Making Available for Distribution") and Procedures (with subheadings for "The John Doe Stage", Initiating Litigations Against Named Consumers, Pretrial Discovery, Summary Judgment, Trial, Default Judgment, Judgment Enforcement, Bankruptcy.) 
Ray 17:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget litigation against technology manufacturers, like RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems Inc. (9th affirms denial of RIAA-sought injunction against manufacture and distribution of the Rio MP3 player), and litigation against licensees and business partners, like Atlantic Recording Corp. et al. v. XM Satellite Radio Inc. Matt Fitzpatrick 06:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of this page? 

message: This phrase is a self-serving neologism that does not appear outside RIAA and MPAA court filings.  As used by the RIAA and MPAA, the phrase means exactly the same thing as "peer-to-peer file sharing network," except that it attempts to engender two legal conclusions: 1) that file sharing constitutes distribution under copyright law, and 2) that file sharing networks are primarily designed to facilitate distribution of media content.  These implications are highly controversial, and not well settled in any jurisdiction, so I doubt this sort of conclusory language is helpful in an encyclopedic article, especially when the term "peer-to-peer file sharing network" is vastly more accepted.
For this reason, I suggest replacing the above phrase with the more widely accepted phrase, or, if the particular network is known, the name of that network ("FastTrack," for example).  Alternatively, if it is helpful to retain this phrase as an example of the subject's viewpoint and rhetoric, the phrase should be conspicuously qualified as such an example.  Matt Fitzpatrick 06:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "online media distribution system" 

message: why was my section removed?
"The RIAA's Executive members are a bunch of rich idiots who need to be shot in the knees then castrated and finally have their eyeballs removed, all without anesthesia."
give me one good reason that the previous statement should not be included?? It is a fact and clearly stated in the book "Reasons the RIAA Should not Exist" by Peter Kausmith
Hmm.... I wonder why? Soniczip 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why? 

message: Okay, I have been trying for some time now to consolidate all information in piracy into one comprehensive article. Originally this was through significant additions to the article on copyright infringement, but piracy lies somewhat beyond the scope of that article. I just discovered the article on copyright infringement of software, and VCD peddler yesterday. As well, you can find significant discussions in the articles on Bittorrent, RIAA and related articles. I was in the process of creating a proposed article in my user namespace to be at Piracy (information), but in light of the widespread discussion of this issue I've realized that this is not something that I can do alone.
So, I'm asking for help, or at least discussion of ways to clear up the present situation. Please comment on the proposed article's talk page, so that we can keep discussion centralized... despite the insanity that attempts to cover this rather complex topic. --IntrigueBlue 06:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piracy is a mess 

message: I am a new DJ.
I was trying to find basic information for the standards to which commercial recordings are made, such as frequency ranges / limits & stereo seperation accross that frequency range , etc.
I went to the RIAA www site.
I could not even find the famed RIAA equalization curve for vinyl recording ,
let alone any modern specifications.
Read between the lines -
all I could find was information on copyright infringement.
Now , I have friends that are musicians , and 
everybody deserves to make a living.
It seemed to me that the RIAA has neglected it's original purpose.
By the way ,
does anyone know of the source for this information?
Please post it here.
:this might do you some good... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization aboxbayz 03:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIAA recording specifications - lack of 

message: While it could certainly be argued that the RIAA is a cartel, as it hasn't legaly been defined as such (as might be seen in action by the federal government) but does self identify as a trade group (not necessarily a mutually incompatible situation) I think it would be better to leave the less accusatory latter description in the title, to reduce the POV of that section, while refering to its possible nature as a cartel later in the article. Icelight 06:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta, there is already a mention of cartel-like bahaviour in the criticism section --h2g2bob 13:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cartel" Appellation 

message: I've removed this sentence:  "The RIAA claims in public statements that their crusade is to benefit the artists, however, not one cent of the lawsuits to date has been paid to any recording artist ."
I don't think the RIAA ever claimed the suits were going to actually result in compensation for artists, but rather that artists would benefit from increased sales because lawsuits deterred file-sharers. Because frankly, in terms of money, these suits are pocket change to the record companies, and especially because those sued were heavy downloaders, the little money that was won would not spread out over the possibly thousands of artists whose music had been copied. 
Additionally, this sentence just struck me as whiny and desperate. Whirlingdervish 22:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuit $ 

message: This page is a complete mess.  It's clear that the editors have no desire to provide encyclopedic information on the RIAA as almost all of the article focuses solely on one part of their operation.  Clearly their anti-piracy efforts and related criticism are remarkable but they're hardly all that the RIAA is.  Where is the information about the group's creation?  Their gold-record certification program?  Anything other than being the evil nazis that stop people from stealing from them?
The Masked Debater 18:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do add any decent information to this page and hack out any biased information. To be honest, it's surprisingly difficult to find out about the RIAA's history - the RIAA website isn't much help, and the other online encyclopedias have no information either. The rest of the web is like this page, only worse. --h2g2bob 21:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: The whole criticism section has been (You know, the part where they sue kids, dead people and old ladies?) removed. Huh, wonder who would of had the motive to do that. Who, oh possibly who. Wikipedia is not CENSORED.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.4.240 (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it's been over 4 months? (20th Oct 08)
I agree with you on this one. It is a very biased article in favour of the RIAA. Bonzostar (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, the article has three sections on the RIAA suing various defendants.  Its just not piled together in a "Criticism" section. Idag (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I feel that the article should be flagged for bias. It contains no criticism section, only has one section where it mentions the lawsuits that the RIAA is mostly known for. In addition to this I feel that the  selection of defendants section should be expanded so that it mentions the problems with their systems (such as suing university printers http://torrentfreak.com/bitaudit-the-tool-you-dont-want-anti-pirates-to-have-100628/ )     — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.195.9.50 (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Shahanda Moelle Moursy of North Carolina is suing four record companies, the RIAA, and two of the RIAA's investigative firms. Among the complaints are fraud and abuse of the court system for a public intimidation campaign.
I'm not sure if this is notable enough for the article yet, but if it gets to trial it probably will be, perhaps even meriting its own separate article. For anyone who wants to keep up with it, here are some links: 
*http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18654.
*http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/01/174249
*http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-sued-fo...l-sham-090301/
*http://digg.com/music/RIAA_Sued_for_...and_Legal_Sham
*http://recordingindustryvspeople.blo...99874238501080 Equazcion •✗/C • 22:27, 1 Mar 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If she wins, then we could include it. Idag (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Trials aren't noteworthy enough for Wikipedia? --77.109.213.122 (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraud case brought against RIAA 

message: From : "The RIAA also participates in the collection, administration and distribution of music licenses and royalties."
How so? According to the archives, isn't that what SoundExchange does? And if the RIAA collects royalties, shouldn't it then be categorised with :Category:Copyright collection societies? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collection of royalties? 

message: "The RIAA opposes unauthorized sharing of its music by using terrorism tactics against single moms." This seems... over the top. Chaotic42 (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efforts Against Filesharing 

message: While looking for unsourced statements I came across this:
The RIAA's criticized methods of identifying individual users has led to the issuing of subpoenas to a dead grandmother,I sue dead people, Ars Technica, 4 February 2005 an elderly computer novice, and even those without any computer at all.RIAA sues computer-less family, by Anders Bylund, Ars Technica, 24 April 2006
Which does not really make sense, particularly the part in bold. Maybe can be more properly phrased as:
The criticized methods of the RIAA used to identify  individual users has led to the issuing of subpoenas to a dead grandmother,I sue dead people, Ars Technica, 4 February 2005 an elderly computer novice, and even those without any computer at all.RIAA sues computer-less family, by Anders Bylund, Ars Technica, 24 April 2006
(Though I still feel slightly giddy about the wording of the first few words, it's certainly an improvement)
I hope I'm not getting the wrong meaning of this sentence/mistranslated the gist?--KHWiknerd(talk) 23:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rephrasing needed for this sentence? 

message: Studies conducted since the association began its campaign against peer-to-peer file-sharing have concluded that losses incurred per download range from negligible[13][14] to substantial.
Well yes, we might expect losses to be somewhere between those extremes. Is the sentence intended to mean that some studies suggest losses to be negligible and some studies suggest them to be substantial?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.112.67 (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless sentence 

message: The reference, #15, under "Efforts against infringement of members' copyrights" does not lead to the document cited. It's a broken link, and leads to an error page. If the document doesn't exist, the reference should be removed and the sentence changed to reflect that. If the document has been moved, the link should be corrected. Unfortunately, I'm not nearly Wikipedia-savvy enough to do any of this just yet. Could somebody take care of it? 69.118.137.231 (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Link in Cite 

message: I don't think that the RIAA equalization curve was the original primary mission of RIAA.  In looking for a citation for when the RIAA curve was defined I see lots of references to variations on the quote:
:"The RIAA was formed in 1952 primarily to administer the RIAA equalization curve, a technical standard of frequency response applied to vinyl records during manufacturing and playback."
But I can not find any citations to back up this claim of RIAA's primary mission.  My google search results feel like a lot of sources that are plagiarizing Wikipedia. Robert.Harker (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIAA not founded primarily primarily to administer the RIAA equalization curve 

message: I believe this article doesn't properly include the significant criticisms frequently levied against the RIAA. A dedicated section discussing the criticisms and controversies surrounding the organization should be implemented in the same manner as comparable articles. ☉ nbmatt 14:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sections devoted to criticisms of the article subject are generally discouraged, for good reason. There are already other articles that discuss the issues involved. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged article with a viewpoints maintenance tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Recording Industry Association of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070310202314/http://www.poly.rpi.edu:80/article_view.php3?view=2599&part=1 to http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=2599&part=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Recording Industry Association of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?id=7B0D4A07-0D23-A750-0BE1-22882C5C2F13
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified