Just days after posting my groundbreaking “Weed Is The Way!!!” rant, the recording industry seems to have lost its frickin’ mind. There have been so many “stoopid” decisions made by the industry’s plastic action figures during February that one has to wonder just what it is that they’re smoking in those executive suites....

A couple of weeks ago, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sent a round of letters to Internet Service Providers (ISP), asking that the companies help them police their evil file-trading users. As my dedicated readers know, the RIAA has filed lawsuits against over 18,000 music lovers since September 2003 for “illegally trading” copyrighted music.

The process works something like this...one of the snoops hired by the industry stormtroopers (usually a company named Media Sentry), pokes around in your computer via a P2P network and finds some “illegal music.” On this basis, the RIAA files a “John Doe” lawsuit in Federal Court and subpoenas your ISP to identify you from your IP address. The RIAA receives all of your personal information from the ISP, withdraws the “John Doe” lawsuit and files suit directly against you for tens of thousands of dollars.

This new letter-writing campaign, as reported by Ars Technica (a great site for tech news, BTW), seeks to sidestep the time and expense of that whole messy “John Doe” business...not to mention the organization’s tendency to sometimes sue the wrong people for “piracy.” The RIAA’s missive (seen here) asks that your ISP send you one of their approved letters about your alleged “copyright infringements” and offering a one-time deal to knock $1,000 off your settlement. Of course, if you respond to the letter forwarded by your ISP, the RIAA nails you, considering your response as proof of your “crimes.” Bleh….

In another attempt to persuade Internet pirates, a malignancy on the corpse of the recording industry, to “fess up” to their crimes and pay the devil his due, the RIAA has also launched a web site, www.p2plawsuits.com, where evil-doers can arrange to “settle their case online.” My favorite is the site’s “frequently asked questions” page, where one question – “What evidence prompts a lawsuit? – is answered with a spry “If you’ve been sued, it is because you have been identified as uploading or downloading copyrighted music without authorization.”

They’re not kidding, either...back when the biz started fucking over its consumers by filing frivolous lawsuits against the people that buy their products, we were assured by the RIAA that they were only going after the most egregious offenders, those “pirates” trading in tens of thousands of illegally copied song files. Some 18,000 lawsuits later, it has become evident that aside from shooting at elderly grandmothers and prepubescent children alike, the RIAA does sue people that only dabble in downloading a handful of songs, as evidenced by a story about this poor sucker in Maine.

In the meantime, the RIAA wasn’t merely dallying about in its ongoing litigious dance with ISP companies. They have been busy targeting college campuses as the new havens of piracy, sending thousands of emails to university administrators every time a freshman shares a Dave Matthews Band song on the campus computer network. For the students, punishments can range from simple email warnings to suspension from classes. The worst, though, seems to be the practice of forcing suspected collegiate copyright scofflaws to watch a RIAA-produced anti-piracy video. As reported by the Associated Press, the top five schools on the RIAA “hit list” are Ohio, Purdue, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, the University of Tennessee and the University of South Carolina. The RIAA complained about almost 15,000 students at those 25 universities, nearly triple the number for the previous school year.

Now the RIAA wants to go after Wi-Fi networks. Debbie Foster, sued by Capitol EMI for allegedly sharing the label’s music on a P2P network, was awarded $50,000 in attorney’s fees by the judge who dismissed the case. As reported by Wired News, “the RIAA has filed a ‘motion for reconsideration’ of Judge West’s decision to force the RIAA to pay for Foster's legal fees. In the motion, the plaintiffs emphasize a key point: They want the judge to rule that the owner of an ISP account is responsible for all activity on that account, which could have a chilling effect on public wireless access and open hotspots.” In appealing the judge’s decision, the RIAA is hoping to revisit its suit against Foster, making a mockery of the legal concept of “double jeopardy” (I know, only in criminal cases) and whetting its appetite for a new fight against tens of thousands of music “pirates” that may or may not have actually shared music illegally...makes no difference to them, really....

Last week, Capitol EMI, the smallest and most fragile of the industry’s “Four Families,” flirted with the idea of setting their extensive music catalog free on the ‘net as DRM-free mp3 files. It would have been a bold move on EMI’s part, as the company slides inevitably towards bankruptcy and/or a takeover by another Family. As reported by Bloomberg news, however, the floundering record label demanded that its partners in the discussion – Microsoft, Apple, Amazon.com and Yahoo, among others – cough up a large advance royalty payment as compensation for the company’s willingness to provide its music without copy protection. When the digital retailers balked at this thinly-veiled extortion, Capitol EMI called off the negotiations, took its mp3 files and slinked back to Hollywood. “That this industry fights every change tooth-and-nail is not helping reverse the tide,” said Harold Vogel, an independent media analyst in New York, to Bloomberg.     

Then there is the stupidity of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), a performance rights group, which has completely misunderstood the Zen and flow of digital music. Seems that ASCAP – who collects royalties from broadcasters and live music venues on behalf of songwriters – wants to be paid twice on digital downloads…once for the right to “broadcast” the song and again for the “public performance” of the song. Mind you, ASCAP and its chief competitors, BMI and SESAC, have a lengthy history of bullying and browbeating clubs and restaurants into buying an obscenely expensive “performance license,” even if they just play the radio in the background.

ASCAP’s double-dipping has come under question from The Digital Media Association, which has filed a “friend of the court” brief on behalf of members such as Yahoo Music and Napster. DiMA points out that its “members already pay to distribute content via synchronization, reproduction and distribution licenses including ‘mechanical’ licenses.” This entire mess is the result of a court case that began in 2005 and is scheduled for May 2007 as the performance rights companies ask the court to set a “reasonable rate” to charge digital music providers for licensing of their representative compositions. If ASCAP and BMI manage to zoom the court and bum rush their muddy-headed perspective into virtual law, expect the cost of digital downloads to almost double…a move certain to drive music lovers back to the remaining P2P networks.  

Finally, the war against mp3 bloggers has seemingly begun as the empire has struck back. For years, labels have seemingly turned a blind eye towards mp3 bloggers as they performed a valuable service in promoting new music. Now that the “blogosphere” is awash with low-rent critics writing about new bands and posting mp3 files, it seems that the RIAA has caught wind of the trend and decided that “enough is enough,” especially when the blogs in question write something negative abut formerly over hyped bands, or share carefully leaked advance music from upcoming albums. This is a new story and only time will tell what’s going to happen, but it seems to be another example of RIAA insanity choking off another valuable tool that the industry could use to right its drifting ship of state.

By the way, have I mentioned that the Reverend has launched his own audioblog?