You are the RIAA...

[Shadow WarChief]

...How do you try to stop file sharing or at least make the RIAA come out of it alive? Even the most dim-witted of us all could have handled the current situation better than RIAA. So what would you do?[/list]

[Sea Skimmer]

Slash CD prices to 5.99 USD

[Joe]

Go to the homes of the people whose lives we've ruined and beg forgiveness. Then, cut the prices of CDs as Skimmer suggested.

[Soontir C'boath]

Or just make singles out of them songs. IIRC, Singles sell for half the retail price of a sountrack/album.~Jason

[Stormbringer]

...How do you try to stop file sharing or at least make the RIAA come out of it alive? Even the most dim-witted of us all could have handled the current situation better than RIAA. So what would you do?

Bring business practices inline with reality. Cut costs and pass that on to consumers. That'll go a long way towards keeping people from pirating.

[neoolong]

Or just make singles out of them songs. IIRC, Singles sell for half the retail price of a sountrack/album.~Jason

But they also have less than half the songs, so it still isn't a good deal.

Even if the songs are really good, you're still getting ripped off.

[McNum]

I'd use the old "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach.

Set up an online service where you for either a monthly fee, or a pay by track basis could stream or download any music the RIAA are associated with. A stream would be cheap, but the download would be a little more expensive. Perhaps even a "burn your own cd" option. Pick some tracks and have them burn it for you.

This would make a viable alternative to the current P2P services, if the legal service would be very well stocked with music. It would have any music you'd want from the RIAA with no fear of them being renamed to something different. It would contain no spyware or any other nasties. And it should be easy to use.

That could probably do some good against the illegal sharing. In fact, we just got such a service here in Denmark, so I know it's possible.

[beyond hope]

I'd use the old "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach.

Set up an online service where you for either a monthly fee, or a pay by track basis could stream or download any music the RIAA are associated with. A stream would be cheap, but the download would be a little more expensive. Perhaps even a "burn your own cd" option. Pick some tracks and have them burn it for you.

This would make a viable alternative to the current P2P services, if the legal service would be very well stocked with music. It would have any music you'd want from the RIAA with no fear of them being renamed to something different. It would contain no spyware or any other nasties. And it should be easy to use.

That could probably do some good against the illegal sharing. In fact, we just got such a service here in Denmark, so I know it's possible.

Sounds good. I'd add opening the entire song catalog up for downloading (instead of the relatively small collection that the current "legit" services in the US have.) That way you can sell it as having access to everything, rather than being at the mercy of the tastes of the other people on your P2P network. P2P and digital music aren't going away: their only real choice is going to be to embrace it.

[Soontir C'boath]

Or just make singles out of them songs. IIRC, Singles sell for half the retail price of a sountrack/album.~Jason

But they also have less than half the songs, so it still isn't a good deal.
Even if the songs are really good, you're still getting ripped off.

I was in the point of view with the RIAA.
Seriously though perhaps sell them at 4 bucks a pop. That should still rake in a good profit for just one song.~Jason

[aerius]

Get rid of all the damn lawyers. Get rid of all those "talent agents" and promotions hacks, you know, the fuckers who gave us Britney Spears and the BAckstreet boys. Now you can fire all the management and beancounters who were in charge of the lawyers, agents, and promotions hacks. That should take care of 80% or more of the RIAA budget, and allow a nice big drop in CD prices.

After that we look to the long term. Instead of producing one-hit wonders and hyping the shit talentless hacks, work with artists on developing long productive careers. Bob Dylan for instance hasn't made a record that sells 20 million copies in a year like say...N'Sync, but you can bet that he's made a fortune for his record company over his lengthy career. Nurture artists, and allow them to create music. There's a lot of good talented musicians in every sizable town, find'em and sign'em for modest contracts, and when they show promise renegotiate and up their pay. The goal is to get lots of good music out there for consumers to choose from at reasonable prices.

[RedImperator]

• 1. Open up the entire library for download on a pay-per-song basis, say $.99 each for current hits, $.75 for classic hits, $.50 for more obscure stuff, with really old/unknown songs available for free. Promote new artists by making their songs available at a discount or for free. Cooperate with smaller labels and independent groups to set up a network for independent artists, with songs available for free or cheap. Track those downloads to see who becomes popular on their own, and sign them to a big deal. The artists themselves would pay a nominal hosting fee.
  
  2. Slash CD prices. This one is obvious.
  
  3. Use some of my lobbying power to get the FCC to break up the big radio conglomerates, or at least limit their expansion. They're as much responsible for the blandness of music as the record companies are, and their business practices when dealing with the record companies border on extortion. For once the RIAA will be a hero, for going after the bastards who have thorougly ruined radio.
  
  4. Lobby the government to reverse the decision forcing Internet broadcasters to pay per song per listener. That's thousands of potential new markets there--what the fuck were we thinking?
  
  5. Switch my anti-piracy efforts to major overseas operations, not some pimple faced kid downloading Papa Roach off Kazaa. Guess which one is hurting me more?
  
  6. All of this is going to have to be paid for. Time to take out the chainsaws. Sorry, musicians, but you're never going to see a multi million dollar contract again. A market consisting of listeners picking and chosing a few songs to download for a buck apiece isn't going to support megastars with forty million dollar contracts. That kind of money is better spent developing and promoting new artists which will build a steady fanbase, not a flash-in-the-pan popstar who'll go triple platinum and then fade away. Gone, too, will be much of the slick editing and flashy videos. If you can't make a good song without a team of sound and computer engineers rearranging every last phonon, maybe it's time to take up mime. Good riddance also to backup dancers, entoourages the size of the Czech army, and all the other expensive excesses that have become standard fare in the music industry but don't actually improve the quality of the music.

[Alyeska]

As the RIAA I would insist all members take a pay cut and give more of the percentage to the artists in order to encourage them to do further work.

An online music collection containing ALL of the works protected by the RIAA would be created. A series of different services would be allowed for people to download. They can pay per song, buy a bulk number, or get a series of year memberships allowing either limited or unlimited song downloads. The prices would be significantly cheaper bulk buys because of fewer physical costs. Single songs would be more expensive. Song quality would be from 128-512 for mp3s to give people choice.

Actual CDs would be cut in cost and only the most popular bands would have anything at or above $20.

All future technology that can affect music would be researched heavily for further information on potential market force changes.

[beyond hope]

IIRC correctly the real money for a band is made in touring: slicing the money spent on recording contracts would hurt less than you'd think.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I'd slash CD prices to about a half to a quarter of their current price, start an online downloading service that offers songs for 50-100 cents apiece, and stop promoting flavor-of the week hacks. If someone wants to be a star they should sound good, and there should be some guarantee that they'll be cutting records 5-10 years from now.

[neoolong]

Or just make singles out of them songs. IIRC, Singles sell for half the retail price of a sountrack/album.~Jason

But they also have less than half the songs, so it still isn't a good deal.
Even if the songs are really good, you're still getting ripped off.

I was in the point of view with the RIAA.
Seriously though perhaps sell them at 4 bucks a pop. That should still rake in a good profit for just one song.~Jason

I know, the thing is the public won't go along with it because it's an even worse deal than before song/cash wise.

[Nathan F]

How about we actually write them with these suggestions? Not really doing us any good just posting it here...

[Darth Wong]

As the RIAA I would fight tooth and nail against the computer industry and all networked filesharing activities and technologies, because I'm a dinosaur trying to preserve an obsolete ecosystem.

And that's the rub; the RIAA is compelled to act the way it does, because there will be no need for them any more in the new age of direct artist-to-consumer marketing which is made possible by Internet-based music sales.

[kojikun]

1 - Set up an free open archive of songs 15+ years old, and a pay archive for present songs. All pay songs would be $1.00, albums-worth (10-15) would be $025-0.50 / song. On demand and programmed (by the label, as well as users in a manner similar to ShoutCast) net-radio services would be offered free of charge, with commercials.

2 - Phase out CDs entirely. Offer music store burning, so people can purchase songs and put them onto disc at their own choosing, without having to buy actual albums.

3 - Stop sueing my customers.

[kojikun]

And that's the rub; the RIAA is compelled to act the way it does, because there will be no need for them any more in the new age of direct artist-to-consumer marketing which is made possible by Internet-based music sales.

There could be a very big place for them -- management of distribution sites and software. Someone needs to make and manage the software to run the systems, afterall. However, they won't do that.

[EmperorMing]

The pr0n industry hasn't been making any noise about computer swapping; they should take their example and embrace the technology instead of fighting it...

[Xenophobe3691]

The pr0n industry hasn't been making any noise about computer swapping; they should take their example and embrace the technology instead of fighting it...

That's because not only did the porn industry embrace the internet when it first came out, porn is so damn easy to make. Get a guy and a girl together (or a girl and a girl/guy and a guy) and let Nature take her course. Remember, everyone's got genitalia they know (I hope) how to use!

[RedImperator]

Actually, the porn industry has been quietly fighting file sharing as well. They've kept a lower profile because, well, what congressman is going to stand up for the porn industry? They claim it's hurting their business as well. I'm more inclined to be sympathetic to them and the MPAA because making a movie, even a porn movie, represents a considerable investment that goes to waste when someone swaps a file for free. Plus, they haven't been acting like a buch of fascists in jackboots, which is endearing.