Here in the U.S, Unless you have been living under a freeway underpass in a drunken stupor of cheap wine for the last 3 years, you know that you can’t throw a mix tape into a crowded room, these days, without getting sued by the R.I.A.A.

The Recording Industry Association of America has been aggressively suing everyone from single mothers on disability to little old ladies, for what they deem , unauthorized copying, and or file sharing via P2P networks, of recorded and copy written music.

I will be the first to admit that I believe that artists should be paid for the music that they produce at all times. Back in the day before iTunes, Amazon, Beat Port, Vonyc, and many other music download sites really started to expand their catalog to include more than Top 40, Classic Rock, and Hop Hop…fans of many types of music (namely House and Trance) had a legitimate argument that , “..the music that I like is not available on the download sites.“, but that is no longer the case, for the most part.

Most studies show that music via P2P is much lower today, than it was say 7 years ago when Napster was all the rage, but, the RIAA seems to be taking enforcement to a whole new level.

Since before the 60’s, we have always shared our music with our friends either by bringing the actual records over to a friends house for listening sessions, or borrowing albums to record on cassette tapes. I don’t remember such a big uproar then about sharing and piracy.

In fact…sharing music is what created a buzz for many new styles and artists over the years since the beginning days of Blues and Jazz, and spawned record sales, before the mainstream caught up , took notice and began giving promotion and airplay….And college campuses over the years, were the community that created that underground buzz.

Back in the 80’s…combination AM/FM Radio-Cassette players/recorders (boom boxes) seemed to have been made specifically for recording our favorite songs from the radio directly to cassette, yet no one argued that we were stealing the music back then.

Of course back then, most times, the single that you heard on the airwaves, was just the prelude to what was promised to be a great Album…unlike today when a single is usually it. Getting a complete album, that is worth $20 and up, from an artists or record company is increasingly rare, today, and buying a complete compilation from an artist…especially a new one…is seen more like a risk, than an entertainment investment.

Also, never before, were we able to make an exact copy with the same sound quality as we can today. Let’s face it, no matter how many songs I had on cassette, it was never as good as owning the original..and owning your own copy was seen more as a status symbol that you took pride in…because you had your own copy…..but those days are over , and that is why the RIAA is now screaming “Bloody Pirates“.

The ceremony, and pride of a record collection is over. The artwork..the special editions…fold outs…extra tracks…double album sets….. Readable credits of the song writers, musicians, and sometimes even lyrics…..along with almost a guarantee of at least 3 or more decent tracks that you will enjoy……all that is gone.

I don’t think anyone will argue that downloading a song from a P2P circumnavigates retailers, as well as the artists right to be paid for the song, but the RIAA seems to be all over the place, with ridiculous notions on what is piracy, and what is fair use of a product that you have paid for.

In it’s most recent case, (and there are many), the RIAA sent letters to 14 students at Mississippi State University alerting them that they are being sued for sharing songs on a P2P network . The students are facing a $750 fine per file, and an average of $3k to $5k in litigation costs…easily getting into the $50,000 rang for most of the litigants….and they have sued many college students across the U.S for the same offense. (Auburn, Louisiana Tech, Georgia Tech, Iowa State, Western Kentucky, Arizona, and Southern California.)

The RIAA has reached out and urged students to visit their website and settle out of court , www.p2plawsuits.com. I am sure traffic must be through the roof, from students rushing to put hundreds of dollars in fines on their maxed out credit cards before spring break.

But one of the dumbest suits was against XM Radio for it’s device the Inno, which can record 50 hours of progrmming in MP3 format. Kind of like the old cassette recorder, on steroids.

They were seeking $150,000 for every song recorded by every XM subscriber. Pa-lease! Are they kidding with this stuff?

Hmmn, so let me see. I have to subscribe to XM and pay money to hear the programming. XM pays fees to play the programming. But I am not allowed to do what I wish, for my own personal use, with the programming that I have just paid for. In other words, “You can pay to listen, but don’t touch.”

What’s next?

Charging motorists a licensing fee if the music on their car stereos is heard outside of the car?

Do they consider that an unauthorized broadcast of copy written materials..subject to fees?

In another case, Atlantic vs. Howell, the RIAA is suing users for copying purchased music into MP3’s and CD’s for personal use, deeming that CD ripping is unauthorized use.

The RIAA wrote that “it is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies” – referring to the Howell’s collection of mp3 files made from their own CDs – and noted that “once Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies.”

It goes on to say that, “once someone copies music to a CD-r, it is no longer authorized use.”

So according to the RIAA, I have to purchase music on a CD to listen to in my car…download another copy to listen to on my computer or iPod, and then…purchase the ring tone from the service provider so I can have it on my cell phone?

I may concede that placing music in a shared folder for others to download without paying for it, may be stretching the limits of fair use…. but they are out of their minds if they seriously think that once I pay for a song or album, I am not allowed to play it on what ever personal listening device that I own.

The RIAA has every right protect the interests of the artists against unauthorized downloads, but some of the nonsense that they have been spouting in court, seems to miss the point.

Furthermore, the recent development that they have been using unlicensed investigators, Media Sentry, to gather evidence to use against individual users, seriously puts the organizations credibility in to question and seemingly turns their “enforcement” into a good old fashioned 16th century witch hunt.

How could the high and mighty RIAA run around pointing fingers at will, yet be wearing dirty under wear?

Where does that put the status of the 1000’s of pending and active lawsuits, knowing that the organization uses unlawful tactics, and evidence gathering, and what group of Executives were in charge of that decision?

Undoubtedly, a misstep that seriously undermines the organizations respect from the artists that it is supposed to be protecting.

It is still unclear in many of the suits if the issue is actually “ripping” the music to different formats itself for personal use, is the unlawful action, or if it is placing it in a shared folder to share with others.

Disseminating copy written material, without the consent of the creator seems to be a cut and dry case, but the RIAA’s clouding of the issue to include the copying of purchased material, and do what you wish with it for personal use is a waste of time and money.

So far they seem unwilling to separate the two.

If you ask me, (and no one ever does), if you want consumers to have more confidence in purchasing complete albums, and not just “boot legging” the singles, maybe record companies should go back to producing talented artists that have the “chops” to withstand actually compiling a complete album of quality work, and not promote any catchy “one hit wonder” for the sake of a quick buck.

Stop promoting images and start producing music again, and maybe the music buying public will respect the industry again enough to want to buy a quality product.

JMO