Saturday, July 21, 2007

List of Record Labels on the RIAA's Frequent Plaintiff List

Here is a list of the "frequent plaintiffs" in the RIAA cases:


Commentary & discussion:



Keywords: digital copyright online law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs


AMD FanBoi said...

The Dirty Dozen, plus four.

James said...


That isn't suprising seeing their DRM free stance now. Perhaps they are trying to capitalize while the other labels waste money and garner bad reputation. Just seems odd they would not market themselves as 'The good label'

raybeckerman said...

james, are you sure some of those labels aren't subsidiaries of EMI?

Interested Observer said...

Both Capital and Virgin are part of EMI

Alter_Fritz said...

James, EMI of course.

"They" aren't any better then the other guys.
That they sell now DRM free stuff doesn't make them any better.
For one, they charge more for something that should be the norm; DRM free music instead of the DRM crippled stuff. For second they do not offer for that extra money the same high lossless quality you could get if you would buy the old CDDA soundsources.

It looks as if those executives in the Labels are ~5-6 years behind the market reality with their decisions.
They refused to selling .mp3 files while this datareducing technology was hip and was used widely in the early years of p2p, napster and co.
Now after all those years in which the real live of music distribution evolved further they try to hop onto the fast running train with a product that is soooo '99.
Today the (former) customers have better broadband, faster lines; The times where "mp3" was a necessarity to be even able to dream about getting music via your computer (15 minutes wait time for 3 minutes that might turn out to be a "start to be frustrated about organised music and draw your attention away from their product in general"-fake file) are long gone for many industrialised parts of the world.
In really industrialised countrys (read for once NOT the USA but sweden or japan for example where 100 mbits symetric connections to ordinary households are considered "the norm") have musicloving consumers switched from lossy mp3 to lossless digital musicencoding like FLAC.

So EMI's move to offer now, 7 years after the "market start", mp3 files is from a business perspective like trying to sell Ford T models as a must have car in todays america.
OK, if you have an original Ford T these days it might be worth quite a bit due to it's (natural) scarcity, but the (artificial) scarcity of Music embodied objects don't have the same values;
"mp3 files aren't rare".
Even the russians have realised that and they offer lossless quality to buy! that is money that the lables and even more the artists lose because they refuse to make deals with the russians!

And of course the labels are to dinosaur like that they don't set up their own "get our whole back catalouge in CD quality for a market oriented prize with the assurance that you will not be terrorised by our SS-Center if you buy from us"-shop.
Organised music simply deserves to die, they are like a obsolete species in the (digital) evolution.

/end rant

Jadeic said...

Here is the list again with the parent company alongside:

Arista [SonyBMG]
Atlantic [Warner]
Capitol [EMI]
Elektra [Warner]
Fonovisa [Independent American
Spanish Language Label]
Interscope [Universal]
Lava [Warner]
Loud [SonyBMG]
Maverick [Warner]
Motown [Universal]
Priority [EMI]
UMG [Universal]
Virgin [EMI]
Warner [Warner]

This puts a slightly different complexion on things.

I am also compiling what is a long term labour-of-love list of all tracks listed on the infamous Exhibit A in the hope that some detailed analysis will perhaps reveal a hidden RIAA agenda. Will post progress later.


jbrooks said...

Please note that Fonovisa is connected with UMG.

That must be how they end up as plaintiffs.

raybeckerman said...

I believe it is incorrect that Fonovisa is independent. I believe it is a subsidiary of the UMG/Universal thuggery group.

raybeckerman said...

duh..... jbrooks is correct, and my comment was redundant.... fonovisa is not even a seperate company, it is just a subdivision of universal.....

raybeckerman said...

thank you "interested observer"... i knew emi was in the house... thugs to the last...

Jadeic said...

Fonovisa is one of three labels that comprise the Univision Music Group which has almost half of the US Latin market. As such it is an independent label albeit Univision does have an exclusive distribution and licensing agreement with Universal Music: hence the link with this case.