The two links below sum it all up quite well, a nice contrast. One one hand, the yin of creative people trying to both monetize and increase artistic control via downloading music. On the other, yang of the scorched earth, customer-is-enemy, litigious strategy. Good lord, just when you think you’ve heard it all, these boners come up with something more ridiculous than the last absurdity. Let me throw out one of my pet theories that I can’t recall if I blogged before. Suppose these RIAA lawsuites are a red herring, and they are not ultimately trying to discourage the infringing downloads of RIAA members music. What if this is all about stopping consumers from downloading legitimate, freely distributable music? The RIAA member labels are the big losers in a world without Big Media gatekeepers, so perhaps all this nonsense is really cover for them to associate all downloading of digital music with crime, corruption and badness. I download all kinds of music all the time, but none of it infringing (well, except for that Charlie Brown Outkast video). I’m actively seeking out new bands who put music up on their web pages. What if that is really what the RIAA wants to stop? That certainly would explain a few things that otherwise look completely nonsenical.
And now the links. Via BoingBoing comes this link to MUDDA, or “Magnificent Union of Digitally Distributable Artists.” It was founded by Brian Eno and Peter Gabriel. Not that much at the website yet.
Via email from a hitherto unknown to me reader named Lisa comes this story about the RIAA’s new tactic – suing IP addresses. They seem to not understand or not care about the court of public opinion. Do they think that this lawsuit business is a great idea, they just haven’t hit upon the optimal strategy for suing the masses yet? I hope the Pepsi folks paid each one of the kids in those ads at least what the RIAA took from them.
