When businesses do stupid things.

Like every American, sometimes I get disgruntled when I see big business do things that just don't seem right. "It's Un-American!" Well here's one for the recordbooks, graciously reported by Slashdot.

"The folks over at Techdirt just put up a great story today, with the RIAA claiming the cost of a CD has gone down significantly relative to the consumer price index. The RIAA 'Key Facts' page claims that based on the 1983 price of CDs, the 1996 price should have been $33.86. So naturally, you should feel like you're getting a bargain. Sounds an awful lot like the cable companies saying cable prices are really going down even though they're going up."

Now, I'm not a religious kind of person, but all I can say to the following Techdirt commentary is AMEN.

Now The RIAA Wants You To Believe That You Should Be Paying Much, Much More For CDs (from the nice-try dept)

By now, it's no secret that the folks running the RIAA have no clue about basic economics, but that's no excuse for some of their more ridiculous claims. The latest, as pointed out on Digg, is that the RIAA has an information page where they try to convince you that the cost of a CD should be much, much higher than it is, and therefore you're getting a great deal. Commentator Ben Woods gives a quick run down of why the RIAA is out of their minds. Basically, they're claiming that based on basic consumer price index information (i.e., inflation) the price of the CD should have risen over the past few decades, rather than stayed more or less the same. This is really weak economics, and highlights why the recording industry continues to shoot itself in the foot. It shows that they either don't understand (or would prefer to ignore) the differences between decreasing marginal returns (of rivalrous goods) and increasing marginal returns (of non-rivalrous goods). Anyone in the tech industry knows that overtime products get cheaper, not more expensive -- but the recording industry wants to pretend that music is non-rivalrous and therefore should increase in cost over time, rather than decrease -- even as the actual costs of production, distribution, discovery and promotion have all gotten cheaper over time? Sorry, but economics doesn't work that way -- and it's safe to say that the RIAA isn't fooling very many people. Even worse, the RIAA is saying all this while failing to recognize the competitive market they're facing -- where people have a lot more choices for their entertainment dollar, which should drive down the price of CDs, rather than the other way around. If the industry can't even understand these basic facts, is it any wonder they continue to destroy the core of their business?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Only in America would a business be so arrogant as to think it can rape, pillage and sue its customers and still end up ahead. Is it any wonder that ITunes, Wal-Mart music and the like have found millions of customers or that artists are now releasing their albums by themselves on the Internet?

Quixotic.

It is amazing to me, that in this day and age, the RIAA and entertainment producers (music, movies, television, etc.) think that suing their customers is a viable business model and the way to ensure future business. I can agree that distributing copyrighted material, especially for a profit, is wrong and constitutes some amount of harm to the studios and the artists themselves. But I have also watched as the entertainment industry seeks to continually re-define law, specifically the Fair Use Doctrine, for their own purposes. As we move closer to a mobile society, where streaming and downloading become the primary vehicle for us to obtain products, I wonder how more stringent regulation (and law suits) over content will affect our decision to buy media. I know that I don't buy cds or dvds much any more. I don't know whether that's because I'm "sticking it to the man" or if it's just that I find more interesting ways to enjoy my entertainment. But I do know that the more I feel attacked, regulated and manipulated by the entertainment and media industries, the less likely I am to partake of them.

Thoughts inspired by this article.

2 sued for downloading over 1,000 songs

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. - Patricia Santangelo wouldn't concede in her fight with record companies that accused her of pirating songs over the Internet. Now the companies are hoping for an easier tussle against her kids.

Five record companies, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America, filed a lawsuit in federal court in White Plains on Wednesday against Santangelo's son and daughter.

It said Michelle Santangelo, 20, has acknowledged downloading songs on the family computer and that her brother, Robert, 16, had been implicated in statements his best friend made. It accuses the two of downloading and distributing over 1,000 songs, including "Pretty Fly (For a White Guy)" by the Offspring, "MMMBop" by Hanson and "Beat It" by Michael Jackson.

"In short, each of the defendants participated in the substantial violations of plaintiffs' copyrights at issue and then concealed their involvement, standing idly by as Patricia Santangelo repeatedly protested their innocence and chastised plaintiffs for filing allegedly frivolous litigation," the complaint said.

The Santangelos' lawyer, Jordan Glass, disputed the recording industry's allegations and said he was at Michelle Santangelo's deposition and does not recall her "admitting or acknowledging downloading."

Patricia Santangelo, who a federal judge called "an Internet illiterate parent," drew attention last year when she denied downloading songs and refused to settle with the recording industry, which she said demanded $7,500 to keep her name out of a lawsuit for illegally downloading music.

Defenders of Internet freedom helped pay for her attorney. She proclaimed her innocence on TV. But the question remained whether her children had done it. Santangelo said she had no knowledge of them downloading and, if they did, the blame lay with computer programs, not with her or the children.

The industry is requesting an injunction, unspecified damages for each download and court costs.

The record companies have sued thousands of people, including many minors, for allegedly pirating music through file-sharing computer networks, most of which have been forced out of business.