"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said RIAA's president Cary Sherman. "But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action. We simply cannot allow online piracy to continue destroying the livelihoods of artists, musicians, songwriters, retailers, and everyone in the music industry."

I agree totally with this - that's why I don't have a huge stack of Dido's new "copy protected" album to give out to friends. I have bought about 1000 CDs because I like to think that the artist is getting part of my money.

The RIAA website( http://www.riaa.com/issues/laborcode/default.asp ) states the following:

Question: What happens when a record company takes a financial risk and invests in an artist who winds up being unsuccessful?

Answer: Even though new artists receive the benefit of these investments and are given the opportunity to succeed in the recording industry, they are left with no financial liability if they are unsuccessful. The record companies absorb the losses.

WOW! You've got to be impressed with that! Record companies are taking losses on all those really crappy bands that you wouldn't spit on their CD if it caught fire. Cool.

But after reading the informative RIAA website (when it wasn't being taken down by hackers :-) ) I did a google search and found some more articles.

This article says ( http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-15-artists-rights_x.htm ) Producer Steve Albini, trashing label practices in The Baffler magazine, outlines a hypothetical but typical record deal that bestows a $250,000 advance on a young band. The album sells 250,000 copies, earning $710,000 for the label. The band, after repaying expenses ranging from recording fees and video budgets to catering, wardrobe and tour bus costs, is left $14,000 in the hole on royalties.

Um.. OK so I sourced the original ( http://www.negativland.com/albini.html ) article. In summary it says that the record company gives the band an advance then takes that and all the costs of manufacturing the CD from their royalty cut. Does the band pay for the copy protection?

What the record companies are doing is giving the band an unsecured loan or when you are employed it is referred to as a "salary sacrifice". Some people I know salary sacrifice to buy a laptop or a car for use at work. Image that you do this - part of your salary is used to pay off a loan that the company made on your behalf to buy something. How annoyed would you be if you left your job after paying for it and your boss told you that the car/laptop was HIS. He owns it. What insane game is the record company playing? Fleece the gullible?

When a band signs a contract as above it is the same as a salary sacrifice, they've paid for the production of the CD, all the record company has to do is press it on a CD for less than 10 cents a CD and flog it to the shops. BUT the record company OWNS the copyright? Where is the justice there? In the above article (http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-15-artists-rights_x.htm) Henley dismisses conciliatory gestures as disingenuous rhetoric and industry claims of dramatic concessions as arrogant and misleading. As for label fears of financial ruin, Henley fires back, "When the record companies make $5 for every $1 the artist makes, I don't see where they get off making those remarks. It's another spin tactic."

To compare this practice with a comparable industry, in terms of risk. If you write a novel then the BOOK company pays you the royalty and they pay for the book's production. A 15% royalty is a 15% royalty. Book companies have the same problems as record companies with dud books. But not content with making the musician pay for everything (http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-15-artists-rights_x.htm) Audits routinely detect unpaid royalties. Music industry lawyer Don Engel, who estimates that labels misreport and underpay artist royalties by 10% to 40%, says industry accounting practices are "intentionally fraudulent."

"Intentionally fraudulent". So, to dumb it down to my level, this means that they are, let me get this exactly right, using accounting practices "... to continue destroying the livelihoods of artists, musicians, songwriters, retailers, and everyone in the music industry." er.. with the exception of the record companies. Where is the justice here?

So, RIAA, I am confused. I am supposed to fork over my hard-earned cash to support the musicians and songwriters but you'll steal the royalties that they deserve and if you don't steal, then you'll make damn sure that the royalty is whittled away to nothing. Or am I mistaken?

If you are from the RIAA and you are reading this then I would like you to publicly declare how much money each of the girls in Russian group Tatu actually got paid into their bank accounts for their top selling CD's in many countries and how much revenue was generated by the band. Excuse me, while I get a defibrillator charged and ready to resuscitate the band's bank balance.