George Ziemanns new RIAA rant

Tom tomwhore at
Mon Apr 14 12:41:11 PDT 2003

 From: George Ziemann <wizard at>
 Reply-To: wizard at
 Date:     Sat, 12 Apr 2003 22:47:19 -0700
 To: tim at
 Subject: The Music Piracy Myth

 Currently, if you do a google search on RIAA statistics, I'm number one
 and two; you are three and four, and your article refers to me, so I
 know you know who I am.

 The article to which you referred was published in December. Since that
 time, a lot has happened, as I'm sure you are aware, not the least of
 which being the RIAA's recent lawsuits against college students.

 First of all, I am a musician. The only reason I even started
 researching what the RIAA has to say is because of the problems I had
 selling my own work at eBay, which were entirely due to RIAA accusations
 of copyright infringement (it was my own CD).

 After looking at the 2002 RIAA data, I also realized that over the last
 5 years, the recording industry has shipped out more than 2 billion
 physical units of product, adding up to a retail value of more than $20
 billion. You'd think that they would embrace a free marketing and
 promotion opportunity like mp3s. Let's face it, an mp3 is an inferior
 copy. I consider mp3s to be an ad for my actual recording.

 My current consternation comes in the form of a letter from my
 congressional representative, who states that "In 2001, record sales
 were down 10 percent because of unauthorized music downloads..."

 Yes, sales were down. Other than that obvious fact, there is no
 empirical data to suggest that downloading is the cause of the problem.
 I've asked the RIAA. In fact, I would go so far as to say I have
 relentlessly taunted them in hopes of a reasonable explanation. They
 offer none.

 So think about this. As the original research I conducted indicates (and
 has been verified by SoundScan via, the record labels
 began to reduce the number of releases BEFORE the Napster hearings. When
 they went in front of Congress to complain about downloading, Hilary
 Rosen could confidently state that sales were going to suffer.

 Because it was engineered.

 Here's another interesting point. I can go to and
 order CDs for $1.89 each. Not "replicated" but created from a glass
 master. As I understand it, the current wholesale price for a CD is
 about $12.

 So how can EMI's Cost of Goods Sold (2001 -- at Hoovers Online) be 71%
 of their income? BMG's 2001 annual report blames industry shortcomings
 "long obscured by market success" and Vivendi told its stockholders that
 an "anticipated lighter release schedule" had something to do with it.
 BMG is the only one that even mentions file sharing -- as a
 justification in investing in Napster.

 Why does "sales are down 10%" overrule any other explanation for
 declining sales?
 A bigger question is -- Why won't anyone in the media even discuss this?

 Recently I spoke to the FCC at a public hearing in Tempe (Phoenix area).
 Next month, I'm going to speak at the DMCA hearings at UCLA Law School.

 Additionally, I'm hearing from college kids all over (Duke, Auburn,
 UCSD, Univ. of North Carolina, Yale Law School, Univ. of Wyoming).
 They're reading my site and they're using it as background for
 dissertations and reports. They ask questions. They do not accept vague

 Why does the government accept the "sales are down" without any
 consideration of other, equally plausible explanations? And why does the

 When the majority of the public is guilty by default, then something is
 terribly wrong.
 I'm not sure why I'm even writing to you, except that you seem to be
 about the fifth person in the country that has applied some logic to
 this issue.

 I've written to every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Commerce
 Committee and Small Business Committee. I've written to Jay Berman,
 Hilary Rosen and the Recording Artists Coalition. With the lone
 exception of Janis Ian, absolutely everyone has totally ignored me.

 What can we do?


More information about the FoRK mailing list