The 'Pirate Act' > $157,860 from the Entertainment Industry?

$157,860 from the Entertainment Industry?

said by Goldman:

---

Why the hell isn't that illegal?

Congratulations RIAA, looks like you own some of the best politicians money can buy.

---

oh the irony...

reply to Goldman
Note its says from the "Entertainment Industry", not from the RIAA. They don't even make the list of the top 20 in the Entertainment group in 2004. The RIAA is 15th on the list in 2002, and again fails to make the top 20 in 2000.

#1 - Time Warner
#6 - Clear Channel Communications
#9 - Vivendi Universal
#11 - Sony Corp of America

These are all members of the RIAA. Remember the RIAA is merely a trade organization made up of members of the recording industry. The RIAA moniker doesn't have to be on everything that is supporting the RIAA's way of thinking. Member companies can go out and lobby congressman more effectively since the RIAA itself is a target of criticism.

But my point is still very valid. Those companies do much more than just music. Surely Time Warner didn't do all its lobbying on behalf of its music division. And there's numerous companies on the Entertainment list that have nothing to do with music.

To assume that the RIAA & its member companies gave $157,000+ is a wrong assumption.

I can almost guarantee all of Vivendi's funds were directed at RIAA's interests. Also consider the amount of money Time Warner has donated. Even if only 20% of that were directed at their music industry interests (which is a conservative estimate) that would be a significant contribution. The only other thing Clear Channel has to lobby for is more control over television and radio stations, which admittedly they would focus a lot on. Still they would definitely be on track for a substantial sum in lobbying expenses on behalf of the RIAA.

I'd disagree. The big media companies along with the Motion Pictures Assoc. of America have been lobbying and dealing with how to keep technology from doing to movies what its done to music. Vivendi has Universal Studios & Universal TV. Time Warner has Warner Bros.

Not to mention the endless hassles over movie ratings.

People put too much emphasis on the RIAA & the music industry. They're not the only game in town.

What does it really matter. You're splitting hairs with that argument. Whether the "entertainment industry" consists of the RIAA, it's acolytes, Jack Valenti, the MPAA or it's acolytes, the result is still the same. The systematic purchase of politicians to pass laws to keep obsolete business models and practices free from competition and innovation.

Competition and innovation?

Downloading songs & movies is not competition. Its theft of intellectual property.

And it makes a huge difference. You have no idea why any of these companies gave money to anyone, but you're willing to jump to a conclusion that they did it solely for corporate gain. My issue with this is that numbers are being misused to represent something that may not be true. No one looks at the $150,000 figure and finds out what that entails. We all just jump on it as if it all came from the RIAA to buy politicans to bend to their will. And its simply not true.

Here's the list of contributions made by the RIAA: »herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/com_s···0009357/

And non-individual contibutors that gave to Sen. Hatch: »herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/can_g···6UT00063

The RIAA gave Sen. Hatch $1,000.
Time Warner $4,000
Sony $3,000
Universal $4,000

That's $12,000

That was outstripped by insurance:
AFLAC - 10,000
Allstate - 2,000
Alliance of Insurers - 1,000

And I didn't even get out of the "A"s. Are they purchasing "politicians to pass laws to keep obsolete business models and practices free from competition and innovation."
Or just talking to the head of the insurance committee?

American politics is complicated. Attempts to oversimply it often result in misinformation.

said by ScottMo:

---

Competition and innovation?

Downloading songs & movies is not competition. Its theft of intellectual property.

And it makes a huge difference. You have no idea why any of these companies gave money to anyone, but you're willing to jump to a conclusion that they did it solely for corporate gain. My issue with this is that numbers are being misused to represent something that may not be true. No one looks at the $150,000 figure and finds out what that entails. We all just jump on it as if it all came from the RIAA to buy politicans to bend to their will. And its simply not true.

Here's the list of contributions made by the RIAA: »herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/com_s···0009357/

And non-individual contibutors that gave to Sen. Hatch: »herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/can_g···6UT00063

The RIAA gave Sen. Hatch $1,000.
Time Warner $4,000
Sony $3,000
Universal $4,000

That's $12,000

That was outstripped by insurance:
AFLAC - 10,000
Allstate - 2,000
Alliance of Insurers - 1,000

And I didn't even get out of the "A"s. Are they purchasing "politicians to pass laws to keep obsolete business models and practices free from competition and innovation."
Or just talking to the head of the insurance committee?

American politics is complicated. Attempts to oversimply it often result in misinformation.

---