Word on the street is that major label group EMI is planning to cut its connections to both the IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) as well as record-industry mainstay the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) over what it’s seeing as nothing more than a massive drain of money in a loosing battle against downloading and music piracy.

The IFPI and RIAA are, for those of you who don’t know, essentially the enforcing arm of the Big 4 in the recording industry (such as EMI) though they both officially claim to be representing the music industry in the US in general. Both groups receive about $130 million apiece a year from the labels in funding, and of course, that gets us results like the RIAA suing children, comatose patients, and the elderly who let their kids use their computers.

It’s an interesting industry event because it represents, among other things, an admission in the total fuckup-ery (yes, that is a real word…at least for now) of the state of the music industry by EMI, who incidentally were recently the first label to release music digitally through iTunes without DRM (Digital Rights Management, software and other lovelies built into the music file to prevent it being shared once you download it, or being transferred somewhere else like onto a blank CD-R).

So what exactly does this all mean? Well, it’s a step. You have to wonder what the face of buying music in the US (and frankly, the world in general thanks to the internet) is now going to look like. The issues over the RIAA suing people for up to $1,000 a downloaded song and people simply not buying music because of the effects that new DRM software will have on their computers at home are now far more flexible than they were four or five years ago when the RIAA began its legal crusade against individual users. Reuters is pointing out that the answer is plain and simple.

Money. FAT CASH! Besides the obvious public relations nightmares that these sorts of individual cases bring onto the major-label record industry, they quite frankly, are literally not worth it. Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG’s head of litigation recently admitted during a court case (Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas) going on in Duluth, Minnesota that these sorts of suits cost the industry money because lawsuits are not income. They are not meant to reap literal repayment, but rather serve as punitive damage to the person sued.

Which basically means that it’s the RIAA trying to hurt you rather than get back what it “lost. ” Classy, right? I know, I can  barely contain my admiration either, its’ just overflowing here.

Thanks to Reuters, Punknews.org, and ARS Technica.

Tags: News, RIAA, essay, industry news, legality, music news //