May be a silly question, but everything one reads, hears on the news, etc about these two organizations seems extremely negative. They are obviously employing scare tactics in a effort to coerce large numbers of people into paying ridiculous amounts of money for music and when their tactics fail, they resort to bullying.
My original understanding of the purpose of these organizations was to ‘protect’ artists and ensure that they get paid for the performance of their music, but it seems that this is a ploy and their actual purpose is to perpetuate their own existence?
The only ‘musician’ that I’ve ever heard defend these organizations is Gene Simmons of Kiss, and quite frankly I’d expect him to, as he hasn’t been a ‘working musician’ for years and appears to be a greedy has-been.
So I really wonder, why are such organizations still in existence?
They have piles of money. They’ve controlled their respective industries since before I was born. They can afford to fight the changing times for years to come and they will fight until their last dime if they have to. The question is not why they exist, but whether they will successfully find a way to adapt or invent a new business model before they collapse under the strain of trying to maintain a death grip on their markets.
Because they are the bad guys. It deflects the anger. People can rage against the MPAA, but still like MGM or whoever is funding them. If MGM was going after people, then people might say “boycott MGM” or harass directors and stars who worked for MGM. This way, there’s no blowback. It stops at the MPAA.
I’m not so sure about that (them being the bad guy). I haven’t bought a CD or any kind of recorded music in a looong time because of the crap I hear these organization causing, so in that sense it’s hurting the entire industry and not just one crackpot organization.
Public outcry doesn’t usually determine whether or not an organization can remain to function or not, unless they are doing something obviously illegal or immoral in view of community standards.
In this case, I don’t think there’s a huge public outcry against them. Most people agree that artists need some form of protection from illegal downloads. And what they are doing is supported by the law, although it may be pushing the boundaries of the law in some cases - in any event, that is to be determined by a court.
With their “voluntary” ratings system, the MPAA also discourages the government from stepping in when citizens complain about “obscene” films and film trailers. If the MPAA were ever dissolved, I believe another “voluntary” association would quickly be formed by the big studios to institute another ratings system, simply to keep the government out of it. (Does the RIAA own the “Parental Advisory” tag that arose due to similar concerns over government intervention in the 80s?)