The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has been named by consumerist.com as 'Worst Company in America', beating out close competitors Walmart, Haliburton, and Exxon.
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Wow, what have you got to do to beat oil slicks and nuclear missles?
Evil and greedy as RIAA may be according to some it is not a company. It is an association. In fact, some of the competitors for this dubious distinction (notably Sony, Time Warner and quite possibly News Corp.) are leading members of this association. Of course this contest is meant to be more amusing than scientific, but I can't help but think it's a bit of an idiotic comparison. Supposing we did a list of best companies in America and the Motion Picture Association of America came out on top even though it is comprised of many studios. One should compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, non?
Actually, Ry, there is some discussion of this on the page the image links to...
I'll just copy one comment from that page:
Dude, what's your beef with this? How is the RIAA, an American corporation, "not a company?" Its business may be representing other companies in an industry by lobbying, but how is that any substantially different from, say, a PR company or even a law firm?
As for karmaghost's assertion that "if the RIAA were a company in the true sense of the word, their practices of suing without any rational consideration would have destroyed them long ago," I don't see why. Their customers are other big businesses, and they're doing exactly what their customers pay them to do. They never take on anyone who's capable of fighting them on a large scale, so while their business practices may be predatory and downright evil, there's no good argument for them not being a company.
Okay, granted, the lines are a bit blurry. But I would still argue that a lobbying organization such as RIAA does not qualify as a company. How is it different from a PR firm? A PR firm is a privately established business with the object of creating communications for outside firms. It generates profits and produces information products for it's client(s). The NRA is not a company. It may be funded by weapons makers with the intent of liberalizing the market to keep semi-automatic rifles on the shelves of American stores. But it does not produce anything in and of itself, nor does it seek to create profit for itself, it's sole purpose is to represent the collective will of several large corporations (and the hicks who stand by them.) Similarly, the RIAA is set up by the major American Recording Companies to assert their position in the marketplace. It doesn't produce anything (except lawsuits) and it is not traded publicly, nor is it privately owned business with the intention of creating a profit.
According to the omnipotent Wikipedia a company (for the sake of this argument) can be defined as follows:
A company is, in general, any group of persons united to pursue a common interest. The term is thus synonymous with association, but more often it is used specifically to identify associations formed for profit, such as the partnership, the joint-stock company, and the for-profit corporation. A company is not necessarily a corporation, and thus may not have a separate existence from its members.
Hmmmm, I'm not sure how the definition you present supports your argument? It does say that company and association are synonymous, only that company is more often used to identify profit-making ventures. To my mind, entities like the NRA and RIAA are simply arms-length branches of the corporations that make them up, kept at arms-length precisely to avoid direct responsibility for the actions of the associations, and the attendant lawsuits that would surely follow. It's a simple trick that our legal system makes possible.
Thinking about that some more, it would be interesting if private citizens were embodied of these same rights given to corporations. Could I set up my own association to represent only myself (The Association of Sky Onossons of Canada - ASOC) and have the association go on to make all kinds of libelous and slanderous comments about anyone and everyone I feel like? And then deny any personally culpability, since I, Sky Onosson, am not ASOC?
Okay, a company can be made up of various entities, be they individuals or other corporate interests (who hold stock say in the company) who want to make a profit. But an association is by definition made up of more than one party, and generally speaking it's mandate is to represent the will of various interests. In the case of industry often means allowing the companies it represents to remain profitable by lobbying for legislation, and launching law suits against file sharers. I find it is a simple matter to differentiate between the two, at least in this case. Sony, RCA, Universal, Virgin, etc. are all different individual COMPANIES who are represented by the larger ASSOCIATION.
The broad goal of an association may be to generate profit, it may well be done in a misleading and sometimes pathological way, but it's primary goal is to represent an industry or interest group not to produce any particular good or service.
As for ASOC, you could likely create a fake association using only yourself and/or your shell companies, assuming you had the money and clout to promote your libelous statements and defend them in court, but the moment it was discovered that your "association" is in fact the association of a single person/corporation any credibility you may have laid claim to will be utterly destroyed. The power of an association is in the resources it can bring to bear (i.e. the money, the PR and the legal expertise) and the credibility it creates for itself. There are enough Americans who defend the "intellectual property" statutes and the recording industry's right to do business so that the association, despite being unpopular, is nonetheless highly credible.
A Love for Art was a collaborative blog for visual artists, musicians, writers, and social scientists. This blog has evolved into a new blog called BETA, go check it out!
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has been named by consumerist.com as 'Worst Company in America', beating out close competitors Walmart, Haliburton, and Exxon.
9 comments:
Wow, what have you got to do to beat oil slicks and nuclear missles?
Warp minds I guess.
Evil and greedy as RIAA may be according to some it is not a company. It is an association. In fact, some of the competitors for this dubious distinction (notably Sony, Time Warner and quite possibly News Corp.) are leading members of this association. Of course this contest is meant to be more amusing than scientific, but I can't help but think it's a bit of an idiotic comparison. Supposing we did a list of best companies in America and the Motion Picture Association of America came out on top even though it is comprised of many studios. One should compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, non?
Actually, Ry, there is some discussion of this on the page the image links to...
I'll just copy one comment from that page:
Dude, what's your beef with this? How is the RIAA, an American corporation, "not a company?" Its business may be representing other companies in an industry by lobbying, but how is that any substantially different from, say, a PR company or even a law firm?
As for karmaghost's assertion that "if the RIAA were a company in the true sense of the word, their practices of suing without any rational consideration would have destroyed them long ago," I don't see why. Their customers are other big businesses, and they're doing exactly what their customers pay them to do. They never take on anyone who's capable of fighting them on a large scale, so while their business practices may be predatory and downright evil, there's no good argument for them not being a company.
Okay, granted, the lines are a bit blurry. But I would still argue that a lobbying organization such as RIAA does not qualify as a company. How is it different from a PR firm? A PR firm is a privately established business with the object of creating communications for outside firms. It generates profits and produces information products for it's client(s). The NRA is not a company. It may be funded by weapons makers with the intent of liberalizing the market to keep semi-automatic rifles on the shelves of American stores. But it does not produce anything in and of itself, nor does it seek to create profit for itself, it's sole purpose is to represent the collective will of several large corporations (and the hicks who stand by them.) Similarly, the RIAA is set up by the major American Recording Companies to assert their position in the marketplace. It doesn't produce anything (except lawsuits) and it is not traded publicly, nor is it privately owned business with the intention of creating a profit.
According to the omnipotent Wikipedia a company (for the sake of this argument) can be defined as follows:
A company is, in general, any group of persons united to pursue a common interest. The term is thus synonymous with association, but more often it is used specifically to identify associations formed for profit, such as the partnership, the joint-stock company, and the for-profit corporation. A company is not necessarily a corporation, and thus may not have a separate existence from its members.
Not saying I love the RIAA, just saying...
Hmmmm, I'm not sure how the definition you present supports your argument? It does say that company and association are synonymous, only that company is more often used to identify profit-making ventures. To my mind, entities like the NRA and RIAA are simply arms-length branches of the corporations that make them up, kept at arms-length precisely to avoid direct responsibility for the actions of the associations, and the attendant lawsuits that would surely follow. It's a simple trick that our legal system makes possible.
Thinking about that some more, it would be interesting if private citizens were embodied of these same rights given to corporations. Could I set up my own association to represent only myself (The Association of Sky Onossons of Canada - ASOC) and have the association go on to make all kinds of libelous and slanderous comments about anyone and everyone I feel like? And then deny any personally culpability, since I, Sky Onosson, am not ASOC?
Okay, a company can be made up of various entities, be they individuals or other corporate interests (who hold stock say in the company) who want to make a profit. But an association is by definition made up of more than one party, and generally speaking it's mandate is to represent the will of various interests. In the case of industry often means allowing the companies it represents to remain profitable by lobbying for legislation, and launching law suits against file sharers. I find it is a simple matter to differentiate between the two, at least in this case. Sony, RCA, Universal, Virgin, etc. are all different individual COMPANIES who are represented by the larger ASSOCIATION.
The broad goal of an association may be to generate profit, it may well be done in a misleading and sometimes pathological way, but it's primary goal is to represent an industry or interest group not to produce any particular good or service.
As for ASOC, you could likely create a fake association using only yourself and/or your shell companies, assuming you had the money and clout to promote your libelous statements and defend them in court, but the moment it was discovered that your "association" is in fact the association of a single person/corporation any credibility you may have laid claim to will be utterly destroyed. The power of an association is in the resources it can bring to bear (i.e. the money, the PR and the legal expertise) and the credibility it creates for itself. There are enough Americans who defend the "intellectual property" statutes and the recording industry's right to do business so that the association, despite being unpopular, is nonetheless highly credible.
So there;p
The Disclaimer is a poo poo head!
Post a Comment