Tag Archives: new york times

Rebuttal of RIAA Opinion

SOPA: Rebuttal of RIAA Opinion Pt. 1

Leave a reply

The RIAA just won’t quit. They’re taken up the crusade to push for anti-piracy legislation once again, as seen in this New York Times Op-Ed piece titled “What Wikipedia Won’t Tell You” written by Cary H. Sherman,chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America, which represents music labels. The content of the piece is incendiary, and that’s being kind. The RIAA is adamant about their stance on piracy and are pressing the issue in every outlet they can. To quote Digital Underground from their Sons of the P album — which currently is not available for legal purchase online due to holes in the DU library in various legit digital music resources — “Like Ice Cube says, Once Again it’s On.”

Everyday They’re Shufflin’

The Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act were both killed in Congress — shelved because they were too wide open to abuse. The protest against these bills reached a collective crescendo when internet giants Wikipedia and Google and WordPress teamed up with a host of others for an internet blackout. When the largest source of internet information — and grade school kids’ favorite spot for help with their homework — goes dark and the search engine juggernaut that fuels the internet shines its spotlight on your bill, things have finally gotten serious. The U.S. citizens took notice of this blackout, and joined the internet in protest. And Congress heard the people and backed off this poorly written legislation.

But that hasn’t stopped the entertainment lobby. They went back to the drawing board and then returned mere weeks later with a new idea on how to combat online piracy. Unfortunately that new idea was the exact same idea as before. This was seen in the wishlist the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) released. The highlights of this list are essentially that the music industry wants pretty much the exact same things that were in SOPA, the same things that prompted the protest in the first place. A list of seven demands, which include the exact same far reaching calls for search engines and payment processors to police websites individually and be responsible to law enforcement for content they are indirectly connected to.

We’ll get back to this, but for now the point is the music industry felt the need to push for the same stuff that killed SOPA and PIPA. And that came right back to the forefront with Mr. Sherman’s opinion article in the New York Times. Essentially the RIAA wants a do-over and Mr. Sherman is here to tell us why that needs to happen.

Come At Me Bro

So today The Official Merchant Services Blog is going to try to put this issue in its place much like Blake Griffin did to Kendrick Perkins recently. Yes, we are going to Posterize the RIAA. Because the op-ed article indicates the RIAA has soft interior defense and can’t play man to man very well at all. First up we’ll start with the relative hypocrisy of Sherman’s ill-timed article found in this contextual relationship: Suggesting Wikipedia isn’t telling people everything, and then making this comment, “They knew that music sales in the United States are less than half of what they were in 1999, when the file-sharing site Napster emerged, and that direct employment in the industry had fallen by more than half since then, to less than 10,000.”

This is hypocritical because Mr. Sherman is leaving out some very pertinent information — which his employees were just recently bragging about on twitter. As we reported on January 31, the RIAA was excited about the IFPI wishlist because it had a series of statistics that showed the music industry is doing well with digital sales. The music industry claims Wikipedia is being deceptive and then suggests that they are still reeling from Napster, which was effectively scuttled back in 2002. They’re making a play for sympathy from an issue that happened almost a full decade ago, and yet they just got finished gloating about how successful they were this year!

Jonathan Lamy, senior VP of Communications for the RIAA, tweeted that paid subscription services rose 65 percent to 13.4 million in 2011. This tweet was in response to figures released by the IFPI which Lamy was excited to read. Lamy also tweeted that paid digital music services are active in 58 countries, generating $5.2 billion in revenues.

And then Cara Duckworth. The VP of Communications for the RIAA also cited the IFPI figures and then said: “W/more than half of all music sales coming from digital services, we know how Internet works. “Music=Innovation. Declare THAT. #CES #SOPA.”

What the RIAA isn’t telling you is far worse than what Wikipedia isn’t telling you. But Mr. Sherman isn’t about to concede facts when the agenda needs to continue to be pushed. The music industry is finally getting the hang of the digital market. Their own people brag that they know how the internet works. Declare that! But Sherman’s still waving the Napster suit in your face trying to claim that Wikipedia is obfuscating the issue.

It gets worse.

Born This Way

Sherman writes, “While no legislation is perfect, the Protect Intellectual Property Act (or PIPA) was carefully devised, with nearly unanimous bipartisan support in the Senate, and its House counterpart, the Stop Online Piracy Act (or SOPA), was based on existing statutes and Supreme Court precedents.”

The only thing in that statement that is rooted in the reality of what happened with SOPA and PIPA is that there was a lot of bipartisan work. Unfortunately, the work was bipartisan unity on finding problems with the so-called carefully devised legislation. Tech industry experts on both sides of party lines found the problems and holes in the legislation. As we reported on December 27, 2011, SOPA sparked unity in the federal government. And as we’ve written in our in-depth analysis, the bill was not very carefully devised at all. In that analysis we lean heavily on discussion from Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren [D-CA], an expert in the tech industry. We’ll highlight just a bit of Lofgren’s criticism of this bill, with questions raised: “Section 103 also allows a “portion of” a website to be deemed “dedicated to the theft of U.S. property,” regardless of the culpability of the website as a whole. Like many important terms throughout H.R. 3261, the precise meaning of these words is ambiguous, and will require years of expensive litigation to clarify. However, the plain meaning of the words seems to indicate that any large website could face a risk of termination by payment and advertising providers based solely upon infringing material contained in a single web page. ”

This is not carefully devised legislation. And as we eventually reported, the bill’s own sponsor admitted he did not fully understand the technical aspect of the bill and he backed off of it. Bill sponsor Lamar Smith is quoted in various media sources as saying:  “I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy. It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products.”

To Be Continued

chargeback ratio

Durbin Saga: Banks Reconsider Fees [2023 Update]

Leave a reply

The Official Merchant Services Blog brings you a breaking news story following the ongoing aftermath of the Durbin Amendment legislation. Yesterday, Bank of America announced it was going to cancel its $5 monthly debit card fee plan. This falls in line with similar announcements from Sun Trust, Regions Financial Corp., JP Morgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo all stating they were no longer going to test monthly debit card usage fees at all.

As previously reported, there has been a staunch amount of criticism and backlash against Bank of America after it announced it was going to charge customers a $5 monthly fee to simply use their debit card. The bank was one of a group of banks gearing up to charge fees for debit card usage, all in a response to a debit card swipe fee cap that was instituted by the financial reform legislation in the Durbin Amendment. This reaction was predicted by Host Merchant Services earlier in the year when the company analyzed the Durbin Amendment and its potential impact.

As reported by The New York Times yesterday: “Bank of America blinked on Tuesday. The bank, the nation’s second-largest, said it was abandoning its plan to charge customers a $5 fee to use their debit cards for purchases. Only a month earlier, the bank had announced the new charge, immediately setting off a huge uproar from consumers.”

Primary Target

Bank of America became the most high profile target of consumer backlash and had a polarizing effect throughout the media on this issue, thrusting the Durbin Amendment and big banks firmly into the spotlight. Part of what made Bank of America the primary target for the Durbin Amendment stories was that they were the only bank that declined to test the fees, deciding to just add the fee starting in 2012. Another part that made Bank of America a target was their position as the leading bank in terms of debit card transactions. And finally, Bank of America made such a tantalizing target because of its history with receiving federal bailout money and their foreclosure practices which caught the attention of the Occupy Wall Street protest movement.

As reported in a Business Week article: “Bank of America Corp. is scrapping its plan to charge a $5 monthly fee for making debit card purchases after an uproar and threatened exodus by customers.The about-face comes as customers petitioned the bank, and mobilized to close their accounts and take their business elsewhere.”

You can review much of that saga in Host Merchant Services own Countdown to Durbin blog series.

Last Bank Standing

And while the customer outcry and criticism was certainly a factor, it’s also worth noting that Bank of America came to this decision after all the other major banks backed off fees. As reported by the New York Times: “Despite an outpouring of complaints online and at branch offices, the bank had remained steadfast in its plans until last Friday, according to a person briefed on the situation, planning to ease just some of the conditions for avoiding the fee. But over the weekend, after two major competitors — Wells Fargo and the nation’s largest bank, JPMorgan Chase — said they were backing away from their plans to levy similar charges, two high-ranking Bank of America officers recommended to Brian Moynihan, the bank’s chief executive, that the bank simply drop the fee.Then, on Monday morning, when SunTrust, a regional bank in Atlanta, said that it, too, would abandon its $5 charge, Bank of America was left standing alone, the last major bank planning the fee. The announcement came on Tuesday.”

And also reported by Business Week: “The outcry had already prompted other major banks, including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co., to cancel tests of similar debit card fees last week. SunTrust Banks and Regions Financial Corp. followed suit on Monday.”

What Next?

This move by the banks, however, leaves them still searching for a way to offset the losses that the Durbin Amendment and other financial reforms are going to force onto them. The New York Times article suggests: “Now that all the large banks have decided not to impose the debit fee, experts said, they will find other ways to fill the hole. ‘Those revenues paid for a lot of things,’ said Joe Gillen, chief executive of Pinnacle Financial Strategies, a bank consultant in Houston.

Now, he said, consumers can expect more fees over time. ‘It will be slow and gradual, but they will bring those revenues back,’ Mr. Gillen said.”

And the Business Week Article stated: “In particular, banks in the past year have blamed their fee hikes on a new federal regulation championed by Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. The law, which went into effect last month, caps the amount banks can charge merchants whenever customers swipe their debit cards. JPMorgan has said it would lose $300 million each quarter as a result of the regulation; Wells Fargo said it would lose $250 million a quarter.”

The Official Merchant Services Blog will continue to keep you updated on all aspects of the Durbin Amendment. With the banks backing off of their proposed fees, it looks like the next development may hinge on the viability of the October 14 bill introduced into Congress to repeal the Durbin Amendment.