Is it too late to get JetBlue in on the tourney after the apparent cluster-f*ck that happened in New York yesterday?

JetBlue had a really bad day yesterday, but I don't think they come anywhere near the rest of these companies as far as this tournament is concerned.

I'd like to see the other bracket seeds' ranking.

Is this similar to March Madness where a #1 seed goes against a #16 seed?

The seeding seems a bit weird here. Didn't U-Haul have less votes than Best Buy?

Wow. #3 and #7 are tough calls...

yeah, the seeding seems off.
#1 vote-getter should play #16 in bracket 1.
#2 vote-getter should play #15 in bracket 8.
#3 plays #14 in bracket 3.
#4 plays #13 in bracket 5...

sorry, that's... #4 plays #13 in bracket 4.
anyway.

nope still wrong. sigh.

Well, Halliburton creates many high-paying jobs in engineering and geology (esp now with high oil prices). They actually pay their employees really well and have great benefits. Why are they considered so bad?

Numbers 2 and 7 are the hard ones for me, but 7 is the hardest. The company that ruins our jobs or ruins our food.... which to choose.

For the brazillionth time - the RIAA is not a company!

ok so

1 RIAA
United Airlines
2 Halliburton
News Corporation
3 Comcast
Sony
4 ATT-Cingular-SBC
Clear Channel
5 Uhaul
Best Buy
6 Verizon
Bank of America
7 Exxon
Time Warner Cable
8 Walmart
Monsanto

?

Doesn't matter if RIAA is a company or not... As an organization that represents a group of companies (i.e. SonyBMG, Universal, and etc.) and sues the customers of those companies, it should be considered in the bracket.

Next year around this time, maybe the MPAA can make the bracket.

@Don Roberto: oohhh that was easy, looove the google. http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

they are shaaaaady.

as a self-proclaimed socialist i am in no way pro-corporate America,

but the RIAA not only ensures that record companies make profits but that artists also get paid. it is a disappointment to me that the consumerist, to which I will admit that I am not a huge contributor but am an avid reader of, chooses to make the mistake of equating the RIAA to a company like Wal-Mart.

this is a sad day when mob mentality takes over reason and accountability.

the music industry has the right to protect its creations, plain and simple. just like Apple has the right to protect its designs from knock-offs and just how book authors have the right to protect their publishings from being illicitly published.

You're a self-proclaimed socialist, but your statement above conflicts with your proclamation.

Is it too late to get Terminix on this list? If any of you are homeowners, and you're relying on them to protect your house, you better think again. They will over-charge you for a service they will rarely perform, and when they do send one of their untrained "employees" out to perform an inspection, you can count on said inspection being done inadequately. While all of this is bad enough, just try to get them to respond to a complaint. They don't care, and they seem to have the BBB right in their back pocket. Don't believe me, just google Terminix and you'll see just how bad they can be.

On a side note, who ever is defending the RIAA, you are so far out of touch with reality. When a group sues 10 year old kids and grandmothers for illegal downloads, and tries to extort money from them to make the suit go away, they are a truly evil organization. How much of what they are collecting is going to the artists? OH, is that a resounding NONE?

Maybe the folks from Deadspin can help you set up correct seeding...

CD sales pay the record company and the lawyers. The artists only get a small cut. They use some sort of point system. But essentially, after everyone else gets paid, the artists gets whatever is left over. So how is the RIAA helping artists?

how?

artists have the right to protect their artwork plain and simple. Though recording companies may be greedy corporations artists choose to partner up with these companies and so their interests are tied to the interests of the company.

just because a lot of people download music without paying it doesn't make it morally ok nor does it undo the fact that it is stealing.

my point is that there are worse companies than the RIAA, companies that actually do things that are illegal. The RIAA has the right to protect its content however it wants and its current methods are completely legal.

take RIAA off and put up the U.S. government.

LatherRinseRepeat:

are the artists forced into producing for the RIAA companies? Like are they captured, kidnapped from their garages and forced to create music?

no. they choose to sign into whatever contracts they sign into with the record labels. it is a choice of theirs to sign on, often it is not their choice to give their music away for free.

yeah, downloading free music screws the record companies but it also screws the artists.

If no one's going to answer my question I'm going to update the post with the new picture and y'all can duke it out.

Yes, update the post.

Consider that the RIAA isn't just about "protecting the artist" -- if it was, they'd do more research into things and find out how to harness the internet instead of playing scare tactics and "shotgun lawsuits" -- fire at everyone and hope you can hit something.

Besides, it's gotten to a point where artists pretty much have to sign up with the assholes. It's a lot like internet -- you can go with Comcast and get screwed, or go with dialup and enjoy a very small existance.

xKeeper,
that is why it is called a choice. it may not be a good one but it is one regardless.

you really think you are doing the artists a favor by downloading free music?

anyways, we digress...
my original point was that the RIAA was within its right to sue because, whether we like it or not, it has the right to protect and distribute its property however it wants.
So my suggestion was to take the RIAA off and put in another company that actually breaks the law knowingly in order to make profit.

Ben, your second bracket is correct, but it doesn't quite make it clear who plays who in the second round.

I sent you a tournament-style bracket in email that should make things even clearer.

The bracket looks like it's RIAA vs United Airlines, not Best Buy. Am I reading it wrong?

The bracket isn't correct yet. As Haliburton is correct tournament fashion would not be able to face number 1 in the second round. The idea of being first seed is that you have an easier ride, and would face the winner of the lesser matches.

in* correct

I would vote for RIAA if for no other reason than they actually seem to think (and want us to believe) that every downloaded song equates to a lost sale!

What they don't want to admit is that in most cases, the choice is NOT pay or not pay, but rather listen or NOT listen.

I don't condone theft of copyrighted material, but these folks need to get a clue. Lower sales are because of crappy content, not internet downloads. There have been studies that prove this!

How about seed numbers?? For example, a (1) next to RIAA, and a (16) next to United Airlines (or whatever seed # they are)

nakmario: The RIAA is not within it's rights to go around suing people when they have no proof of wrong-doing and then extorting thousands of dollars from people to make the case go away.

Extortion IS illegal. Just because it has been able to do so sucessfully doesn't make it ok morally or undue the fact that it is a crime.

Here is a link to the aforementioned study:
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2007/february#tue-13-effe...

Here is a link to one aforementioned study:
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2007/february#tue-13-effe...

TPK,

interesting study and all. Somehow you fail to understand what I am saying here. The (RIAA)record companies own, by contract with the artists, the music and it is their right to determine how this music is distributed. Obviously downloading affects their bottom line, otherwise they wouldn't spend millions of dollars on lawyers trying to get people to stop. It is that simple, they have the legally protected right to distribute the music however they damn well please.

You can call suing someone who has downloaded music illegally extortion, or whatever, but the RIAA has the right to protect their best interests.

The sad thing is that I dont see one, just one, lending firm such as the payday loans companies or the mortgage companies out there. Listing the RIAA is petty when compared to the other companies that really do harm to society and to consumers.

ARRGGHH!! MY EYES!

The RIAA are a bunch of asses. First off, they are not looking out for the artists best interests, they are looking out for the companies, big difference, since those same companies have been screwing artists for years. Courtney Love wrote an article about the RIAA, its worth a read. I cant stand her, but she is right. I took a Music Business class and this is all right. Artists get pennies while the record companies collect dollars. Heres the link: http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/prin...

Morality is subjective. I feel no moral wrong-doing when I download an album online, really enjoy it, and go buy it. Which I do. Im sick of buying albums with one good song. Nore do i feel bad when I download an album, find out its shite and never listen to the band again.

Lastly, It is my personal opinion that the companies that are part of the RIAA are ruining music anyways. I haven't bought a mainstream album in at least five to six years. Most of its crap. The stuff that is crap is still not as good as independent artists.

Appologies for being off topic, I just can fathom why anyone would support the RIAA.

the RIAA does not help artists in bargaining contracts with the record labels, which is what would really allow artists to make money off recorded music (which few do or did even before downloading was an issue).

How much is "stolen" from artists in unfair contracts (consider how much more access to information and experience with the legal system SONY has compared to a bunch of kids in a band)? A lot more than the hypothetical losses from downloading (again, some downloading raises sales through raising interest).

The ripoff happens at the contract negotiation stage, and anyone who thinks that is a fair bargaining position is smoking crack.

The RIAA helps those who profit off recordings, which is not usually the artists (unless the artists have the clout and skill to negotiate a good deal, which few do).

Downloading music and making it popular actually can raise an artists' profile and help them profit from gigs, merch, and negotiate a better contract so they can profit from recordings. (Many people who download also buy recordings, so it's not a contradiction).

You can call suing someone who has downloaded music illegally extortion, or whatever

I can call it that because that's what it is. There's a reason the had to pay lawyer's fees to the woman who fought back: she didn't illegally download any music!

If they were actually suing people who had broken the law I would agree that they were in their rights to do so. As it is they're simply suing people at random because, hey, everybody does it.

@nakmario: you need to read some Lessig.

Start here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=766166361318052059...
(which is a talk that lessig gave in Berlin -- http://events.ccc.de/congress/2006/Home)

And then go read this: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/june03/copyright.html

If you find this stuff interesting, go read Benkler: http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php?title=...

~~~~

Why isn't Apple there? Oh well. :(