Slashdot Mirror

I am repeating this ad nauseum but it's really the best, most effective solution.

1. Stop buying new music
2. Stop going to shows of new acts
3. Don't "pirate"[sic] music, just KILL the demand. P2P only lends credence, however tenuous, that they are "losing" money due to "theft"[sic].
4. Don't listen to top 40 radio
5. Did I mention stop uploading/downloading music on P2P networks? Boycott the big labels.

Bankrupt the RIAA(or whatever it's called in your respective country) members. Then, sanity will be restored to copyright.

Oh, in case you think your favorite label is an indie, remember this family tree - it's a little out of date but you'll see that a lot of "indie" labels you like, aren't! Check it out:

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho2.html

1. If you stop buying music, the revenue loss will be blamed on piracy. IF they go bankrupt, the government will bail them out, which means you'll pay through your taxes. Better to actually get something out of it. Besides, the labels only get about $4 from a new CD sale, the rest is markup through distributers, shipping, and retail.

2. Most live shows & merchandise revenue go directly to the musicians. The RIAA makes money from album sales, the Concert promoters make money off of ticket sales. So by boycotting the concerts/shows/merchandise you are hurting only the artists, not the RIAA.

3. Get into the Indy music scene, there's a lot of small bands who are worth listening to, and many do their own CD's, promoting, etc.

I am repeating this ad nauseum but it's really the best, most effective solution.

1. Stop buying new music
2. Stop going to shows of new acts
3. Don't "pirate"[sic] music, just KILL the demand. P2P only lends credence, however tenuous, that they are "losing" money due to "theft"[sic].
4. Don't listen to top 40 radio
5. Did I mention stop uploading/downloading music on P2P networks? Boycott the big labels.

Bankrupt the RIAA(or whatever it's called in your respective country) members. Then, sanity will be restored to copyright.

Oh, in case you think your favorite label is an indie, remember this family tree - it's a little out of date but you'll see that a lot of "indie" labels you like, aren't! Check it out:

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho2.html

Actually most people over about 35 tend to do these things by default. The music that gets hyped, mass marketed and pirated is basically ephemera anyway - it is hyped ruthless and sells a vast number of copies for a few months and then disappears completely. It's the cultural equivalent of pumping and dumping some worthless stock.

I suspect DRM only makes sense for pump'n'dump media. The point of it, and legal threats to sharers is to delay the time when it is available for free on P2P networks and try to intimidate people into buying rather than pirating. If you expect to sell a lot of copies for a few months and then have it disappear, the more time it is unavailable on P2P the better.

I read some article on Gamasutra about video game protection. It was cracked of course, but it took a few months. The vast majority of sales for the game took place in those few months, by the time it was cracked the pumping had stopped. Very few sales were likely by that point, so the publishers weren't concerned about the crack. In fact no one was even concerned about the game at that point.

If you ignoring the pumping, you won't even know what you're missing with things like this most of the time. As you get older you tend to be more immune to this sort of thing naturally.

I am repeating this ad nauseum but it's really the best, most effective solution.

1. Stop buying new music
2. Stop going to shows of new acts
3. Don't "pirate"[sic] music, just KILL the demand. P2P only lends credence, however tenuous, that they are "losing" money due to "theft"[sic].
4. Don't listen to top 40 radio
5. Did I mention stop uploading/downloading music on P2P networks? Boycott the big labels.

Bankrupt the RIAA(or whatever it's called in your respective country) members. Then, sanity will be restored to copyright.

Oh, in case you think your favorite label is an indie, remember this family tree - it's a little out of date but you'll see that a lot of "indie" labels you like, aren't! Check it out:

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho2.html

Regarding "Independent" labels, see the following two URLs:

Some of your friends may already be this fucked:

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/

Who owns who(m):

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho.html

Your favorite label may not be independent at all, but a shell company of one of the major labels.

There is good reason the RIAA members want to outlaw P2P networks, or if they can't squelch it, get the ISPs to pony up a levy to them; they are rapidly losing control of the music industry; it is quickly becoming a direct creator-to-customer venue, where a truly independent band can make a very good living playing small, intimate clubs - and can maintain more creative control over their work, without having to settle for a tiny percentage of their sales. They don't have to worry about appealing teenyboppers and having a manufactured, socially-engineered sound and rely on sex-themed promotions to sell their work. They can produce their best work, engage in long jams on gigs, and make a very good living selling not only their studio productions, but recordings right off the sound board (hope they have a good sound engineer, see below). Labels don't want bands that can sell a couple hundred thousand units and gain popularity over time; they want a major, earworm-inducing syrupy-sounding bubblegum band that they can heavily market through kids' shows and magazines and have a major hit to make some quick money, and who cares if the "artist" ends up a train wreck in 4-5 years and no one wants to hear them any more? They'll just hire some other skank or boy band and sell a new image. No big deal on the record companies' part. What we end up with is crap on the radio and getting innundated from all directions with these personalities, until they burn out.

Bands with staying power are usually the ones who started small, and gained popularity over time, due to contemplative lyrics, experimental sounds, or simply having GREAT talent. Bands like that have been Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Queen, Phish, and even No Doubt (Gwen's sucky solo work notwithstanding - without the rest of the band she SUCKS). Members of some of them (Pink Floyd and Phish notably) have bemoaned having lost "intimacy" with their fans in the big stadiums (that's what much of Wish You Were Here and The Wall were about) and the "evils" of the music industry. Think the big labels as they exist (or wants to exist) will ever produce another Pink Floyd, another Queen, or another Led Zeppelin? No; the way those bands start out don't appeal to the masses right off; long experimental jams, studio pieces that are "too long" for radio play, sounds that are just "too different," and in some cases focusing SOLELY on the music, and not so much on the personalities - or if they do make it, people will be only familiar with short, poppy-sounding pieces, and will probably never hear the less-played but far superior back tracks.

There is a plus to big labels: they generally have VERY good sound engineers; that is something lacking in smaller venues. It's one thing to know how components interconnect, it's another thing entirely setting it up to enhance the band's sound and not detract from it. A lot of sound guys in small venues SUCK - I've been at several shows friends' bands performed at where I had to go to the sound guy to tell him to fix something, or SHOW the idiot how to fix it, and at one I even had to move a mike because he had no clue what to do. However in gaining access to good engineers and good equipment, you often have to go with big labels, and end up in debt to them.

Tagged: someofyourfriendsmayalreadybethisfucked

Regarding "Independent" labels, see the following two URLs:

Some of your friends may already be this fucked:

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/

Who owns who(m):

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho.html

Your favorite label may not be independent at all, but a shell company of one of the major labels.

There is good reason the RIAA members want to outlaw P2P networks, or if they can't squelch it, get the ISPs to pony up a levy to them; they are rapidly losing control of the music industry; it is quickly becoming a direct creator-to-customer venue, where a truly independent band can make a very good living playing small, intimate clubs - and can maintain more creative control over their work, without having to settle for a tiny percentage of their sales. They don't have to worry about appealing teenyboppers and having a manufactured, socially-engineered sound and rely on sex-themed promotions to sell their work. They can produce their best work, engage in long jams on gigs, and make a very good living selling not only their studio productions, but recordings right off the sound board (hope they have a good sound engineer, see below). Labels don't want bands that can sell a couple hundred thousand units and gain popularity over time; they want a major, earworm-inducing syrupy-sounding bubblegum band that they can heavily market through kids' shows and magazines and have a major hit to make some quick money, and who cares if the "artist" ends up a train wreck in 4-5 years and no one wants to hear them any more? They'll just hire some other skank or boy band and sell a new image. No big deal on the record companies' part. What we end up with is crap on the radio and getting innundated from all directions with these personalities, until they burn out.

Bands with staying power are usually the ones who started small, and gained popularity over time, due to contemplative lyrics, experimental sounds, or simply having GREAT talent. Bands like that have been Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Queen, Phish, and even No Doubt (Gwen's sucky solo work notwithstanding - without the rest of the band she SUCKS). Members of some of them (Pink Floyd and Phish notably) have bemoaned having lost "intimacy" with their fans in the big stadiums (that's what much of Wish You Were Here and The Wall were about) and the "evils" of the music industry. Think the big labels as they exist (or wants to exist) will ever produce another Pink Floyd, another Queen, or another Led Zeppelin? No; the way those bands start out don't appeal to the masses right off; long experimental jams, studio pieces that are "too long" for radio play, sounds that are just "too different," and in some cases focusing SOLELY on the music, and not so much on the personalities - or if they do make it, people will be only familiar with short, poppy-sounding pieces, and will probably never hear the less-played but far superior back tracks.

There is a plus to big labels: they generally have VERY good sound engineers; that is something lacking in smaller venues. It's one thing to know how components interconnect, it's another thing entirely setting it up to enhance the band's sound and not detract from it. A lot of sound guys in small venues SUCK - I've been at several shows friends' bands performed at where I had to go to the sound guy to tell him to fix something, or SHOW the idiot how to fix it, and at one I even had to move a mike because he had no clue what to do. However in gaining access to good engineers and good equipment, you often have to go with big labels, and end up in debt to them.

Tagged: someofyourfriendsmayalreadybethisfucked

Unfortunately what works for Radiohead and NIN isn't necessarily going to work for other musicians.

But that's the same for major label deals. They work okay-ish if you're Radiohead or NIN, but not further down the line. In fact, musicians are (as this Steve Albini essay implies) better off not signing to a major label, and following this new route instead.

Steve Albini pointed out the major labels' games very, very well in an article from 1993. While the scene has changed significantly in nigh 15 years in terms of both production and distribution, his advice still stands and in a much more pertinent fashion, to both musician and listener, than David Byrne's almost "feel good" piece. So yes, it is the same as it ever was.

That's my point. They're very good at "losing" money on every song they make make while still laughing all the way to the bank.

The RIAA may, as an organisation, may technically be losing money, but that says little about much money the RIAA's member companies are making from the RIAA's activities.

---

DRM - Have you got big-corp-of-your-choice's permission to go to the toilet today?

These are the things a record company's "advance" gives you.

Perhaps you could have just linked to Steve Albini's The Problem With Music which you appear to have read.

Well the main reason is the consumer's willingness to pay.

True.

But record labels also need to recoup their investments and one "successful" artist has to pay for many "unsucceful" artists.

False. Lets not describe their wholesale corruption with anything so nice as "recouping their investments". These people are thieves; with everything from illegal payola and artists contracts to massive overcharging for technical services and "lost" royalties. They lie about royalties, they lie about production costs, they lie about how much they assist the artist and they lie about how heavily the "successful" artists subsidize the unsuccessful artists.

Just like hollywood accountants they claim to be losing money on most artists but basically, just like spammers, they never stop lying. Any claims like you've just made about unsuccessful artists being subsidized should be ignored unless there's exceptionally strong evidence proving the claims.

---

It's not piracy, it's sharing. Didn't your parents teach you to share?

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho.html

It's well worth checking out. Many so-called "Indie" labels aren't. This chart does NOT include all of them since it's a bit outdated, but is a good starting point.

What does the label give you? A chance at a very, very small slice of a larger "pie," but really what's the advantage of that over having a much larger slice of a smaller pie?

• Small pie = $10k, you get to keep 90%.
• Large pie = $10m, you get to keep 1%.

You do the math.

So you're not really comparing large pies with small pies here, you're comparing Fray Bentos with the the local charity cake bake.

You should probably also read Steve Albini's article The Problem With Music before trying to simplify the figures so.
It's probably more realistic to compare:

• Sales of 670 albums @ $15 each = $10k, you get to keep 90% = $9k.
• Sales of 60,000 albums @ $15 each = $900k, you get to keep 1% = $9k.

I used to have a friend, not a young guy, whose life ambition was to get signed to a record label. Even though he had been around the music industry for years, was realistic about his potential, and realised how little he was likely to make, he once admitted to me that he'd been trying so long that he still wanted to "be signed", I guess as evidence that he'd "made it" or of how good he was, or how committed or whatever. I'd think that most young bands signing up with labels just want to be rock stars, and are not interested in managing themselves or undertaking their own "career development".

Stroller.

Give 'em $10 in person and 80% of it will probably go to the label anyway.

That's true (is it five, six, four, or three major labels this week?)

Anyway here's a (somewhat outdated) family tree outlining who owns whom in the music business:

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho2.html

Think you're really buying from indeoendent labels? Check this diagram before you buy.

Are they independent labels, or are they "independent" labels which are simply shell companies owned by the big 5 labels. You cannot assume that Sony, EMI, etc. don't own the label just because it doesn't say Sony, EMI, Capitol, BMG, etc. on the label.

http://www.bl.uk/collections/sound-archive/record. html

And:

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho2.html

This one is THE best single not-so-independent "independent" label family tree I have seen. There are yet more "independent" labels owned by the big guys that are not in this diagram, but from this you can't assume that an "independent" label is independent.

Another page on that site ( http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/ - "Some of your friends are already this fucked" ) is a great read.

If you want to get into music, you're best off fronting the cash yourself to record, produce, and master your record, and then find a good independent PROMOTER and work out a contract on that basis. That way, you go into it making money (not an advance, another word for "loan") right away and the record company cannot charge you inflated costs for recording, engineering, and mastering your music - and this is also the best and sometimes ONLY way to retain full ownership of your work.

Queen didn't set up Queen Music, Ltd. for no reason. Pink Floyd didn't set up Pink Floyd Music Publishers, Ltd. on a whim. They got fucked over at first, then got smart about how they dealt with the record companies. Acts like MC Hammer, Vanilla Ice weren't so savvy - especially Vanilla Ice. Because he was in hock to the record companies, they called the shots, and when they made up the whole "gangsta" bit he had no choice but to go with it. A lot of artists who hit it big on the charts are getting f'd over royally in the process, and generally only the ones who produce hit after hit become savvy enough to know how to deal with the record companies. Heck, Prince was in so bad with the record companies (on the creative control aspect, not so much financial in his case) he changed his name and pulled a lot of other crap in order to try to get his label to drop him so he could work out a better deal with a different label.

Are they independent labels, or are they "independent" labels which are simply shell companies owned by the big 5 labels. You cannot assume that Sony, EMI, etc. don't own the label just because it doesn't say Sony, EMI, Capitol, BMG, etc. on the label.

http://www.bl.uk/collections/sound-archive/record. html

And:

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho2.html

This one is THE best single not-so-independent "independent" label family tree I have seen. There are yet more "independent" labels owned by the big guys that are not in this diagram, but from this you can't assume that an "independent" label is independent.

Another page on that site ( http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/ - "Some of your friends are already this fucked" ) is a great read.

If you want to get into music, you're best off fronting the cash yourself to record, produce, and master your record, and then find a good independent PROMOTER and work out a contract on that basis. That way, you go into it making money (not an advance, another word for "loan") right away and the record company cannot charge you inflated costs for recording, engineering, and mastering your music - and this is also the best and sometimes ONLY way to retain full ownership of your work.

Queen didn't set up Queen Music, Ltd. for no reason. Pink Floyd didn't set up Pink Floyd Music Publishers, Ltd. on a whim. They got fucked over at first, then got smart about how they dealt with the record companies. Acts like MC Hammer, Vanilla Ice weren't so savvy - especially Vanilla Ice. Because he was in hock to the record companies, they called the shots, and when they made up the whole "gangsta" bit he had no choice but to go with it. A lot of artists who hit it big on the charts are getting f'd over royally in the process, and generally only the ones who produce hit after hit become savvy enough to know how to deal with the record companies. Heck, Prince was in so bad with the record companies (on the creative control aspect, not so much financial in his case) he changed his name and pulled a lot of other crap in order to try to get his label to drop him so he could work out a better deal with a different label.

Hey, everyone. We've gotten quite a bit of flack from a lot of friends, family members, other bands and oddly enough several religious denominations on how we run things in Bomb The Music Industry!... no "merchandise", having everything available for free, making shirts and burning CDs and asking for donations if people would like us to continue to do stuff this way.

Well, we broke even. Again. That's the second time.

And yes, we didn't get FOOD every now and then. And sure we had to get drunk on our own money. But we did it pretty much.

Since I make effort to not get exposed to new material to avoid temptation of becoming an RIAA-label customer again, I wouldn't notice if Eminem disappears off the face of the Earth. Since I started avoiding modern RIAA material I've rediscovered classic rock stations, talk radio, classical, oldies stations, Jazz stations, and even Christian talk radio (yes, I listen to both uber-liberal NPR and to Christian stations. Sue me.)

So, unless No Doubt or Pink Floyd or Weird Al comes out with new work (the only way I'd know is because I check their web sites regularly - and that's how I found No Doubt ended their "hiatus" (e.g., reformed the band) and is going back to the studio in January), I won't be buying new material from a big label.

Oh, and when I do discover a so-called "independent" artist, yes, I do check the record label family tree ( http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/whoownswho.html ) to find out if the label is really independent or not.

BTW a friend of mine recently got suckered in by a so-called "independent" label. He released some old material that was previously unreleased and rather than going through Rhino (who f'd him out of an estimated $2.5mil in royalties) he went through SunDazed - only to find after he signed that it is owned by Capitol. He was PISSED but at least he's friendly with the "owner" (e.g., General Manager, pawn of Capitol) of SunDazed. Because of this "indie" scamming that is going on that even he got suckered into (after getting burnt twice by two big labels, he's definitely not naive), he's starting the process of forming a true independent label (it's not easy, he's hoping his name still carries some weight) to help his son's band not get f'd over and being a slave of one of the big six labels. One thing they're going to encourage is online distribution - the tracks will likely be 64kbps for the full free tracks (NO DRM), 128 or 192kbps 30-second clip samples of highlights, some free live shows (video and audio).

Likewise, in the music industry, there is an overabundance of acts willing to sign on the dotted line with record companies to contracts which many underinformed idiots on slashdot somehow believe to be "unfair to the artist."

It's simply statistics; in a society of a few billion people it's easy to find a few dozen photogenic people per year (0.000001%) who will sign up. And yes, it is unfair, see this and this). For both the artists who are signed and the vast majority (99.9%+) who are not. The arts industry makes huge money, almost none of which goes to the artists.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Yes, lets all "support the artists.". I'd suggest you read up on copyright myths before making that claim again for distribution cartel music.

I'm all for supporting the artists but buying distribution cartel music doesn't.

---

Paid marketers are the worst zealots.

em>The moment that happens is the moment they stop selling anything at all,

Correction: The moment that happens is the moment they stop making excessive profits while still selling virtually the same product much more efficiently and without excessive marketing.

Unfortunately, the same cant be said for music or movies - the cost of entry is a lot higher

Yep, incredibly inefficient industries. I wonder why?

Maybe because it's largely controlled by a distribution cartel raking off most of the potential profits?

---

Marketing talk is not just cheap, it has negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as by too little signal.

I'm surprised this link hasn't been posted yet (apologies if it has!)

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic. html

The Problem With Music
by Steve Albini
excerpted from Baffler No. 5

Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end, holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed.

Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says, "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim it again, please. Backstroke."

And he does, of course.

(continued)

exactly, only a very very small amount goes to fledgling artists... like $4000 out of a $250,000 deal. Here is a link with how the RIAA does 'buisness' with real artists http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic. html

The information linked below is out of date by a decade, but the industry hasn't changed in essence very much except for the very recent introductions of online music shopping (which the RIAA is still involved in) and podcasting/torrenting (which it isn't much, *yet*). I think the title sums it up well: "Some of your friends are already this fucked." http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic. html The financial breakdown on this page indicates a rather bleaker picture than $2 per album.

This really isn't accurate, unless you have an extremely narrow view of the term "popular artists." This article is a little old, but the problem still exists, and no one can say Albini doesn't know what he's talking about.

The Problem with Music

The truth is that it's hard to make money on a major label unless you go multi-platinum. This is why you see the lesser acts touring CONSTANTLY; it's the only way they can make money. If you can get distribution it's far easier to make money on an indie for a group that's not likely to sell ten million discs.

I thought so too, until I read these articles:

The problem with music (a.k.a. Some of your friends are probably already this f****d.)
Bye, bye, a piece of the pie

which are good when read in conjunction with Courtney Love's infamous speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment
conference.

here you go:

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic. html

Don't be stupid. If a label offers you a contract take it. If your career goes anywhere, you can renegotiate a better contract after the terms of the first have been completed

I can really recommend reading Steve Albini's The Problem With Music essay if you think it's that easy.

You have no conception of what the music industry is about, but that's okay. This is a good time to learn.

This bottom of this page does a nice job of breaking down the costs of recording and associated costs. Article is by Steve Albini, quite a well known producer.

I've never dealt with a recording contract either, but there's an interesting article on it and the contract tricks. Now, I have no idea if this is accurate, but I have no reason not to believe it is. It is on par with other record industry tricks in recent history (like changing music into a work-for-hire by getting lawmakers to sneak it in an unrelated bill). The story that is told over and over again is convincing the musician to sign a contract on the spot without getting legal council and being promised things that are not in the contract, and getting screwed over because of it as none of the promised things will ever materialize, and the record company will hold them to the contract mercilessly.

Courtney basically stole this from an earlier piece by her archenemy Steve Albini. Of course, who isn't her archenemy these days...

Ok Chuck, I'll walk you through it step by step.

"This means you won't be able to steal music" - you cannot "steal" music. You can only commit copyright violations. Stealing music is impossible, unless you shoplift CDs. And even then, you're stealing the CDs, not the music. The music still exists.

"that artists worked so hard to produce" - you know, I actually know people who play music because they just like to. Odd, no?

"and music companies worked so hard to distribute." - Cost of a music CD, about 10 bucks. Cost of a Hollywood movie on DVD, about 15. But making a movie is orders of magnitude more expensive to make and market. Wanna know why? Here's why. The music industry is uniquely corrupt. And also incompetent. Are you sure you want these goons scanning your hard drive, even if you haven't done anything wrong? What if your name happens to be Usher, too?

"Woe is you!" - and woe is anyone who allows this band of barely legalized criminals into their affairs. Even with something as simple as a click through EULA.

my 2 favorite essays on the subject of Labels vs. Bands (a situation that is over half a century old but that only now has a chance of being changed, thanks to the internet) are Courtney Love's speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference and Steve Albini's "the problem with music". Very few people outside the music industry know (or care) about this and most artists don't find out until it is too late.

A worthwhile read about the creative accounting commonly used by record companies:

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic. html

Steve Albini doesn't agree with you. For a clearer picture of what big labels do for their new talent read the link...

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic. html/

Uh... how about the fact that nothing even remotely like that is in the statute?

You're right and I noticed after posting this. Since the german copyright explicitely contains such a provision (par. 53(1) UrhG), I assumed that Americans had the same freedom. Obviously they don't.

Copies, yes. Perfect digital reproductions, no.

Actually, the fair use clause doesn't even guarantee the right to make analog copies. Neither does it explicitely prohibit perfect reproductions so it all boils down to a matter of interpretation.

Yes, that's right: it's a big conspiracy.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you. Now that digital broadcasting is gaining momentum, they want legislation to make hometaping technically impossible. The copyright flag is just one step among others. E.g., the DMCA (1201 k) already requires manufacturers of analog recording devices to obey to copy control (i.e. prevention) mechanisms. The ultimate aim is that there will be no way to record a digital TV/radio broadcast if it has the copy control bit set, apart from building your own recorder. Note that the RIAA is lying again: Digital radio is - for bandwidth reasons - far from CD quality[1]. VCRs will go extinct and be replaced with devices like DVD players which aren't capable of any recording, and can be subjected to any DRM scheme from region code over expiring keys to the right to unilaterally terminate your license upon any activity which the MPAA disapproves of (this will probably be used rarely, but not be unheard of). Just take a look at the legislation, the RIAA and MPAA have pushed through in the recent years, and are now trying to establish. Here's an incomplete list:

Succeeded:

• The underestimated NET Act
• DMCA
• Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (of course this name obscures the involvement of The Walt Disney Company a little)

In progress:

• PIRATE Act
• INDUCE Act

More laws are waiting where these are coming from (well, that would be Hell, I guess). The goal is to give copyright holders (which are only rarely nowadays the actual artists) enormous power even beyond that which they already wield. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that are too lazy, gullible or indifferent to defend their freedom.

Nonsense. Macrovision doesn't even come close to meeting the definition of "access control mechanism" given in Title 17. The courts have so held, despite civil suits alleging differently.

You haven't got references? I have.

Before you can "recompress" you must "decompress," which is the same as making a perfect digital copy of the original work.

Yes, that's why even viewing a DVD is illegal. D'oh! Seriously though, at least German courts have ruled that making a transient copy of copyrighted material in order to exercise fair use rights is fair use itself. So of course this is a BS argument.

Not eveyone cares only about money.

Some people believe that music is more than just a commodity to be consumed, defecated, and thrown away.

Some people have no interest whatsoever in pop culture, fake artists, and songwriters employed by major record companies.

Some people's favorite bands spend their lives under the radar of the mainstream culture. They record albums, play thousands of shows, and make litte or no money (but occasionally lots). They are happy to do this for years. They even purposefully, repeatedly TURN DOWN contracts they are offered by major labels. Why? Because they care about music, art, THE SWEET ROCK, the fans, culture, their integrity, and their very souls, much more than they care about the Almighty Dollar.

It's a fact that most bands that do sign to major labels are totally fucked.

This will probably get lost in the noise, and for all I know it might already be in another response. But read this article by Steve Albini about the finances of being phuct by the majors:

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic. html

It'll give you a better understanding of why bands are like startups and the majors are just VCs.

The record industry looks for a marketable product a lot of that is based on image (not just sex appeal), but predictability makes for a safe investment. However, we should be careful not to malign bands just because they've signed to a major label. Most bands are convinced that this will help them be heard and are suckered into believing they can make some money. By and large most RIAA bands are victims as much as the consumer or the sued file sharer.

Steve Albini, producer of The Pixies, Nirvana, and a former member of the band Big Black has some wonderful insights into the way the record industry works. Albini gives a very good example of a typical signing (most signed acts do not become famous or wealthy) in which after the first album of a four record deal the record sells 250,000 copies and the music industry made 3 million. Unfortuantely the band is still $14,000 in the hole on royalties and has earned about 1/3 what they would have made working at a convenience store. Albini gives a full breakdown of all income and expenses from this typical scenario (one record and supporting tour in). The bottom line:

The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.

Record company: $710,000
Producer: $90,000
Manager: $51,000
Studio: $52,500
Previous label: $50,000
Agent: $7,500
Lawyer: $12,000
Band member net income each: $4,031.25
... Some of your friends are probably already this fucked.

Don't assume that the artists are making out from high priced CDs and RIAA lawsuit settlements. I'm sure most artists aren't interested in seeing these lawsuits continue, but artists have been so suckered into thinking that a mjor label is the only way to be heard that walking out and signing to an independent label doesn't even seem like an option. But assuming tht the artists are reaping great rewards is just silly. Most RIAA artists are not P. Diddy, just under a mistaken impression that majors are the only way to succeed and as a result find themselves exploited.

Ceci n'est pas une sig

The record industry looks for a marketable product a lot of that is based on image (not just sex appeal), but predictability makes for a safe investment. However, we should be careful not to malign bands just because they've signed to a major label. Most bands are convinced that this will help them be heard and are suckered into believing they can make some money. By and large most RIAA bands are victims as much as the consumer or the sued file sharer.

Steve Albini, producer of The Pixies, Nirvana, and a former member of the band Big Black has some wonderful insights into the way the record industry works. Albini gives a very good example of a typical signing (most signed acts do not become famous or wealthy) in which after the first album of a four record deal the record sells 250,000 copies and the music industry made 3 million. Unfortuantely the band is still $14,000 in the hole on royalties and has earned about 1/3 what they would have made working at a convenience store. Albini gives a full breakdown of all income and expenses from this typical scenario (one record and supporting tour in). The bottom line:

The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.

Record company: $710,000
Producer: $90,000
Manager: $51,000
Studio: $52,500
Previous label: $50,000
Agent: $7,500
Lawyer: $12,000
Band member net income each: $4,031.25
... Some of your friends are probably already this fucked.

Don't assume that the artists are making out from high priced CDs and RIAA lawsuit settlements. I'm sure most artists aren't interested in seeing these lawsuits continue, but artists have been so suckered into thinking that a mjor label is the only way to be heard that walking out and signing to an independent label doesn't even seem like an option. But assuming tht the artists are reaping great rewards is just silly. Most RIAA artists are not P. Diddy, just under a mistaken impression that majors are the only way to succeed and as a result find themselves exploited.

Ceci n'est pas une sig

This is old, and you may have seen it already, but it's pretty compelling:
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic. html

It is ironic that the top echelon of recording artists could not exist without an industry to support them. Strip away the managers and agents, stylists and coaches, from someone like Justin Timberlake and ask is it possible that he could still make a living from music? Probably not. Ani di Franco, on the other hand, has been making a comfortable income for years without the support of the business she's supposed to be in.

As Douglas Adams pointed out, many companies aren't in the business you think they're in. Fox News is, despite a million conspiracy theories to the contrary, simply in the business of delivering an audience to its advertisers. The ethics and actions of the "Big 5" corporations who control 90% of record sales make rather more sense if they are viewed, not as separate companies, but as one distributed bank.

As anyone with any experience of dealing with banks will know, they are monolithically slow to react to changes in the environment, and are populated with highly intelligent, but narrow-minded, solipsists. They're doing now what every one of us was warning them that they should be doing the instant MP3 was rolled out.

By way of related tangent, here is an article by Steve Albini about his experiences with one of the majors, and his advice to anyone thinking of getting involved. At the bottom of the page is a detailed breakdown of a typical deal in which the "industry" made $973,000 and each of the four band members made $4,031.25.

When the entire system is that fucked, the price of a CD is moot.

Wow. That's good.

Did it ever occur to you that most bands starting out have less ability to dictate terms to a record label than people who are getting their first mortgage have with the bank? It works like this:

(label rep) : Here's our terms. Sign right there and we'll bring you onboard.
(band) : Hang on, we are a little unsure about this point here. Can we alter it?
(label rep) : Truth be told, I came to town to cut a deal with a band. If you don't like these terms, there are 3 other bands I'm talking to that I'd be just as pleased to go with.

At this point, the band either signs a draconian contract agreeing to give away God knows what, or the A&R rep walks and does business with someone else and the first band continues to play at dingy nightclubs ad nauseum. Fair? No. Life? Yes.

More here on exactly how that works and how bad the band is screwed.

You're trying to be 'wise' when you just need to wise up

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic. html

Songwriters own "the words" and or "the music."

From what I understood, that seems technically correct but misleading in practice. My understanding was that artists typically (and naively) sign away their publishing rights and all of their copyrights to the label, because labels like to offer to "take care of" legal matters like copyright. But this might be a misunderstanding on my part due to lack of knowledge.

At any rate, I found a couple good links that are well worth reading. they might even clarify my confusion on the topic:

• questions about music and IP, great FAQ about music IP
• the problem with music, famous and invaluable rant against major labels by steve albini (ironically, courney love borrowed a great deal from that article without giving credit when she wrote her famous anti-major label rant)

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic. html

if you're short on time, just skip to the math at the bottom.

More on this by Steve Albini ... http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic. html