Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: twisted-helices.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to twisted-helices.com.

Comments · 7

  1. Re:The RIAA acts in the interests if its constitua by Bob+Bitchen · · Score: 1 · on Don't Sever A High-Tech Lifeline for Musicians

    a fascinating if somewhat dated article

    That article is very interesting. It makes me feel sickened to read about ASCAP and their lawyers. They are using intimidation to protect and continue their business. Not many judges around these days willing to risk their life going against ASCAP. The only hope is that musicians pull their greedy heads out of their asses and tell ASCAP to piss off. Of course ASCAP is intmidating them too. It's going to take someone with real guts to turn the tables against ASCAP. I suppose informed consumers can help. I think what we're really going to see (as some else eluded to) is that the music industry will go through an upheaval and it will never be the same again. People are not getting their music the way they used to and the music industry is too heavy on their feet to do anything about it. But I sure don't care. I have essentially stopped buying music. I have enough already.

  2. The RIAA acts in the interests if its constituants by hillct · · Score: 4, Interesting · on Don't Sever A High-Tech Lifeline for Musicians
    In his editorial, Janis Ian says of the ruling the RIAA sought on behalf of it's membership:
    f this ruling stands, many smaller musicians will be hurt financially, and many will be pushed out of the music business altogether.
    This shouldn't suprise anyone. The RIAA doesn't care about small artists. It generates revenue for it's board of directors (elected by the artists that generate revenue for the RIAA) based on licenses paid for broadcast of the musig of the music of it's most popular member artists, who are the only ones who ever see any of the money collected by the cartel. This process is detailed in a fascinating if somewhat dated article by Harvey Reid. Definately worth a read.

    --CTH
  3. The didiculous appeal, and a simple solution by hillct · · Score: 2 · on RIAA Says Webcasting Royalties Are Too Low
    I found the RIAA background on their appeal to be quite amusing. It says in part:
    The Librarian of Congress was duped by Yahoo!'s self-serving testimony in the CARP. Yahoo testified in the CARP for one reason, and one reason only -- to lower the rate that would be paid for Internet-only transmissions.
    No Kidding! I can't imagine why the Yahoo testimony would act to advance their own self-interest...! I have to agree with the RIAA that CLEARLY the rates are too low because there are still a few internet radio companies in business. If that doesn't PROVE the RIAA isn't takind enough money off them, I don't know what would.

    The Solution:

    The RIAA was created to insure that artists were compensated for their work in a time when such compensation of indevidual artists for their work, would have otherwise been impossible. Times have changed. Artists no longer need the RIAA, or for that matter ASCAP or BMI but broadcasters need to provide the artists an alternative. I'm no fan of direct mail marketing but they have a trade association which acts to implement self governance where otherwise there would be legislation governing the industry.

    In the case of the Recording and broadcast industry, a private organization has stepped into that governmental role, and through extensive lobying efforts, actually has legislation on the books that backs their esentually userous behavior. IANAL, but I assume this legisltaion doesn't name the RIAA specifically, instead requiring that through some means, the artists must be compensated for their work. It follows that a new organisation could be established that managed escrow accounts for ALL artists, into which royalties would be paid by broadcasters, in an ammount a little more than they are paid by the RIAA, on a per broadcast basis. The accounts would be structured such that ONLY THE ARTISTS would have access to the funds. Any artists wishing to gain access to these funds would simply have to provide appropriate identification as the performer for which the funds were being held, then agree that these funds were being paid as appropriate royalties for the rebroadcast of their music by the broadcaster-members of the organization. Certainly issues atround copyright onership of the music (where in the eample it is assumed the artist owns the copyright to their music) would have to be addressed, but the point is simple. The RIAA keeps a large percentage of the funds they collect, supposedly, to dispurse to artists. Certainly a modern organization, using modern technologies, and without all the baggage of the RIAA would be able to handle this situation in a more efficient manner.

    --CTH
  4. Actually, it doesn't really support artists either by JebOfTheForest · · Score: 1 · on Several Boycotts Of RIAA Organizing
    If you read most accounts, non-multi-platinum artists don't really make much money from album sales at all. The reasons are many.

    For one, when a band signs a record deal, they are starving, love playing, and will do anything to keep doing it. Consequently, they get some crap deals. A lot of times, a band's contract will basically say that they get 5% of royalties, after recouping all recording and promotion costs, and only on full price sales. That sucks even worse than it sounds.

    When a big record label gets behind a band, they often spend over $1million on promotion alone, in the form of sponsored radio give aways, program director schmoozing, etc. Also, recording in a big studio with a big name producer costs a fortune.

    So before the band makes a cent, they have to pay all that back out of their 5%, which is probably less than a buck a record, maybe less than $.50. So they gotta sell a lot of records to even make a cent. I heard a pair of NY radio dj's say the other day that they get $.37 cents out of each copy sold. And that's only on full price sales. As soon as it gets marked down to super-saver or whatever, they get nothing.

    There's a lot of other really bad stuff about this set up. Say it's a three record deal and the first record doesn't do too well. The record label won't want to invest a million bucks in another record they are not confident in, so they won't pay for you to record another record or tour (plus you have nothing to tour behind). But you're stuck in a contract so you can't go anywhere else. This is the kind of thing that leads to "The Artist" instead of Prince, or AFX, Polygon Window, etc., instead of Aphex Twin. There's a really good article by Steve Albini called The Problem With Music. This is mirrored all over the place if there's any problem with that link. It has actual numbers, is a lot more thorough, and comes from someone with a whole lot more experience than I have. The punchline is, they work out numbers for a band that sells 250,000 copies of the record and then tours. Each band member ends up netting 4,031.25, owes the record company three more albums and $14,000 in royalties, and the music biz ends up ahead by 3 million dollars. I strongly suggest reading this article.

    There are other fscked things about the biz and what they do to bands. A kid I know's band was signed by I think Capitol. At first, everything was fine. They were psyched. "Hey, we get to be in a band as our job!" But then, the record company decided that this band should be more like the Foo Fighters, since they were selling a lot of records. They made the band wear different clothes, talk differently. They had producers change their sound. They could refuse, but then the record company will cut them off from touring/recording capital, and they are still locked in the contract. What are they supposed to do?

    What a lot of people don't realize is that bands make a huge proportion of their income from touring and merchandise. Take a band like Phish. They've had basically no radio success at all. They've released something like 12 albums, and only one has sold more than 1,000,000 copies, but due to their liberal "give your friends our tapes" policy, they have a huge following, because a lot of people were exposed to the band at no cost to them. They made something like $34 million touring last year.

    Frankly, I believe the increased exposure of network distributed free music will dramatically help a lot of bands, since they will be freed from being screwed by labels and will gain a huge amount of exposure (if they are good). This will lead to better tour attendance and more merchandise sales. This will ultimately help bands stay alive if they embrace it.

    jeb

    jboniakowski@nntllc.com

  5. Re:You missed the point... by joepeg · · Score: 1 · on At Last And At Length: Lars Speaks
    You all may wish to peek at this, the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) which states:

    No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

    as linked from here, The Free Music Philosophy (which is also very informative).

    Regardless. People, people, you are failing to realize what it is we are discussing. Music. Many /.ers are very logical and rational thinkers. We understand the world mantains seemingly infinite complexities, broken down to the simplest of parts. With this in mind, is it not safe to say music already exists around you. It is an natural thing, a being, in a sense, which we are merely manipulating to appease the emotional aspect of our sense of hearing. Music is not tangible thing.

    If so far this is too liberal in content for you, you may as well stop reading as it only gets worse from here.

    As expressed very nicely in The Music Philosophy (linked above), all musicians of today are blatantly stealing from their predecessors. This is not an ethical unpleasantry, rather a wonderful progression of this phenomenon which we arbitarily claim to be 'music'. If we agree that we take from those we favor, (who have in fact taking from those they admired ad infinitum) and implement it into our own 'art' as lars claims his music to be, then why does he not give rolaties to each of those before him who have influenced his style of playing in that lars did not 'invent' any of his drumming patterns, but claims they are his own, with impregnable certainty.

    Music is a natural therapy, one which requires definition from all of those who enjoy it. It is not a posession. It's not a television for fucks sake.

    It is very apparent that lars has lost, or never had, any true love for his expression of music. If he did, he would find any means possible to share it with anyone and everyone willing to explore it.

    Instead, he has put entire focus on the abolition of a very powerful, medium, a medium which has overwhelmingly spread the music, for an obvious, and very disturbing reason, he wishes to shelter.

    Sure, the media has exploited Metallica, raping the the public with their conformist ideals (trivial) so we all have metallica shoved down our throats already, but this is another issue.

    Why has music become a matter of money? Why is it so important to lars that their hard work be BOUGHT AND SOLD for outrageous expenses on one medium.

    This is a horrible thing. We must return to our roots. We must cherish those cultures of today who have no price on music. Those who beat their drums with passion and uncontrollable enthusiasm while dancing wildy around eachother. It is a love of music, not the disgusting thing we have made it out to be.

    I say fuck metallica. I say fuck the radio, mtv, labels, and the entire industry.

    I am a musician, a musical scientist. I play to feed my own desires and explore this unexplainable natural high. When others get as much satisfaction as, or possibly more than, myself, then I know I have done a good thing. I continue to explore and benefit those who revel in it. I DON'T do any of this to be a fucking rock star and lose all visibilty of the reason why there is such a thing as a rock star.

    It is because music is natural. We fiend for it like a drug and go to unreasonble measures to get our next fix. We are human.

    The industry is the dirty dealer, giving you a mere taste to get you hooked, and laugh as you do these unreasonable things to get more. Napster and the likes are our sources of freedom, in more ways than you realize.

    Die lars.

  6. Re:GPL and Music by KevinDumpsCore · · Score: 2 · on Jazz++ 4.0 Released!

    Yes, check out the Free Music movement. There is also the Open Content license. IIRC, Richard Stallman is working on a similiar license.

    But music differs from source code in one aspect. It can be performed. If I play your GPLed song in a place where people pay to get in, is that commercial use? (Or is it considered a service?) Do I have to acknowledge everyone who contributed to the song from the stage? Do I have to put all the rest of my songs in the same set under the same license? Do I have to tape the show and make it available for modification?

  7. Free Music Philosophy by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3 · on Making Music With Linux: We're Getting There ...
    I may have to add some sort of license in the future if only to maintain that the music was originally created by me." The Design Science License has been developed by Michael Stutz as a method by which copyleft can be applied to things other than software.
    Check out Ram Samudrala's Free Music Philosophy.