Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Calls Settlements Proof that Education is Working
MattW writes "AP reports that the RIAA has filed the next 80 lawsuits. The article contains a dumbfounding quote from Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA: 'The fact that the overwhelming majority of those who received the notification letter contacted us and were eager to resolve the claims is another clear signal that the music community's education and enforcement campaign is getting the message out.' Just for clarification, Cary, all it proves is that monopolistic giants can, in fact, afford to pay lawyers more than average people, and so said people are easily bullied. But nice try." It warms my heart to know that artists will be getting all the money that's due to them. Musicians always look so poor when I see them on television. Finally, they can afford the lifestyle they deserve.
Proof that people are too dumb to just tie the problem up in court
Since these lawsuits being filed are obviously the huge monopolistic giant against the little guy, and the little guy obviously can't AFFORD to defend himself, doesn't that mean something is fundamentally broken here?
Isn't it just as obvious that 20 corporate lawyers against a single public defender simply ISN'T fair?
Hello? President Bush? Senate? Congress? Can you hear us?
If you haven't seen this week's new episode of South Park, you might want to catch it on Comedy Central. Basicaly, there is a stab at the music industry in general. Cartman starts a Christian rock band just to exploit it for the money (calling the music simple and bad), and a "ghost of Christmas present" of sorts shows the kids that because they downloaded a song, certain musicians won't be buying their 3rd gold plated Rolls Royce. Or something to that effect.
Not the best episode they've done, but certainly an open statement to the RIAA.
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
It's more like intimidation and fear mongering by the RIAA......
Compared to the average person, corporations have effectively infinite resources, so of course people aren't defending themselves.
All the same, I wish someone would fight the charge based on the lack of hard evidence. I'm referring to the easily spoofable search results that the RIAA is using as "proof" for its case. All we would need is one positive result and this lawsuit war would be over.
"Hello? President Bush? Senate? Congress? Can you hear us?"
Sorry, they only listen to money.
The RIAA website was down, couldn't view the website, couldn't ping it or anything. I can't help but wonder if maybe the artical and the RIAA's server problems were somehow connected.
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
"Musicians look so poor when I see them on television"
As an amateur musician I'm sad to read that. Actually most musicians have a hard time getting the ends together. Unfortunately, the 'selection' process of the record companies doesn't really help that problem, since they select more on sex appeal and neutralness than on musical abilities or originality.
For those musicians who are original and are making what I like to call "real music", it would be nice to have a little extra money to get their music out to the public.
This is a replacement signature.
Isn't it just as obvious that 20 corporate lawyers against a single public defender simply ISN'T fair?
Public Defender?
I believe these are civil cases, not criminal, so I'm not certain that public defenders are even provided. If you don't have the money for a lawyer, good luck.
That's why some people refer to the US "Legal system" instead of "Justice System".
I'm not claiming that you have the right to make copies of things you buy, or listen to your music where you want, or go to the toilet during commercials ... Uhh, wait a minute, there is something clearly wrong here ..
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
that on the RIAA website the WHOLE of the front page (latest news) is covered with information about the court cases etc, they even have a complete Piracy Section, it makes me wonder how they're helping artists when all they're doing is sueing the people who (might) buy their albums. Surely they shouldn't be doing stuff like helping young artists find work?
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
... the slightly-used "Mission Accomplished!" banner hanging outside his office.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
CowboyNeal wrote "It warms my heart to know that artists will be getting all the money that's due to them. Musicians always look so poor when I see them on television. Finally, they can afford the lifestyle they deserve."
I would have a lot less problem paying for music and even paying in these settlements, but you know damn well that the artists aren't even going to see 1 cent on the dollar... This is just going to pay record companies.
More likely right into Cary Sherman's pocket...
DJMD - The fourth man - Planetary
Although I am in no way defending the lawsuits, stealing music is still stealing. It is bad karma and not something we should aprove of. If you want the music pay the price, if not look elsewhere.
Is bullshit. Digital media have cut the legs away from traditional music distribution, and the RIAA are just trying to stop the sea from rising. They could sue the entire populace, it will change nothing.
Music - like technology, writing, science - represents human heritage and human culture and the era where small groups control access to this for commercial gain is over, finished, and now it's just time to bury the stinking corpse and go for a real party.
There are so many good ways of rewarding creative effort, it's a pollution of the concept of "art" to pretend that money is all that matters. Luckily, almost no-one is fooled.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Congratulations, you've finally woken up to the reality of te broken existance that has been in place in this country for the 22yrs I've been around and continues growing worse.
Don't cry to the polititions, they are mere puppets for the corporations.
All nusicians that lose revenue to Kazza are rich. Look at the sharing lists of people who they go after. Do you see any little indi artists there?
I'm the best IRC client ever.
I still say that I won't buy any more music until I can DL it directly from a musician's site and know that they are collecting the money, not thier pimp. I have no problem paying for talent, but I do have a problem paying a promoter. Why don't more artists try to distribute music this way? Until that day comes I will just dust off the tape recorder and rip from the radio, old school. XM + Recorder = Mad beats.
Do you think being represented by an organization that puts millions into suing your customers on your behalf is going to help you get rich? Most struggling musicians I know embrace file trading as a way to get their music out there. If the RIAA succeeded in shutting down open p2p programs and scaring people away from downloading free music, the smaller musicians without big label backing would have a harder time getting the music out, just like they have a harder time getting it out on Internet and commercial radio stations since we've legislated our way out of choice and diversity. There's hardly any small stations online or on the air that you can actually go knock on a door and talk to someone about playing your music. It's not about all musicians being rich- it's about the RIAA only representing the outdated distribution channel, which only benefits the richest artists, if any. Even the "rich" ones aren't always rich - ever wonder how many of those Hummers, Jets and Mansions are either owned by the record label or a bank? By the time the artist has the promotional and production costs taken out of their royalties, there often isn't anything left. The big labels own their asses. I don't think his comment was meant to imply that all musicians are rich - I think it more likely that he was making the point that the majority of artists that are backing the RIAA and anti-customer actions are filthy, stinking rotten rich, or at least so they think.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
If the RIAA believe their "lessons" are doing good, does that mean more will be spawned and they believe they are correct in this?
That's it, I'm going to steal a car and get away with it, and because I got away with it that makes it right. So says the RIAA any way.
With the basis of the lawsuits when even the musicians are blasting the lawsuits as wrong.
" It warms my heart to know that artists will be getting all the money that's due to them. Musicians always look so poor when I see them on television. Finally, they can afford the lifestyle they deserve."
Just because the RIAA are using shitty tactics, dosen't mean you should be allowed to infringe copyright. It's currently illegal and if Musicians *are* getting a raw deal, then they should get the money that is owed to them.
Also remember that all the props you see on MTV are funded by the record company. Why do you think rappers need to start their own clothing company?
Musicians that you get to see on TV that is.
Many musicians struggle on in obscurity, the cost of equipment and getting publicity taking everything they make out of music. Others, like myself just walk away from it all and get an office job.
Even those that you see on TV aren't really benefitting, with the exception of the few real superstars (Eminem, Madonna etc). The record companies like their charted artists to look rich, so they dress them up in expensive clothes and send them to flashy parties in fancy cars -- then send them the bill for it.
The average artist incurs more costs over the term of his contract than his earnings. As a result of "being in debt" to his record company, the company can then demand that the artist does not record for anyone else, even though they don't want to record him themselves. The artist then cannot record and loses his chosen way of earning a living.
Don't blame the artists for the work of the RIAA: we're as much victims of the music industry cartels as the consumer.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Be beligerent...
Send them a doodle of an octopus giving them the finger 8 times.
I'd suggest that we all break into record stores and destroy the CDs, but insurance would cover it and we gain nothing.
No, it's easier to settle than to fight. If I got the letter, the one condition of my settlement would be that I get an invoice of who gets what ammount of the payment. Then I'd call up all the artists on the list and let them know that I'm glad my 35 cents contributed to their new Ferarri.
Maybe it's time to start selling a dead-man switch for our PCs. Just use an open WAP as your switch and you will be covered. When they sue you, thermite your hard-drives and then claim that someone else used your WAP to download that stuff...
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Musicians always look so poor when I see them on television. Finally, they can afford the lifestyle they deserve.
First, musicians won't get the money they deserve. The minions and scumbags around them will get the lions share. Second, do you like music and enjoy listening to recordings? If so you should pay for that convenience. Artists SHOULD get paid commensurate with the amount of people they make happy. Top 40 stars are listened to by millions of people and thus should make millions of dollars. Alternative underground bands may have 100s or 1000s of followers and should make money that supports that level. Just because Cowboy Neal does not believe that creating something that will make 1000s of people sit and relax and listen for a couple of minutes is a worthwhile endeavour doesn't mean that it isn't. I consider slashdot to be my source of "press" on these issues, it would be nice to see it treated as such. Artists deserve their licensing to be respected just like programmers do wether you agree with the license model or not.
Cary Sherman has stated before the money collected will go to the enforcemnt process, not the artists or even their masters, err labels...
LA Times said in this story "The proceeds from any trials or settlements will be kept by the RIAA to cover the cost of its anti-piracy campaigns, rather than being used to compensate labels and artists."
Its only a small minority of musicians that get the 'blessing' of the RIAA, and thus make it big.
Most just barely make a living.
However this does NOT justify what the RIAA is doing, I just hate to see real musicians lumped into the same group as the 'superstars' ( i.e. sellouts )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I don't see why it's any more broken than having the whole police force and judiciary on your back after committing, say, a murder. Not that I'm likening copyright abuse to murder, but the point is it's ALWAYS "against the little guy" because it's the little guy who does the stuff.
Nice server you've got here, shame if anything happened to it...
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
I loved those Napster flash cartoons! We used to play them over and over (while downloading) and LOFAO. I still have them tucked away...somewhere. Beer, good.
it warms my heart to know that artists will be getting all the money that's due to them. Musicians always look so poor when I see them on television. Finally, they can afford the lifestyle they deserve.
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
Correction. They are the ones who make the RIAA rich.
__
Thou hast besquirted me, O leotarded one.
...the "It's copyright infringement, not theft" post. All others should be appropriately moderated redundant.
Personally, I'm waiting for them to screw up and sue one of their own. I can't wait for "Michael Bolten gets busted for sharing Puff Daddy mp3s" to show up in the news. ;)
If you mean the RIAA, then I agree with you. I haven't bought a music CD for almost two years.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
That's not what this is about. It's not about the musicians at all you dim wit. It about the corporations that are hiding behind the musicians and art in general with regard to this issues. Get educated before making comments like this because you are not helping if you are as ignorant as the RIAA.
Not entirely flamebait, please finish before modding down...
Mainstream music sucks anyway. Get over it and stop downloading it for the simple fact that it sucks.
That said, if you actually want to support an artist, don't ever buy their albums. Instead, go to their shows and buy their merchandise. Most of the time, this money goes directly to them. This is almost always true for small bands on small labels. I haven't bought a record in 6 years because I know not a single cent is going to the artist unless I buy that album straight from them or it was DIY released. Instead, all the money I would have spent on records, I use to buy shirts, stickers, posters, pins, and what the hell ever straight from the band when I go to see them.
---------------------------
Sorry to sound harsh, but I prefer to chose on my own _who_ educates me and _on what_. The sentence about "the RIAA educating the music community" just gets on my nerves.
I signed up for the RIAA Do-Not-Call List.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
What if there was a Software Development Artists Association that ran rampant throughout the US finding people who shared the applications and sued them? Would /. be as quick to scorn that action? Would we say "Heck with SDAA, we shouldn't pay for software from large companies." Wouldn't that affect a significant percentage of the people using this site?
I know I don't like the idea of the code I write for the company that pays me being used without compensation. If you don't want to pay, there are Open Source alternatives. We should consider that if we don't want to pay for music, we should go to the local pub or find indie music instead.
I have a lot of problems with the music industry from their legal tactics to their pricing (Seriously, it's 10-20 songs, for $20.00, that's nuts.) but they're still following the basic principle that we're not allowed to steal.
Show me an RIAA member-signed artists who didn't recieve millions of dollars as an advance at the very minimum and I'll start to believe you. Even the shittiest, most idiotic, mouth breathing retards of "artists" have millions in the bank and a million dollar house. The poor dears.
That comment was pretty redundant, wouldn't you say? It cut-and-pastes part of the FAQ. So you deserved the "redundant" moderation; it was just on the wrong post.
Artists dont see a cent of this settlement money!
The RIAA recycles the cash to pay for more law suits with it. This whole situation is nothing but lawers getting paid to fuck with the common people.
--dan
Don't get me wrong, the RIAA and the MPAA are a bunch of bloated, jack-booted thugs that I would dearly love to see eradicated from the face fo the Earth. However, I just don't understand why the justification/sentiment is still so popular that when stealing music and movies it is somehow in response to the decadence of the RIAA, MPAA, and its "members" of actors and musicians.
Just steal the stuff and be done with it. If you feel the need to justify your actions when there is no real judgement (as in no judgement that matters, like in a court of law) levied against you than clearly you have internal guilt issues and should sit down and think things over. Stop being pathetic losers. Stop trying to justify your choices. Stop confusing entertainment with life and liberty. If you don't like their tactics then don't support them. Refuse to see the Matrix and Return of the King. Refuse to buy the next 1337 music album from "Cool Seattle Rip Off Band #39371." I can't remember the last time I went to a movie or obtained a music CD (bought, had a buddy burn it, etc). Have some balls, and stop being little whining bitches. Do something about the problem, don't make the problem worse. (No, war of attrition is not part of the solution and YES, your dollar is your vote of approval when you give it out)
Stop being whining bitches
Yup Exactly my point. The only CD's I have purchased in the last 5 years have either been from the Artists directly or from other countries.
that we can't call Linux some form of music and have the RIAA go after SCO with the vigor they are chasing senior citizens and 13 year old girls with.
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
Funny, because you a dumbass with grade-school sense of humour.
Welcome to the United States of America.
In order to facilite your integration in to the USA we ask you sign this document donating you soul to the capitalistic corporations of the United States.
Please also give up all inclinations of justice and freedom. Due to, thoughts no longer exist in the USA, the corporation and capitalist found them too much of a nuisance to there way of life.
oh yes and over here is were you will receive your daily treatment of propaganda, we will continue to monitor you till you fully believe anything the Cooperation's say including the puppet run government. Please be warned if you do not assilmate correctly we will brand you as a terrorist and dispose of you in any way we see fit. we recommend you stay in the north west of the Empire until you grow accustom to your life. have a nice day
_________
Well if the RIAA and MPAA as well as other corperations get there way, it will be like this or likly worse.
if you slowly raise the temprature you can boil a Frog alive. but you can deep fry a Yank if you just buy Governent officals..
Don't they realise that these tactics are about as fruitful as SCO's efforts? I mean a sword has a double edge. History teaches us that the sword will indeed swing the other way and I hope it chops the head off of these several snakes.
No Hydra references allowed, These bastards are indeed a contemporary threat that will suffer the fate of the TWX industry. (They used to be the best in the business)
Anybody remember TWX?
Didn't think so.
use freenet and there lawyers will be converted to cryptographic specialists... :)
I'll never buy another CD produced by them. I don't dpwnload music - I just hate them enough that I want to see them ruined.
Public defenders aren't obligated to provide attorneys for civil cases.
I'm sure though, that there is some lawyer out there that would be willing to work for free on a high profile case like this, especially if they think it's for a good cause.
Unless of course, the lawyers think they can't win... because after all copyright violation is against the law.
evil adrian
On this day in history, Benito Mussolini founded a new type of political party in Italy, Fascism. He described fascism as "Government run by corporations".
Also - in response to the article, Big Louie, a collector for the Genovese Crime family, said that the Mafia education program is also working. "Hey, I only need to shake em down, maybe rough em up once. They cough the cash fast. I guess they don't want to end up like Big Pussy".
Is that plead to W a legitimate request, or a feverish reaction out of frustration, realizing corrupt state we're in? Always lead by example.
that is not yours. Downloading music online is technically copying, not stealing.
© 2004 The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Don't cry to the polititions, they are mere puppets for the corporations.
HOLD ON!!! Do you really mean that politicians in the US are not the representatives of the people, elected by the people, to serve the people? OH MY GOD! What an outrageous claim! You unpatriotic scum! Arrest him! He's a terrorist! Quick, before he spreads his disease!
Daniel
Carpe Diem
Do you really think $20 for an album is a lot of money? You being a coder I'd hope you could relate to musicians who usually practice all their lives, use very expensive equipment and put a LOT of creative work into their albums.
Of course if an album sells by the millions the profits are big. But then the music's got to be crap anyway. =)
Just a point of view from someone who has released two albums and distributed them independently.
Back when the Evil Corporate Giants tried to deal with their purported problem by shooting the messenger (Napster, ISPs, the Internet at large), you all said this was wrong and they should go after the real offenders. Now they are doing that and you object? Pah.
The situation is complex and this will work to simplify it. Eventually some of the defendants will choose to go to trial and make the Giants prove their case, which should expose some real data (as opposed to FUD^Wspeculation) about the nature and magnitude of the problem. There will be some chain-reaction suits when consumers stung because they had not bought what they thought they had, turn around and sue third parties for deceiving them and thus exposing them to legal liability. Some genuine thieves will be punished and that should decrease the incidence of such theft somewhat. Then maybe we'll be able to judge just how much of the music industry's current situation is actually due to theft and how much to making products that no longer appeal.
I'd very much like to see some of these cases go to trial. I think we'd learn a lot. But we'd all have to give up some of our prejudices. Wouldn't that be a shame.
Hello, there is a 600 lb gorilla in the room. What is this education crap? The RIAA is not educating us. What they have been trying to do is brainwash us.
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Education Ed`u*ca"tion (?; 135), n. L. educatio; cf. F.
'education.
The act or process of educating; the result of educating, as determined by the knowledge skill, or discipline of character, acquired; also, the act or process of training by a prescribed or customary course of study or discipline; as, an education for the bar or the pulpit; he has finished his education.
When the result of your 'education' is a small decrease in the 60 million criminals, you are not educating. What the RIAA is preaching, not teaching, is no longer prescribed or customary.
The RIAA has outlived its usefulness and its arguments are taking on a more and more dangerous tone. They should be working on servers and other electronic music delivery systems.
It warms my heart to know that artists will be getting all the money that's due to them. Musicians always look so poor when I see them on television. Finally, they can afford the lifestyle they deserve.
You ignorant, trolling jackass. The ones you see on television are the rare success stories, typically groomed and media-hyped all the way into a specific market niche.
And even then, the contracts are still far in the publishers favor.
(of course I'll get modded down for this, but that was just asinine.)
That my friend is my greatest achievement. Nobody will ever be able to counter my typo-fu!
No, I'm sorry. Congress is too busy passing themselves raises in the face of record unemployment and telling the RIAA to threaten first and then file court papers so they hear less whining from the /. folks who pester them. Oh yeah, scrounging money for a whopping $12,000 to go to the families of each American soldier killed in Iraq. Oh. And I think they matched $100,000 Canadian to help contribute in the moving of a killer whale down from Canadian waters.
/. you either don't vote, or the cost benefit ratio for getting your vote is too low to justify working at it. Am I over-generalizing? Certainly. But politics comes down to numbers and just think how many of your representatives in Washington think the way you do, and also have the guts to turn down money or votes to stand behind their beliefs.
/bitter.
I believe the white house is thinking of new ways to award Haliburton contracts that nobody else happened to bid on because they weren't quite public.
They CAN hear, they just don't WANT to. All they want is is swag and to be re-elected, and quite frankly, if you're on
Give yourself 10 minutes without google and see if you can come up with a list of 20 names.
Oh, yeah, no public defender in civil cases. Basically by the time you step into the courtroom, you've already spent more than you would if you had settled unless you choose to "represent yourself". I somehow doubt pre-paid legal will win your case if they are against lawyers who get paid a lot more.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
"I still don't understand how I can be modded redundant"
God hates you.
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Another perfect example of how the industry fails to understand consumers, be it those paying their bloated salaries or those being sued.
--
Education != intimidation. If the RIAA were to hit me with a > $1 million lawsuit you're damn right I will roll over and play dead. I have a family to concern myself with and my family will not benefit from me fighting the case in court.
--
Theft is theft. Stealing from RIAA members does not make you Robin Hood. You are not stealing from the rich to give to the poor. You are stealing from the rich to save yourself a couple bucks. One can't blame the RIAA and its members for wanting to stop theft on a large scale, whether they are the root of the problem or not.
--
The RIAA and its members are, of course, the root of the problem. RIAA members are starting to see this, though. Proof of this is just how many of them have signed up with iTMS, Napster etc. a number of the record labels are seeing that money can be made online and are embracing this new revenue stream. $0.99 for a song is great. Perhaps the RIAA is seeing its end coming and is trying to go out with a bang.. who knows?
--
CowboyNeal... Damn did that little voice inside your head not step up and say "Hey dumby, don't write that, it will make you sound like a dumbass"?
--
Problems with current online music sales.
tinfoilmedia
And what exactly would you have them do?
The fact is your braking the law and the RIAA is well within its rights to sue you.
The only thing they can do to help you is make it legal to share music.
But that will never happen, not because they are puppets of the corperations, but because artists have rights too.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
2. Offer to settle for $amount (where $amount < $cost_of_lawsuit)
3. Profit!!
Finally a business that "gets it".
Seriously, when you can settle for $2500, who's going to challenge the accusation in court? I'm pretty sure that if you bring this to a lawyer (which I'm not) they'll advise you to settle.
Even if you didn't do anything, the RIAA got you by your Kazaa name and an IP address. You use an app which has sharing as its main function. Even if you can prove you didn't share, no court's gonna say the RIAA was wrong in sueing you and thus is quite unlikely to return you your court costs. By the time you ever reach that point you're well over the settlement amount.
So much for justice in the USA...
Cooper
--
Paranoids are simply people who have all the facts.
- Transmetropolitan -
Based on the RIAA's arguments for initiating these lawsuits, I would think that the only "proof" that they are working would be an increase in CD sales.
Has that happened yet?
Read any good sonnets lately?
"It warms my heart to know that artists will be getting all the money that's due to them. Musicians always look so poor when I see them on television. Finally, they can afford the lifestyle they deserve."
Um, the artists get nothing, squat, fuck-all from this process. If the point of the RIAA is to protect the copyrights of and benefit the artists they sure have a funny way of seeing that they're compensated properly-if at all. None of the previous settlements (Napster, MP3.com, etc.) have benefitted the artists whatsoever - only some nebulous cooalition of businessmen practicing a racketeering protection scheme with a difficult to prounounce acronym.
"Look, Smithers! I'm Davy Crockett!"
Stop confusing entertainment with life and liberty.
Life, liberty, and happiness (property), are the three inalienable rights according to the Declaration of Independence (which they got from John Locke, et al.)
Therefore, when you are holding a cd in your hand; while you only hold a license to that property, you are entitled to the fair use of it. The person who owns that property retains their right to it.
This is very much indeed an issue of life, liberty, and happiness (property).
I do agree with you that many people have the wrong approach to this issue. I think that the copyright laws are too skewed towards people with a lot of money and big lawyers; when they should exist to protect all original works, regardless of how much money the person who made it makes. Read the US Code on copyright law sometimes and you'll see what I mean.
I also feel that fair use laws should not be restricted in anyway (DMCA bad). While I do not own the property on a cd when I am listening to it; I sure as hell have the right to make myself copies of it in any form I like. Restricting the consumers ability to enjoy that which they are licensing will only exist to hurt those we are licensing from.
Imagine leasing a car and then being told you can't drive into certain parts of town.
What?
I still say that I won't buy any more music until I can DL it directly from a musician's site and know that they are collecting the money, not thier pimp. I have no problem paying for talent, but I do have a problem paying a promoter.
If there is no promoter for the band, how likely are you to have heard of them? Take one of your favorite bands, remove all the buzz generated in any mainstream press, remove most of their fanbase which was garnered by the promoter initially, and tell me you would still have found that band and liked them?
The promoter does not work for free.
A couple years ago I said that the reason people are using file sharing is because there are no alternatives for people that want their music in that way. And that if someone provided me a way to easily, cheaply purchase an entire album or single song, with a quick download, with very limited DRM that gave me freedom to use the music, then that person shall have my money... Thank you Apple iTunes.
look, i've been in bands for roughly 13 years now. any musician who actually makes the mistake of believing the RIAA is acting in the best interests of anyone other than the music PUBLISHERS is either a) ignorant of the situation or b) ludicrously naive.
now, music PUBLISHERS, in my opinion, are at the heart of this problem. this bullying litigation, these big corporations claiming your brain and your ears are their property. well maybe they don't claim that quite yet. just wait.
intellectual property laws need a major overhaul, especially in the arena of artistic works. as far as i know, there is virtually no difference, legally, between say, a microchip schematic and the song "What Do I Get" by the Buzzcocks. complete "ownership" of both can be bought and sold.
this is where artists get screwed.
since the artists, generally, are private individuals, they don't have the means to reach an audience large enough to make a living from their music. this is where the large multinational corporation steps in. they promise the exposure and distribution needed to move units far beyond the artist's capabilities. all they ask in return, of course, is the sole publishing rights to the music.
at this point the musician is a slave. the artist can't even legally burn his own CD, or send MP3s to friends.
even worse, if the corporation decides that the CD isn't selling well enough, they can decline to print another run of CDs. and of course since they own the publishing rights, it's illegal to make copies of that music through anyone else. i've seen lots of bands who go on tour and can't even sell their own CDs at their shows because their label didn't want to spend the money to print them. I've seen an established band with half a dozen full-length albums out unable to sell a single CD to a sold out audience because of a publishing deal gone bad. i've seen a band sell 40,000 CDs and not see one cent from their label.
the way to solve this problem is simple. intellectual property laws are too strong. first, in the case of artistic works, make it illegal for ownership OR exclusive publishing rights to be transferred away from the creator of the art himself. with one simple stroke, the power with which the music "industry" has imprisioned the musicians would dissolve. there would actually be some power in creating something rather than simply buying the rights to that creation. a musician, unhappy with his current label, would actually have some leverage. moving to a new label wouldn't mean abandoning the rights to all his previous work.
in addition, when an artist dies, the intellectual property rights shoud die with him. none of this nonsense with the estate of pablo picasso sueing websites for posting pictures of Guernica a good 70 years after he painted it. "the estate of pablo picasso" didn't paint the damn thing. it's just a team of lawyers trying to get paid.
even my band's mascot, Feseral Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, a republican, made a speech not long ago stating that intellectual propety laws had become too restrictive. they have crossed the line and become a hindrance rather than a tool for the progress of modern society.
of course, it's a self-perpetuating problem. monetarily, and therefore politically, the publishers outweigh the musicians by a wiiiiiide margin precisely BECAUSE of these unjust intellectual property laws.
i wish i could see a brighter future for musicians, but until then i'll continue to operate outside the boundaries of this music industry.
i could live a little longer in this prison
The RIAA is solely concerned with music under coyright to their member studios. They don't give a shit what you do with the 2 and a half hour opus you've recorded in your basement with your 5-assed monkey drummer. Your arguements would carry more weight if you stuck to the facts, instead of erecting strawmen such as this, claiming the RIAA want's to stop anyone copying any music anywhere for any reason.
Please stop using the "the musicians/actors/RIAA/MPAA make so much money they can afford to be stolen from" defense. It's utterly ridiculous. There are plenty of legitimate arguments against the RIAA, MPAA, DCMA, et al. It's not your place (or mine) to decide whether someone who has legal rights is rich enough for your poor, pitiful soul to violate them. That is plain and simple communism, where everyone gets the same amount, no matter how hard they work, or based on any other factors (luck, demand, etc.). In case you hadn't noticed, such a system doesn't work. I for one would rather live in capitalism (although not quite pure, to avoid being actually abused by big money--middle ground is usually more reasonable), even when there are individuals without talent who hit the big time, because I always have a shot at working hard and getting ahead. In a communist state, there is no big time...hard work, luck or anything.
The whole argument smacks of jealousy, and detracts from the legitimacy of the loss of rights we actually do have being taken away. And remember that there are people on skid row who think YOU make too much and breaking into your fancy home and relieving you of your TV or computer so they can put food on their table is justifiable.
Xesdeeni
Actually I would wager to say that a majority of RIAA signed artists are poorer than you or I. Since the RIAA holds all the power, they're the ones who decide what your contract is like. Unless you're a bid-war band (good luck with that) then the chances are you have no say as to what goes into your contract. Most advances aren't millions of dollars.. I'd guess more in the range of 250k. Also keep in mind that you have to pay for your recording/promotion out of that advance, as well as your living expenses for the duration of the recording process, etc. Oh, did I forget to mention that YOU HAVE TO PAY IT BACK. Here's a little news for you: Unless your album goes multi-platinum you're going to be in debt as an 'artist'.
You don't have to believe me, but just do a little research and you'll find that what I say is true. The RIAA has no qualms with screwing people, be they artists or customers.
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Me either. I buy a CD only if it is directly sold from the artist or their website(which is mainly indie stuff, of course). I have no problem supporting artists by going to see them live, as the portion of the money that actually goes to them is much greater (though the recording industry has their hands in this as well). They need to start concentrating on selling what you cannot digitally reproduce as yet, the complete experience of a live performance, rather than attempting to make money off of an artificially created monopoly on information in a time when that is no longer possible. The wonder is that we ever allowed the idiots to talk us into the idea that information content, not just a physical product holding it, a paperback for instance, should be protected by law. Maybe they weren't the only idiots.
LOL - That explains so much! :-)
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
I also agree with the arguments that the real artists are not rich, and often struggle. This is because the record companies do not want to take risks on lesser known artists, until they get air play, and people want to her them.
At least here in Australia, indi artists have the national radio station Triple J, which constantly prompts new Australian music. Usually they get air play on Triple J, and then the commercial radio stations start to pick them up.
Examples include Machine Gun Felatio, Gerling, Rocket Science, Grinspoon, Pacifier (Shiad), Frenzal Rhomb, Something for Kate.
The artists deserve the money, not ARIA or RIAA or Record Company Execs. I would rather buy CD's direct from the artist where possible, and always support them at their live gigs, where they make the most of their money (and again not much).
What I really detest paying for is one hit wonders, where they try to make you purchase a whole CD (which costs $29.95 AUD), for one good song, and a load of crappy filler. They are usually manufactured crap anyway.
Third of Nine
Well, um, yes.
Bush and his cronies are far too busy indulging in international bullying to take any notice of bullying in their own country. Come to think of it, since they are only too quick to kick the heads of any other nation which they don't like, why should they be in the least bit concerned about the little people?
except for the relative handful of people in this world, most of the posting here is done by peeps who have read the (usually biased) news articles and joined the mob against the RIAA. thats fine, you are entitled to however ignorant you may or may not be. the thing that bothers me most is that a lot of people here seem to think that this justifies downloading music they didn't pay for. understand something here. this is not a service established by those who hold rights to the music. it is not OK!!! take your stand, hate the RIAA, but have some common sense. one last point... maybe the RIAA is "bullying" people into settling, but i haven't seen a case go to court yet and that says a lot. innocent people don't like to settle, and i don't believe that the only people being sued are those that live in public housing. get a clue. like it or not, they are right.
The second problem I have is how distinguishing downloading a song from the internet is illegal but recording a song from the radio isn't. That can never be fully explained to me in a way that i would say "Damn, you're right. How could i ever group those two things as seperate instances". As far as i care, if it's on the radio, it's public domain.
No fear that Congress will step in to discourage this kind of corporate behavior. Our government is pretty much owned by corporate interests now. Any connection with average Americans is nothing more than a photo op.
In a way it's good. Now Britney will be able to afford those new breast implants!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Ok, I'm going to tell everybody my idea on the new music business model. Feel free to tell me how stupid the idea is if you feel the need to, I'm just looking for some feedback on the idea.
By my understanding, the music industry is based upon the idea of scarcity and manufacturing. There are a limited number of CD's out there that cost money to produce, therefore the CD's must cost quite a bit to make up for the capitol investment required. Like toll roads that were supposed to become free after the bond was paid off, the record companies just decide to keep making the same profit margin once they have passed their break even point so they can become happy and rich and drive Lambos. Good for them.
The fact is, thanks to digital media, there is no longer a scarcity issue. It costs, what 2 cents to copy and share a music file (counting electricity and bandwidth) and there is no manufacturing involved so the idea of having to pay for something that is ubiquitous like the air seems insane to people who understand the new model.
But if there was an air making guild that was told my their customers that they wouldn't pay for air anymore - they would eventually quit making air - a poor metaphor that could be used to describe the situation between musician and listener. So how do we make music free (as in speech) but not free (as in beer)?
Simple. Communism.
No, I'm not suggesting that the world give over to the one world order - but rather that it recognizes that new technologies render the old system useless in certain instances. Music is a prime example. Artists meet with record companies in the hopes of; not getting recorded, most have demos already; but getting distributed. Perhaps they also meet with them for drugs, but that is another story...
So P2P has the distribution thing down pat. Goodbye record distributor. Good riddance. Now all an artist needs is a recording/mixing studio (which can be bought without contract) and somehow to make money off the recording. Ignoring the obvious solution being "play more shows" (this shows by bias against people who are only recording artists...play a show for God's sake) how can an artist support himself with his recording?
Simple. Communism.
It would take no effort to create specialized ID tags for all music formats that include the standard Artist, Song, Album information; but also includes a link to the artists site and perhaps a bit torrent link or something equally identifying. You can add code to players that will tell you after you've listened to the song 1 or 2 or 20 times (I think this should be user configurable) to tell you that you have apparently enjoyed the song, perhaps you would like to donate a dollar to the band.
I call it StreetWare - cause you don't listen to street musicians without paying them, but you don't have to pay them much and it's totally voluntary.
If you already have the CD, you can click on a button that says you already paid. If the song sucks you can just erase it. If the song sucks but you need to keep it on because you want your wife/gf/slave to revel in it's suckiness you can click that you already paid or ask it to remind you later. If you are an asshole you can click on I paid anyway. If you met your wife at a club while the song was on and you played it at your wedding, maybe it's worth more to you than a dollar. The idea is that it just flips a bit on the local copy so a moral listener can keep track of it. It's not reported to anyone, it's is just like shareware but you can pay whatever you like. As much as I hate the phrase, the old communist mantra of "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" it kinda fits in this instance. I personally cannot make music, but my soul needs it - so I'll give what I can to the artists.
Artists have the benefit of exposure, which means they can play crappy clubs as opposed to Los Amigos (the restaurant). The added revenue would go straight to the artist and not be divided. Not to mention the numb
The guy apparently doesn't know the meaning of "sarcastic". Neither, apparently, do the people who labeled this "Insightful". If I had mod points today, I would have modded it down myself.
And that hurts the indie artists--if the pricing was done right, some of the people downloading the top40 stuff would buy the indie albums. The problem is similar to that faced by smaller software publishers--who will purchase a $50 imaging program when you can download Photoshop for free?
http://www.johnpbarton.com
;)
Brand new album from a guy you've never heard of...
New music. Good stuff.
There's a couple of MP3's you can download, and you can buy his CD if you like what you hear.
No RIAA!
No major label!
No bling bling!
1. If they were being harmed, maybe they'd have a point.
a) They say they're being harmed, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
2. They are not being deprived of ANYTHING.
a) They percieve, and assert, they are being deprived of a sale. Because we all know 100% of people who can have something that's lower quality, but free, will also infact pay retail for it (only better) if they can no longer get it for free.
b) Some of the available data implies they were benefiting from P2P, but just not how they would hope. People would buy the albums they found to be better, rather than those the RIAA members promoted most heavily.
3. The respect their rights should garner is, in fact, directly proportional to the respect they show give the rights of others.
a) Copyrights are now effectively unlimited.
b) I have recieved no remuneration for my "lost" rights.
c) They continue to buy politicians, and by proxy, my rights.
d) Historically, this sort of government for the rich, has been a good excuse to kill people.
They are getting off pretty light thus far.
QED.
I like many others, am only bound by the law in so far as there is a demand I answer to it when so called. In my behavior, I am bound by my own, rather stringent, ethical code of conduct. Call it a ridged code of personal honor. One of the guiding principals, is an unrealistic demand for certain symetries. Money, the law, they don't have an influence on my moral outlook. Nor should they.
Ultimately, your appeal is that of the sophist. That which a person can be convinced of is true. An empty promise if there ever was one.
Anyone infuriated with this discussion? Is there anything that's been established resembling a sort of 'open source' music project? If not, I declare myself founder and chairman. Let's get to work. Who's with me?
Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA: 'The fact that the overwhelming majority of those who received the notification letter contacted us and were eager to resolve the claims is another clear signal that the music community's education and enforcement campaign is getting the message out.'
WRONG!! It's a clear sign that mob style strong arm tactics work. Why not just put a horse's head in their bed.
I've succesfully defended myself against a large corporation with a large team of well paid lawyers. After all was said and done I actually profited from the experience (and I'm a man of modest means).
It turns out when you don't break the law, there is very little that even the best lawyers can do. That's the thing that just dumbfounds me, everyone on Slashdot wants to whine and complain about the system, but the fact is the people being sued broke copyright laws. They want to settle because they fundamentally KNOW they broke copyright law. Don't break the law, don't get sued. How much simpler can it be?
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
First, musicians won't get the money they deserve. The minions and scumbags around them will get the lions share.
... well, far, far less, needless to say. Is that fair? Doesn't the guy who puts in overtime painting the sets so they'll be dry for tomorrow's shoot deserve just as much pay as the trained monkey spouting lines (that someone else wrote for him) in front of the camera (which is being run by another low-paid professional)?
This point of view has often bothered me. I don't get it. First of all, it takes dozens, maybe even hundreds of people to produce an album. From the talent scouts, to the lyricists, marketers, sound engineers, cover artists, and everyone in between. If it takes 200 people (counting the actual artist) to produce an album, why should the artist get more than 1/200th of the profits? What makes them so deserving of this huge windfall, leaving the other 199 equally hard-working (and probably better educated and less drug-addicted) staff to fight over the remaining scraps?
Would you prefer the type of arrangement we see in the movie industry? Tom Hanks makes a movie and gets paid $20 million. The other 500 people involved in the movie get
So which situation would you prefer? Relatively equal distribution for all, including the artist (a la music), or grossly disproportionate distribution of the profits (a la movies)?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Give yourself 10 minutes without google and see if you can come up with a list of 20 names.
While I agree with your premise that most people don't know (enough) about their elected representatives, I thought it was also fair to say that not only do a great number of states have less than 20 Congress members total, but any given person only gets to vote for 3 (1 Rep from your district, 2 senators).
I'll see your James Walsh and raise you a Hillary Clinton and a Chuck Schumer, your bet.
Green-voting, republican-registered, socialist-libertarian.
When our government places the value of copyrights, which for almost all cases are simply forms of entertainment, above the value of patents, many of which actually lead to people living longer, healthier lives. What is the logic behind having patents last only 17 years (which is a reasonably length of time IMO), while copyrights last 95+ years?
It's no wonder that nobody respects copyright anymore. The whole system has become a bad joke.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
These days, musicians work damn hard in collaborative efforts to release work without the aid of huge corporations and are doing a pretty good job of it.
There are numerous bands doing the rounds successfully (i.e. as a decently paid job) who market/design/distribute thier own music.
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
Instead of RIAA suing people, it wouldn't be nice to use its resources to make (us aware of?) a service where someone can download mp3s legitimately (on a subscription or pay per song basis)? The mp3 format has many other merits than that the content,encoded with it, is most of the times free. Ripping cds someone owns isn't convenient and sometimes not possible due to copy protection these days.In addition the price of a song downloaded should be much cheaper than the price of a song in a cd for obvious reasons. I'm only aware of the iTunes service but that's too platform dependant.(I din't make a proper google research about such services but if there was a mainstream service like that IMHO I should already know it)
Perhaps we should call them Pubic Defenders, as we are getting royally screwed.
The only reason this appears to be working is because the RIAA has the endless funds to launch law suits against people who cannot afford a lawyer. In situations like this the RIAA should be forced into paying the leagle fees for both parties if the defendant cannot afford to hire their own lawyer.
select * from head_of_RIAA where clue > 0;
Segmentation fault
1535 pages dumped
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
Oh yeah....the artists.
I totally forgot about them with all this action from the "publisher" speaking on behalf of them...read an article by good old Richard Stallman and you'll realize copyright laws were orginally created in the printing age to protect the artists FROM THE PUBLISHER...not in the digital age where the RIAA thinks everyone is a criminal.
You're right, update the laws but not people's behavior. Artists are really not in the RIAA's tunnel view...just ppl's wallets.
Some aim to please, I aim to tease.
Neo dies after Smith takes him over. Trinity dies.
The Matrix is not destroyed.
Sorry to spoil it.
No, you apparently dont understand what i meant at all.
The sellouts are the ones that go ahead and sign up for the RIAA gravy train.. the ones that sell their souls to the industry for 'the fame and money'. ( and often destroy their work and talent in the progress )
its NOT that they sell their 'music'. its how they do it....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
First of all, while I know it's a pipe-dream, I really wish the /. "editors" would do some damned editing. The submitter's commentary on the post was stupid, pointless, and out of line. Save it for the threads, people!
:-) groundwork, let's take a step back and look at the whole picture. In other words, who wants what?
OK, now that I've got that off my chest...
There is a common misperception among almost everyone who talks about this and many other contentious issues. It goes like this:
1) The RIAA is evil, therefore I'm in the right.
2) The RIAA is behaving legitimately (maybe scummy, maybe not, but legitimately) and therefore file sharing is wrong.
It's always us vs. them, and one side HAS to be right, while the other HAS to be wrong. This just isn't the way it works. In reality, the RIAA has the legal and moral mandate to protect the works of their labels' signed artists. In reality, downloading music without compensation is bad. HOWEVER, in reality one must also realise that the RIAA is treating artists like dirt, and downloading doesn't practically take anything away from the artists. (or more to the point, for 99+% of the artists out there, buying their music doesn't provide any effective compensation)
Boycotting? Unless it's done en masse, it won't affect anyone--and if it did, then the RIAA would absorb the pain, by passing it on to the artists.
There are no real winning situations here--no moral high ground, no "he's wrong, so I must be right!"
Now that I've laid that (unquestionable!!!
Ideal case:
1) Consumers want artists' music.
2) Artists want compensation for their work.
3) The RIAA wants to facilitate that.
Real case:
1) Consumers want music for free.
2) Artists want compensation for their work.
3) The RIAA wants control of the industry (from both artist and consumer sides).
So what do we see? The artists' role doesn't change. The consumers' role has become more self centred, but ultimately isn't conceptually different (but more on that in the next exciting paragraph!). The RIAA is the role that's changed the most: they are no longer acting in the interests of the musicians or the consumers. They are acting on their own behalf, and aiming at complete control over who listens to what, and when. THIS is the fundamental flaw in the system. THIS is what we need to break away from!
However, the biggest stumbling block to getting rid of the RIAA is the difference between the consumers' ideal and real behaviours. If people can get stuff for free, then they don't want to pay for it, and as long as we keep fighting the RIAA on that front, then they will remain the only main conduit for money getting to artists--in other words, downloading music for free makes the artists more dependent on the RIAA. (Of course, there are many exceptions--artists who release stuff willingly for free download are the biggest one.)
As consumers, in a consumer-driven society, we have to accept that the artists deserve and need compensation--from us! Micropayments, voluntary downloads direct to artists, pay-per-song downloads, it doesn't matter what system gets put in place. The thing is that we can't get rid of the RIAA until we can come up with a better system for artist compensation. Otherwise, it all really is just lip service in order to avoid paying for music.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
It proves just as much as: holding hundreds of people hostage on a military base in Cuba (without trial) proves that America's kind of democracy is something anyone wants, as specially to the citizens of whatever country they try and "liberate" currently or next.
It warms my heart to know that artists will be getting all the money that's due to them. Musicians always look so poor when I see them on television. Finally, they can afford the lifestyle they deserve.
This is irrelevant. Whether you're stealing from the rich or the poor, it's still stealing.
1) Of course there is moral justification for breaking laws. a few examples are murder in self defense, speeding to get your wife to the hospital...to think there can never be moral justification for breaking laws is just stupid.
2) That's one of the biggest slippery slope fallacies i've ever seen. you're going from downloading music to killing someone? i suggest you take a logic class or 3 and then spend some time in the real world.
Your right, all the RIAA cares about is money.
But thats all anyone cares about, if your average downloader didn't care about money they would just go out and buy it.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
"Musicians always look so poor when I see them on television. Finally, they can afford the lifestyle they deserve." What country are you from? Last time I checked this is America and people can make however much money they want regardless of what you think they should.
when i buy my cd at hmv, i don't pay the artist either. if any of the 40$ that i spend on that cd actually reach them, it'd be mabye .10$. i can't _help_ but to not pay the artist for music, because i haven't really seen much of artists that sell their work for money. guy's like Morally Sound, and Other such small-time bands you can buy their CD's from them - and if they really want to take some bread fr om that then thats' fine. but i don't pay for music i hear on the radio, i don't pay for music i buy at hmv' and i don't pay for music from www sites that artists put up for free.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Happiness is mandatory. Are you happy, Citizen??
Music piracy, software piracy, bootleg DVD's...I think the problem is really symptomatic of a growing disparity between our old fashioned economic model and the perceived value of digitally replicated information. While it is undeniable that many hours of hard work go into producing software or music or art, it is often difficult to reconcile the idea of paying a lot of money for a CD in your hand that is essentially little more than a 30 cent piece of plastic, or the even more ephemeral downloaded mp3. The consumer does not see the the costs involved in their production. All we see is that there is a virtually unlimited supply of them. Their perceived value is low, and supply far outstrips demand. Therefore, the costs are seen as artificially inflated. The industry's tendency to deliberately restrict supply, and to charge prices far in excess of what is neccessary to make a reasonable profit, only contributes to this perception.
The bottom line is that the music industry (and many other industries, too) has lost our trust, through repeated excesses, and many now feel morally justified in "stealing from the rich, to give to the poor". Are we really poor? No. Are they really rich? A few fat cats in suits, perhaps, but most are not...although the media moguls excel at portraying themselves as such. No, the truth is we are simply stealing from those who we sense have been stealing from us all along...if indeed theft is an appropriate word for what is really an act of unauthorized replication.
It is not a matter that can be adequately resolved by enforcing an archaic business model through litigation. The theft will continue. Our economic and legal systems need to grow and adapt to a very new kind of business environment. This is only the beginning...
No, i never compared file sharing with killing in self-defense. I gave examples of breaking the law with moral justifications to show that it does happen. I don't like comparing things to other things in arguments, or using metaphors or whatnot, because almost always the things being compared/metaphored are different enough to make comparison/metaphoring useless. case in point, your slippery slope argument.
sure, we shouldn't encourage the breaking of laws, but this is a very complicated matter, and an absolutest point of view isn't very helpful. There have been many laws in the past that were wrong that were broken by the population, and it turned out to be a "good thing"(TM)
I think the issue is not *where* the government is, but *who* they are. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will), but I think we have poor leadership in our government because your average Joe Slashdotter is content with posting his opinion on a site where others will agree with him and leaving things at that. "The right thing" never gets done in the government because there is no one in Washington who has our interests in mind. And no one in Washington has our interests in mind because none of us really cares enough about the outcome to get organized. I'm not necessarily saying that we need a "Slashdot Party" to represent us (although the idea may have merit), but we need to push our "folk heroes" into the public eye more forcefully. I'd like to see Linus Torvalds on "Good Morning America", and Eric S Raymond on "Larry King Live" (please don't attack the specific examples, I'm just throwing them out here), but these things won't happen if we don't get organized and start making a lot of noise outside of our own little community. Slashdot, I say put your money where your mouth is.
If you look at most politicians, you'll see that most were lawyers before being elected.
If you look at all the lawsuits out there, you'll notice the big winners are the lawyers. Why would lawyers want to change a system where they profit in a disgustingly large amount?
since November 1999...yeah, it's working alright.
Of course, the sad truth is that these settlements (like almost all proceeds from album sales) will never make it to the artists, whether they deserve it or not. Most artists make the overwhelming majority of their income from touring; album sales generally benefit the label.
The economic model for supporting recording artists is premised upon the costs and scarcities associated with album production circa 1960. As the online music sales saga has demonstrated, those with the power to re-make the business model to reflect current realities have made so much money while contributing so little value to the product that they are unstandibly reluctant to kill the golden goose.
Now that digital production is (relatively) cheap and easy, and digital distribution is virtually costless (via iTunes or P2P networks), the only remaining scarcity is talent. Too bad those who control that resource (artists) seem unwilling or unable to "cut out the middleman and pass the savings on to you."
See, the argument they ("they" being the movie industry, MPAA, record industry, RIAA, and various software companies like Microsoft) are trying to put forth is that for every piece of software or music or movie downloaded, that's a literal sale that they have lost. But I was never going to buy "American Beauty." If I hadn't been able to download it, I would have just settled for not having it. They've lost exactly no money by me downloading it.
I see a flaw in this argument. Let's take, for example, a person who has 1000 downloaded songs on his PC. Some new band puts out a song. He thinks to himself, "I can download it because I wouldn't have bought it anyway so it won't cost the industry anything." And its true, he wouldn't have bought it anyway. But I say that the only reason he wouldn't buy ANY of these songs is because he already has a library of "mediocre" songs to listen to. Imagine that a person had NO downloaded songs on his PC, thus having NOTHING to listen to during the day. Don't you think that at some point he would buy one of those CDs just to have SOMETHING to listen to? So, my point is that, maybe you wouldn't buy one individual CD, but if you (for moral/legal reasons) never downloaded ANY songs, you would eventually buy some CDs. Thus, the industry DOES lose out on your sales. (Maybe for every 100 you download, you would have otherwise bought two CDs). The point here is that however you look at it, downloading is illegal but people will rationinalize their behavior till the day they die.
I know its not popular to bash the downloaders, but let's not kid ourselves that it doesn't financially harm the music industry.
"The prohibition will be strongest when the group is nervous." - Paul Graham
Courtney Love wrote a good article on how much money major label artists actually get. It's a lengthy piece with quite a few mathematical (read: money calulations) explanations on how major label artists are getting screwed, pardon my french, by the major labels.
Don't cry to the polititions, they are mere puppets for the corporations.
Even worse many of them used to be lawyers.
And a troll. Please shut the fuck up.
Your tired and stupid arguments have been relentlessly torn to pieces time and time again every time that they've been made. I'm not even going to bother doing so now, since it would just be knocking down the same crippled, deaf and blind man yet again.
Why don't you just give up--you've already joined the ranks of Signal 11, Exmet Paff Dax, Enoch Root, and Reality Master 101. In other words, you are done, finished, caput.
'But I like listening to music while I do My homework!!!'
Sorry little girl, you're a Felon Now !!!
It makes me so mad!
... So I can take a stance against a corporation whose policy I don't agree with. I mean sure I could just refuse to purchase things from them. I could go out and give money to artists who refuse to go into business with them. Maybe even boycot radio stations who play their music. On second thought, I'll just run out and STEAL things from them and then explain to a judge how two wrongs actually do make a right. Especially when the first wrong impeeds my right to enjoy myself.
Perhaps, I'll go out and STEAL as much music as humanly possible
Idiot children,
--El Duderino
CowboyNeal, you're a damn troll. Not only is this inflamatory and factually incorrect, I know you know better.
Sorry Bush the Senate and Congress don't care. They are in the pockets of big business. Why do you think Cheney's previous company is rebuilding Iraq, why Enron picked the Energy Secretary and the EPA people. In fact Enron has paid for 3/4 of Congress. No wonder why Keneith Boy Lay got off scott free (Source: Molly Ivans, Public Record, etc.).
It's time we take back our government to work for the people and not big 'bidness'.
and I've bought more (and much more eclectic!) music as a result of that.
That's the problem. You're buying music. And it's even a bigger problem if you're buying music produced by the RIAA. You and millions of other consumers are funding the RIAA madness. So everyone...listen up. If you're going to buy, don't bitch. If anyone is willing to do something about the problem without whining to regulators (which is the only way anything will get done), then get some control over the crack habit that music has become, and STOP BUYING IT.
You can still help people that were sued in the last round by making a contribution directly to them using the Peer-to-Peer Legal Defense Fund at downhillbattle.org . Defendents from this round of suits are going to be added soon also.
It should also be noted that before filing this round of 80 suits, the RIAA sent letters to 200 people demanding settlements or else. While they portray this as a compromise, it actually just lets the RIAA avoid media scrutiny of those 200 people, keeping the next Brianna Lahara out of the spotlight. These extra-judicial fines are now happening in secret.
Everytime there is one of these RIAA articles there's always everyone going on about how bad the situation is and how they shouldn't do what they're doing, but that musicians should somehow still get compensated or what not. Doesn't anyone see the fundamental flaws with copyright and IP in common to begin with? A temporary grant of monopoly? Telling someone you can't copy something, yet you give it out? As my sig says, if you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone, it's that simple! If your human desire for territory gets in the way, learn to control your urges! You want to kill the problem? Start at the source, don't bullshit around the fact that copyright is majorly flawed just to save the few truly suffering, you can't make any good change without hurting someone. They could still do live performances if they really wanted cash but in the mean time, get a real job. Most musicians profit off fame, not their musical talents, and I hate pop bullshit american idolism. Of course there are the biased who benefit off it or have the friends that are one of those starving artists or those who believe people should be compensated for their long and hard efforts but shit, no one forced them to make their music, and any true musician would want to make music whether or not they were making money, doing it for the artistic value.
Yeah, someone will disagree, but no one agrees on everything. I stopped giving a shit.
If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
From the story: and so said people are easily bullied., and from your post: it's for a good cause
So now, you can rip people off, violate copyright, and all, and after all that, you're still the good cause? You are bullied when legitimate copyright holder sues you?
What's going on guys!!!?!? When you violate copyright, you expose yourself to some consequences, deal with it!
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving artists their fair share for providing much needed entertainment.
BUT!!!
What exactly constitutes fair share? In many cases, I believe that the majority of musicians are in fact receiving their fair share, but this majority of musicians do not include those supported by big labels and represented by RIAA. Quite frankly it sickens me to see some crack addict write a few repetitive phrases and mumble them to a beat and get paid 10 times more than cancer cure researchers... hell... even garbage men have a more important, productive purpose in society.
Personally I believe dissemination of music (or any other intellectual property for that matter) should be absolutely free. The methods of dissemination should mandate a monetary value (ie. the RIAA can still sell their cds as long as they don't mind going out of business).
If a band wants to actually make money on their "intellectual property" then go get hooked up at the local bar or something. Playing for a live audience becomes the dissemination of the music. In fact, I think its totally legit if another band comes along and plays the song and makes money off the performance (dissemintaion). I say give the creator a small part of the proceeds (say 5%). But this only applies when you are trying to disseminate for profit. If you have no plans on making money through the dissemination, then 5% of nothing is nothing. The only thing that I truly care about is proper accreditation.
Honestly, I feel sorry for the musician that wants to live solely off the proceeds of his music, because his situation is simply in the crapper. I say go to college and become a CPA as an alternative... never can be enough CPA's and they make a pretty penny too!
I think, for instance, that there's every reason that the RIAA should go after people for bulk distribution of music owned by their members. It's illegal, you know. If their members want you to pass the stuff around for marketing purposes, they'll release it that way (and many bands and some labels do exactly that). That means that if the RIAA is beating on you for illegal music swapping, I support that action. What other technique do they have to get people from doing this?
If you mean funding the people that rip off musicians, that's another thing -- but that's not the RIAA, that's the labels. I am a fan of the smaller labels, and try to buy product directly from the band where possible (since although the label still gets their share, the band gets part of what the retailer would have gotten).
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
It's not just about money. It's about time.
Sure, I can go buy a CD. That takes a half hour.
I can order it from Amazon. Then I won't have it for a few days.
Or I could download it in 5 minutes. You do the math.
What about the merit of the law in question? How about the atrocious business practices of the record labels, which when taken in the context of just about any other industry would be considered many things including outright theft? They are hiding behind laws that THEY crafted with their hands up a politicians butt like some kind of sock puppet. Not every law is right or just. Anyone who thinks so is naive. You might also say that it is our duty to break laws that infringe are really against the grain of the constitution. I believe that the way the copyright laws are tailored today, they are wrong. I wont bother to go into long winded detail, its not necessary. Thinks stink in this whole business, and its not the downloading of music. Its the big business wielding politicians and the "laws" like a broadsword against the rest of us. Without us, they wouldnt exist, not the other way around.
If its really not about the money - then I take it you use IPOD?
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
I have a question (and sorry, its slightly off topic). What WOULD you be willing to pay to download music with no DRM? I ask this as a serious question (and not particularly from a business perspective or anything). If you could download MP3s or OGGs from non RIAA affiliated musicians, what is that worth to you? Does the $ amount vary if there were artwork available (and lets get digital here, no 'CD Liners', but wallpapers or something along those lines). Come on people - what is Music worth to you? Regards Jo
I think this sums it up for me in suggesting that the music industry is merely an annoying tune that you hear over and over in your head until you buy it just to shut your head up. Also the last episode of southpark said it all for me: if artists went on strike i wouldnt care id just download some old music or some other bands and most artists are arrogent assholes that are only in it for the money. This sounds totally trolling and mod me down if you have to but the RIAA does not have an absolute just moral cause, their arguments are debatable at best, and threatening people with their vast legal power is just not cool.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
For example, I used to have a bunch of Family Guy and Futurama episodes available. Now that they've been released on DVD, I don't share them any more. The same for Tenacious D's HBO series. I scoured the web for them and made them available, noting that they were wildly popular. As it turns out, HBO initially refused to release Tenacious D (the series) against the wishes of the band because HBO maintained that they were sole owners and hte band had no legal right to royalties. Now that Tenacious D are huge rock stars, Tenacious D: The Complete Masterworks is available for sale. Even though I have every episode, I bought the DVD because I wanted a really good copy, AND I wanted to pay the band what they were due. And because I don't want to rob the band of income (cuz, you know, Jack Black is clearly starving to death), I don't share those files any more.
Rumor has it that it was rampant filesharing of "Family Guy" episodes that convinced Fox to release them on DVD. Again, even though I have most episodes, I paid to have good copies and because it's the right thing to do.
Here's a thought: the MPAA should digitize copies of their files at a low bitrate (say 750 kbps mpeg-1) and release them to P2P. IF the files turn out to be popular, they can be released commercially at a higher quality (4.5 mbps). This way, the work is promoted and if it turns out that there's an audience for it, a commercial release can follow.
By the same token, why not take advantage of "just in time" production? Make the files available at the low bit rate as a promo, and tag them with a url where a better quality copy can be purchased. That way, the copyright owners could create a continual stream of income even from "failed" series and pilots. As long as there's a market for it, why not exploit it?
I look forward to the day when I can buy a high-quality legal copy of the complete run of Duckman. After all, there's clearly a market for it.
Interociter
-=What do I want? I'm an American. I want more.
If RIAA education were working the would be a decrease in file sharing, not settled lawsuits.
On second thought, perhaps potential revenue in lawsuits is greater than internet distribution.
Why is /. beating up on the RIAA for suing people who are guilty of copyright enfringement. This is pretty hypocritical given there is a story on /. telling developers to complain to SCO that they're violating the GPL, which is based on copyright. Why should the RIAA get beat up for prosecuting copyright enfringement, but OSS developers get a pass?
Well, they can't ALL look like Dave Pirner.
"Look, Smithers! I'm Davy Crockett!"
fag
It seems to me that if the RIAA position is valid then we should see sales of CD's up. Is this the case now?
You just suck
1. Go for a haircut at a barbershop when no one else is around.
2. Don't pay.
3. See how far you get in front of a judge and jury when if you say "I didn't deprive him of anything. There wasn't anyone else around that would have paid anyway."
Repeat above exercise with a hotel with lots of vacancies.
wtf is IPOD?
Saying the recording industry is a monopoly is like saying the auto industry is a monopoly. Sure if you want a Ford, you must buy it from Ford. But you have a number of choices of auto manufacturers. Similarly, the are a number of record labels, each with their own artists, competing with one another for your dollars.
Run a Google News search on Kenneth Lay and you'll find the SEC is still breathing down his back. There's a new indictment that was filed this week that names "Enron corporate management" and "Enron managers", though not by name, in allegations of widespread deception efforts as the company neared collapse.
Enron's collapse was a complex mess that will take time to figure out. Not everything is as clear-cut as the MCI case, where the remaining executives were all too happy to let Bernie Evers hang.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
So, if you accept the argument that MS is a monopoly, then you are pretty much forced to accept that the RIAA is too. According tot he courts, you don't have to have 100% to be a monopoly, you just have to be overwhelmingly huge. I mean, MS does NOT have 100% marketshare. First there is a good 3-5% of computers that are Macs and therefore incapable of running Windows at all. Then there is the small but quickly growing segment of free OSes like Linux on the desktop. So clearly MS can't have a 100% marketshare since there ARE active competitors. However, the courts determined that they are still a monopoly.
The RIAA labels are much the same, and they have an additonal measure of control, that being the distribution chain. Tell me how often it is you hear indie music on mainstream radio, or how much of the shelf space in Best Buy is devoted to it. The RIAA and its associated labels maintain a stranglehold on this sort of thing.
Then, of course, there is the whole price fixing game. CDs came out and were more expensive than tape. This didn't seem odd to anyone as it was new technology, and they were assured that was the reason for the high price (I mean that's how all new technology works). But see, the price never went down. It went UP. We are now at the point where you can have a large run of CDs pressed and glasses, put in a case with colour insert for around $.50/CD (probably less if you've got the right connections). Not only that, distribution has gotten much faster, cheaper and easier. It costs far less to ship things these days with the 3-way war between FedEx, UPS and the USPS. Why then do CDs cost so much? BEcause they colluded to fix the price of course. They were CONVICTED of doing this, not that it has made any difference.
I've not heard of a single case where they've gotten the person's computer. This is civil court remember, they don't have a warrant for your stuff. They can try to subpoena your computer when they file suit, but you'll have notice before that.
No, what they'd be using is the alleged logs from whoever their scanning boys are at the time (companies like BayTSP). Really, not a strong case at all. Provided someone got a competent lawyer that educated themselves (and could educate the court) on all the problems with the chain of evidence the RIAA presented, I think they'd win easily. However that takes money to get a good lawyer and the guts to stand up to a case that will ruin you if you loose.
"Can you hear me now? No? Good!
Ah now you hit the nail on the head..you're actually defending our copyright laws? Laws that make us give up freedom of speech and in exchange we're supposed to get "original works." Where are the original works when we get clones of the same music over and over....Copyright laws that were meant "for limited time" that are now 80 years of taking away freedom of speech. The only immorality here is not violation of copyright laws, but laws that are imposed because the special interest groups like the English, French, German and Japanese companies have paid off the politicians to get the laws extended way beyond our forefathers intention. Don't defend copyright as some moral imperative...it's an unjust violation of America's basic right to freedom of speech...remember the terms "limited time" and "original works"...those concepts have been trampled and our freedom of speech along with it!
That's whatcha do! Spoof them with big names! Something will slip through, and when it does, hilarity ensues :-)
musicians are some of the most useless people on the planet.call me a troll or whatever but really... think about it.
Dude, time has nothing to do with the problem here. When someone download the latest EMINEM album from the net, Copyright laws could be 2 years that the downloader would still violate copyright...
The problem is that if you start breaking the laws that doesn;t please you (by pirating songs on the net is one example) you start to dismiss the legal system as a whole. Which law can/should I break?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Fight for your right to steal... Go find a real cause. This is the law, like it or not. Patents and Copyrights have done alot for society so stop being dificult. Whilst the RIAA is sometimes extreme, they are in the right.
VENI, VIDI, VICI, DIXI
When the common man can no longer defend himself against an accuser without forking out his life's savings to do so, the system we call justice has been eradicated, suborned to corporate interests.
Well RIAA, the more you tighten your grip, the more disillusioned the general public will become, until they openly revolt and literally burn down your golden palaces.
I will not stop them - for it will be a democratic majority decision that starts this.
Government inaction in stopping unchecked corporate greed will lead to their downfall as well.
All you need to do is tighten the screws that little bit more and you will have sealed your own destruction.
Quizo69
Visceral Psyche Films
You have just given me one of the best ideas for copyright reform I have ever seen.
I am in the process of forming a political party here in Australia, and whilst I personally don't believe in the ideals of copyright as they stand today, I think that your idea of making it illegal for publishers to "own" the rights to your work is a brilliant first step in changing the system.
I am going to put this forth for discussion once I get my policy platform together. I can assure you I am here to make changes to the corporatisation of government, not perpetuate it:
http://www.users.on.net/grypen/politics/
Hopefully I can inspire enough people to vote for me in the next twelve months to be elected and have a real shot at change for the better.
Feel free to write a short policy document and post it to our forum for discussion. You WILL have a voice regardless of your nationality.
Quizo69
Visceral Psyche Films
Sorry but the news that Neo dies is 2 months old now.
How about we scrap everything but the Constitution and start from there again? Then we can flush out the most offensive of offending problems by setting political salaries at standard government wages just like postmen and police officers, and make campaign finance reforms and corruption efforts to the point of making it an offence worthy of hand chopping to take more than 50 bucks from anyone. It's stupid and it wouldn't work and it will never happen, but the fact is that laws are perverted and exploited by corporations with special interest lobbies every day. You don't have a government of the People and by the People, the lawyers are completely in charge. I think that isn't such a problem, except that lawyer souls are adjusted more harshly for inflation and scarcity so the average lawyer is only allowed enough soul to be nice to puppies and their parents - and some not even that.
Build a better mousetrap.
I'm the best IRC client ever.
I agree 100%. In this day and age parents are doing all they can to keep a roof over top and food on the table. Who has the money to give the kids to go out and buy all these expensive CD's. The day the government helps out the little people so everyone can own a sidewalk, and not be afraid of being sued because someone fell on it, is the day I will start believing in the Good Old Uncle Sam again. As for the musicians out there, they are entertainers, if they dont think they make enough money let them walk a day in the shoes of a single parent just trying to survive life. Maybe then they will wake up and smell the coffee. I think if they sign up to entertain by all means do so. If it were not for the kids out there they wouldnt have a career.