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.
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...
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.
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
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