Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Wants Artist Royalties Lowered
laughingcoyote writes "The RIAA has asked the panel of federal government Copyright Royalty Judges to lower royalties paid to publishers and songwriters. They're specifically after digital recordings, and uses like cell phone ringtones. They say that the rates (which were placed in 1981) don't apply the same way to new technologies."
From the article: "According to The Hollywood Reporter, the RIAA maintains that in the modern period when piracy began devastating the record industry profits to publishers from sales of ringtones and other 'innovative services' grew dramatically. Record industry executives believe this to be cause to advocate reducing the royalties paid to the artists who wrote the original music."
One would hope that all those artists who've been letting themselves get used by the RIAA in their anti-piracy campaign get a good look at this.
...when the RIAA claims to do anything in the future for the sake of artists. They are not working for the artists as we all know, but this is a compelling argument detached from the copyright infringement case.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Rates of $15 per CD don't apply the same way with new technologies either, so it should be more like $3-4 per CD.
What? Ohhh, my bad. These rules don't apply to the RIAA - just to everyone else they screw over.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
The royalty schedule was implemented to encourage artists to continue with music by being able to make a reasonable living of the trade. These payments were increased so that the artists would actually receive money, instead of constantly owing the recording companies and thus being enslaved by them. The companies also, for years, "enslaved" the songwriters by signing them to publishing contracts, then claiming the works as IP. This is why I support independent musicians and songwriters. By lowering the royalties that are currently being paid, grudgingly by the recording companies to the artists involved, would be yet another huge backward step in the creative arts. Quite sad to see these sort of things in the works. I hope those pushing for the reductions fail in their quest. Would also be great if it was reversed, and increases in royalties paid to the artists resulted.
But with the same argumentation, wouldn't one then also come to the conclusion that CD prices are massively inflated, as are prices for the DRM-laden digital variants?
Even a 10 year old running a lemonade stand could see that this logic doesn't have a hole, because it is a hole.
So, we officially need to find a replacement word for the first A in RIAA, because it doesn't standa for Artists anymore. I suggest something like this:
If this doesn't get the artists' attention, nothing will. I wonder what Lars thinks about it. He managed to sue Napster out of any meaningful existence, maybe he can be of use here. It's not like Metallica is doing much of anything now anyway.
Translation: We want more money for providing the immensly important service of alienating your fans! Oh, and btw, you get nothing.... *darth vader theme* It just makes me sick...
Finally, there is something I agree with the RIAA on (assuming their intentions are to reduce costs to the consumer). Publishers, and to a certain extent artists (mainstream) tend to over charge for their IP which partially results in higher CD costs and this results in extensive piracy. Not only that, the over inflated royalties are charged to movie companies developing their soundtracks which pass on those extra costs to the consumer resulting in over priced movie tickets/rentals/dvds which further drives piracy.
Piracy can never be fully eliminated but if you charge a price that the public is willing to pay, then they are significantly less likely to resort to piracy. Reducing royalties paid to publishers and artists, I suppose is one way to achieve this.
However, the RIAA acknowledging of this could just be a publicity stunt to show that they are trying to adapt to piracy when in fact they are only interested in screwing over the smaller independent artists to benefit the larger record companies. It could be that reduced royalties do not result in lower CD/digital music costs in which case I don't believe reducing royalties is useful.
12/08/06: Warner CEO slaps own child on wrist
11/28/06: Pressure on AllofMp3
11/22/06: Pressure on the RIAA
Forget this. In memorial.
Then I read the referenced article.
I owe the editors an apology for my mistaken assumption.
From TFA:
In other words, the RIAA has actually admitted what most Slashdotters have know all along - their crusade is concerned strictly with the "revenues for music publishers", and if enhancing said revenues means screwing the artists, then so be it.
Another point: "...so that record companies can continue to create the sound recordings...". Since when did record companies start creating anything? They take the creations of the artists, slap their name on them, and bleed off the majority of the profits for themselves.
I thought that the RIAA couldn't possibly sink any lower - looks like I was wrong.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
I'm sitting here in the UK reading about all these RIAA stories and thinking "Man, you guys in the USA have it bad". They're taking away the rights of music lovers AND artists. Its a war on consumers and musicians. I don't know what else to say, except I hope it is stopped before it spreads to other parts of the world.
Loathe as I am to employ such an overused cliche, the phrase 'rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic' springs to mind, here. The 'record industry' is irrelevant - it just doesn't know it, yet.
I had to say it because I honestly don't know their intentions. I agree that they historically have not been interested in consumer rights nor consumer costs. However, their goal in this case, IMO, appears to be to increase sales by reducing piracy as a result of reducing consumer costs. As a result, even though it wasn't their intention, such a move could benefit both the consumer and the music industry.
When music creation becomes unprofitable, only those who seek to do it out of love will persist.
I really think that we'll see an improvement in the quality of music as a result of this.
Less look fast, more go fast.
All RIAA members have to do is to lower their share of the revenue. That'll get the price down no problem (as it's the majority part), thus also addressing that piracy problem they're so worried about (nothing to do with promoting mainly crap, nooo). And it would thus result in less damages caused by dead people, grandmothers and children because the per song costs would be lower - hell, it may then not even be worth suing them and being made to look ridiculous in the first place.
And lower income would stop the RIAA wasting money on expensive buildings and lawsuits, maybe sack a whole batch of those idiots that came up with the idea of suing their own customers (generating a generation growing up with nothing but hate for RIAA), it would no longer be worth bribing laws through Congress - I mean, I can just go on with benefits here.
In Powerpoint speak (yeeach) this seems to me a win-win approach.
Alternatively, putting the lot on detail to Iraq for a while could work as well. Let them do some real work. Or send them to Africa to work between people that are really starving so they know what the word actually means.
It is racism to assume certain cultural behaviour as normal.
/Flame
The "emotional" evidence should be never used in the court. Period.
The problem with American culture is too much "I", too little of "we". That is the course of many domestic and other conflicts resulting in serious crimes. That is the course of record-high prison population in US - individualism. People are not thinking social, they are not thinking of preserving social order, when they are acting. There actions are exlusively determined by their egos. "Why would I benefit from this action? How I save my butt in this course of events?".
High level of crime leads to necessity of going over the board in persecuting. Crime is not done in public most of the times. So called forensic science and admitting "emotional" evidence in court has little to do with science and truth. Everything has to be explained by science and that leads to the biased view of what science can do and cannot do at this time: most of the time people overestimate scientific data.
This happens in publishing scientific results as well. People are getting away with overblown claims and get publications in "respected" journals.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
What? They're not starving enough yet to justify the piracy comments?
Most times they screw the consumer for the artist.
But this time, given the popularity of ringtones, they're screwing the artist for the children.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
And you think they will pass the cost saving onto the consumer?
Mod parent funny please ^_^
...
He gave a legit argument. Many a reader forgot that the RIAA is *not* a body of its own, but rather a prolonged arm of the record labels.<br>Since they have to compete with online stores, P2P, and an audience growing more and more mature (mature as in not that stupid anymore:), they have to reduce the price of their songs.<br><br>RI stands for *Record Industy* (I dont see the artists mentioned anywhere), so I assume that it will be logical to let the artists suffer from price cuts. <br> BTW, Is there also an artists association? If yes, what are they doing?
Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
the RIAA maintains that in the modern period when piracy began devastating the record industry profits to publishers from sales of ringtones and other 'innovative services' grew dramatically.
Is it just me or does this sentence make no fucking sense?
If the RIAA start driving away the artists then it makes the RIAA even less of a player. Just think one day the artists and the fans might connect directly on the internet with no middle man in between to screw the artists and sue the fans.
Their greed will be their undoing. I wonder why it hasn't been their undoing in the past though?
Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
Well, when they're done fucking the artists, at least there's nowhere else for them to turn.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
This is a completely abhorrent move. The artists are in debt to the companies (from their advances), and now they're going to be reimbursed *slower*?
The RIAA (and the distribution companies) just see royalties as another income stream after the public have paid up front for product and the artists have gone into debt to produce it in the first place.
Isn't this one of those quick rich plans:
1. Loan shark the capital to the artists (advances)
2. Grab all the retail income and rip off as much as we can through phoney accounting
3. Skim the remaining "profits" before offsetting previously loan sharked funds (thereby impoverishing artists)
4. Pass on the option to extend the artists contract thereby getting more money for free if the rubes sign with another company - without actually having to keep the music in print and paying off the artist's debt in the meantime.
5. Keep the copyright for 75 years (the rubes'll be dead by then)
6. Bribe lawmakers to give you successive extensions so you keep it forever anyway.
7. (We'll think of other things as time goes by.)
8. Profit? "Hell we did that at step 1, the rest is where we make out like bandits"
The mob's in the wrong business - oh wait, you mean the mob's *already* in this business. Oh.
After all, dead artist signing petition for a longer copyright protection do not need that much money, so the royalty can be lowered.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The major labels had a legitimate niche back when it took a massive distibution network to press an artists records and deliver them to record stores across the world. Today, distribution is a non-issue. It used to take massive ammounts of money to produce a good recording. Today, all the equipment that is required can be bought for less than a modest car. In fact, many major label recordings made today are of substantially lower quality than those of independants. It's not just the equipment, but the people using it. If upper-management orders the knob-jockeys to "make it louder" that's what they do, even if it means mixing tracks so hot that they clip continually. The labels remain the masters of big-budget promotion, but some bands have managed to be successful as independants with a tiny fraction of the promotion budget that a major label band gets. How do they do it? Make good music.
In all honesty, the labels aren't good for consumers. They stifle creativity and promote the stagnation of musical forms by promoting "safe" music over the innovative. This is why a top-40 music station sounds so homogenous whether it's playing pop-country, pop-rock, or pop-rap. Instead of promoting original artists, they hire 40 year old men to write songs about a teenage girl's life, hire a model who can't sing to sing those songs, and then digitally correct the tone-deaf waif's caterwallings in much the same way they air-brush away her zits and about 40 pounds. Then they promote this manufactured crap so heavily that it squeezes good music into the musical margins of life.
The labels aren't good for artists. Only a tiny percentage of artists signed to major labels ever make a profit. Most wind up in debt to the labels with no control over the rights to their own creations. Is the purpose of a record label to make money for itself or is it to make money for the artists? In the past RIAA has argued that artists provide a service, much like recording engineers or the squeegee monkeys that keep the windows of the exec's corner offices clean. They pay their lawyers better than 99.999% of their artists. Those lawyers enforce a copyright system designed to pump money into those corner offices at any cost. One of the costs happens to be the freedom of artists. Take the amen break for example. A whole musical genre grew up around a single sample made 40 years ago because the copyright on it was never enforced. What legally aborted genres might exist today were it not for the labels' lawyers?
Personally, I think RIAA and the major labels know all this. They know they have no legitimate role to play in distribution. They know they manufacture and promote crap because promoting original music carries risk. They screw the artists both financially and creatively. On some level, although they'd never admit it, they even realize that the labels are, at the most fundamental level, only there to get the music from the artist to the consumer and the money from the consumer to the artist. They're middlemen and they know it.
How do you improve any business transaction for both the consumer and the supplier? Cut out the middlemen.
Alright! Is there any way we can boycott this offensive organization, this thing that RMS calls a government supported conspiracy? Please Please Please?
Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?
Since when did so many ppl start calling Green Day and James Blunt artists? Before it was only people in the industry, but now it's filtered through the radio down to us. It's ridiculous, this ain't Pablo Picasso or Banksy we're talking about. It's a play by the RIAA to make people consider the creative talents of those divine people (jonny borrel, pete doherty) who make the music we listen to. And while we worship them, treating as gold their invaluable educated views on such issues as fiscal policy and nanotechnology, the RIAA will use their talents as justification to extend copyrights indefinately, and fuck with royalties for those less powerful.
When you say artists, I think you're talking about sculptors, architects and painters. Our english language has a word for people who make music: musicians (which contains composers, instrumentalists and singers). I understand there exist some genius (and under-rated) musicians whose fabulous talent is a blessing to our world, and deserve to be referred to alongside of da Vinci and their work compared to Guenica, but there is a lot of shit on the radio that is not original, made by people who are not talented. An excuse for music, it isn't art for sure.
To illustrate this ludicrousity, just go check out some profiles on deviantART (if you don't know it, it houses some fantastic photography, painting, sculpture and drawing). Read someone's profile and beneath "favourite styles of art: painting, tapestry" you can read on so many profiles "favourite artists: green day, fall out boy" , "favourite artists: james blunt, spice girls". It hurts to think about what these people were thinking they were being asked.
So please, call U2 a band and Bono a musician.
I hope that music creation will never become unprofitable, because to me it sounds unfair not to financially reward artists for their great work, hopefully inspired by passion rather than greed.
However, obviously it's the artists who decide how to publish their own music. And if they decide to sign evil agreements with greedy institutions then that is their choice and they have to live with the consequences.
These days there are alternative ways of publishing music for artists. Some artists, like unclebob simply put their music on their own web site and hope and pray for donations. Others publish their work on sites that have fairer deals.
Personally I hope that sites like magnatune will become more widely used, so that the industry as a whole becomes more ethical.
Why can't the music industry just make contracts with artists (the way I thought they did it all along)?
The more the artist sells, the more royalties he might get. Or some artists might prefer a fixed payment and sell their right to royalties...
Why should some judge decide what's good for every artist and music company in the USA?
If you look at the RIAA's tactics, its an attempt to remain relevant in a world where their core value "ability to control the supply chain to the retail outlets" is gone.
1. Attempts (successful in the US, not yet in the UK) to extend copyright. ==retain revenue from legacy products.
2. Attempts (like this) to maximise revenue from new content sales.
3. Attempts to impose a tax on all media-enabled devices, a tax which doesnt correlate to any track sales, so is probably exempt from the need to give the songwriters, publishers or artists any money.
#3 is the most insidious, because despite the tax, there's no guarantee you get anything for it. After all, in the UK we pay a tax on blank cassettes ("home taping is killing music"), yet they still dont like you copying it.
If they can get a tax out of every MP3 player, then they will go for the DVD-RW drives and the PCs, and then the broadband connection. While the publishers will go after the printers...
-steve
This truly makes me furious. This is just one reason I've chosen to stay independent. Granted the only choices I've had were smaller labels like Grey Flat and Saddle Creek. This is truly a disgusting move by the RIAA. It's not bad enough they're making the publicity stunt lawsuits against perpetrators of free advertising (file downloaders), now they need to cut even more from their artists. Just like when the MPAA started their "want a backup copy? buy one." comments in press meetings, this makes me want to remember to "engage in piracy." Thank you, Capitalism. Thank you.
Just, no. Greedy fuckers. If anything the royalty rates need raising to apply to new technologies, considering how much revenue the industry and artists are losing from people downloading instead of buying.
Absolutely fucking disgusting.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
It costs them the power of distribution.
Controlling the flow of information can be a very powerful thing.
There are some things money just can't buy.
Yeah, I'm sure that's what happen. I mean, what kind of market or industry would worsen with unprofitability? Well, I mean, apart from every single market that has become unprofitable in history. But I'm sure music will inspire dedicated composers to risk their financial futures in distributing their work.
Or, of course, they can rely on the Internet. Or, more accurately, the people who would be able to find your site and be prepared to pay for your music. Of course, those people are probably the most able to share out your music without permission or royalties...
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Royalties are a percentage of revenue AFAIK. If the industry is getting less revenue, then they're *already* paying out less royalties. Is the RIAA assuming the public is as mathematically challenged as they are? What are they using for lawyers? Bugblatter beasts?
I personally know of 3 music artists that have died due to starvation, just in the last 2 weeks. One was a good friend involved on the verge of signing a big record deal with Sony music, but someone leaked the band's latest album on the net before the deal could be signed.. Once Sony realized pirates were using the internat to mass-copy the album, the lawyers walked away and my friend was left homeless and broke.. it was horrible watching his body decompose before my very eyes, I hope you never have to go through the same experience
Let me get this straight - record industry profits were devasted when profits from 'innovative services' dramatically grew ?
Talk about contradicting yourself.
> "when piracy began devastating the record industry"
Is it really piracy that's devastating it, or the lawsuits against n+1 John/Jane Does, paid (not directly) from the royalties that were going to the artists.
The same people told us that VCR taping WILL kill the movie industry.
When you pull the pin out from Mr. Granade he's no longer your friend.
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! for showing your true colors in writing. Perhaps now, all of the doubters will finally understand what we've known for the last seven years. That would be that the RIAA only cares about themselves. Hugs and kisses to Lars!
-Khan
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
They are not working for the artists as we all know, but this is a compelling argument detached from the copyright infringement case.
Just to add to this, here are articles by different artists about being ripped off:
Steve Albini
Courtney Love
Steve Vai
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
The music industry is bad m'kay. If you don't believe it deserves to die look here, m'kay. This is an insiders view of the music industry so pay close attention.Then tell me if it wouldn't be a better idea for artists to promote themselves on the net,giving away their mp3s under some gnu-like license and making money touring.
Some of you will remember Steve Albini from "Big Black" others will remember him as producing Nirvana. Either way it just isn't worth the worry of supporting the industry in any way.Sure some jobs will be lost,but hey to quote Ted Knight in "Caddyshack"," The world needs ditchdiggers too".
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
RIAA Then: You must pay us royalties to allow the use (fair or not!) of our music!
RIAA Now: Crap! Lawsuits aren't working anymore! We need another form of income... AHA! Those bastard, good for nothing artists are getting royalties for every song! hmm... No more royalties for them, it should all go into our pockets! BRILLIANT!
The only reason a group like this continues to exist is because average joe-consumer doesn't care about paying for 15-20$ for a CD which is worth (let's say conservatively) about 6-7$.
All they (the consumer as a whole, most of the people at Slashdot and other Music afficionados (sp?) find it ridiculous because there is some background knowledge.
This whole situation is just sickening.
If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
that this is the artist faults. They go with labels that push RIAA. The up and coming artists need to put their fears and doubts aside and simple go via the web. As it is, there are plenty of tools out there for doing the recording. In fact, I suspect that magnatune or even apple would do well to push concerts from their top indies.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The article headline is wrong. Artist royalties are paid by record labels to recording artists for use of their recordings.
The article is referring to MECHANICAL ROYALTIES which are paid to SONGWRITERS for use of their songs. While the songwriter and artist are often the same, this is not always the case
EXAMPLE: Joe Schmoe writes a song that is recorded by Britney Spears for her new album. Britney Spears gets paid artist royalties by the record label. Joe Schmoe get paid mechanical royalties by the label.
The article is talking about reducing Joe Schmoe's royalties
I don't use them myself as I don't like using the phone in general, but I hear enough of other peoples ring tones to know:
There is not enough of a tone sequence to pay a royality on. Only enough to play the game "what ring tone is that from?"
Seriously, it may just barely step over the copyright line by linke three notes of something BUT there is the fair use clause.
And considering the most useful thing about ring tones is having a different one than everyone else around you, its not like they are of much valueto share.
Maybe you have collectors of ring tone (like you did with amiga mod files - but even then a mod file is at least a whole song) and perhaps The RIAA should push legistration for requiring collectors to register (get a collector license) or something.
Another thought is that ring tone users, should charge the RIAA for using their phone as an advertising media, like ads on your web site and getting paid for clicks...
But in no case should RIAA be able to use ring tones as an excuse to lower the royalities the artist get. If anythinhg they shoul increase them if they are not paying the phone users for advertising space.
Somebody really needs to lay it all out and really slap the RIAA down via exposure of their hyporacies.
To be clear, there is no reason with todays technology to subsidize new band promotional risks with the profits off the successful artist (one of the reason we having had enough real creativity on the air). What this means is that the profits/finances the record industry needed in the past to bring new artists to the public with hope the public will buy, doesn't need to be spent today as the internet is alot less expensive and artist can themselves get a following to prove themselves and have bargaining power with any contract they might sign with a label. The fact they did it themselves should show they are serious and business oriented. This path greatly reduces the need to subsidize and mean the successful artist should get more... not less (as they are not helping tro pay for other unknow artist to be market tested)
Maybe that is the problem here! Maybe the new technology is resulting in successful artist annual income to be raising and the RIAA figures it can take some of it but need an excuse (and we all know they do make use of excuses/lies to support their claims).
I want the RIAA disbanded and sued for every bit of money they've stole from the public and artists, and be forced to give it back!
I seriously wish more artists would boycott this stuff.
Most of the artists now being screwed are / were helping the RIAA screw consumers.
Not to mention that 90% of the new music I hear is either a bad cover, has the entertainment equivalent of a root canal, is performed by a freak of nature I don't want anywhere near my kid, and is overpriced by about $.98 (assuming you pay $1.00 per song). So yeah, I really care.
Let the entertainment industry consume itself with greed. I hope they screw Dr. Dre and Metallica first.
I couldn't really tell from the article what the RIAA intends exactly. Maybe the article was deliberately vague; it being rather biased. I think the RIAA is trying to make the argument that they are innovating with new business models and that should entitle them to a larger share of the revenue, since part of value that the consumer is purchasing is the *novelty* that was the invention of somoene other than the artist.
Of course, this is ridiculous and they are just being greedy bastards, but I think this is the argument that they are making.
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
The RIAA is a group of sanctimonius, avaricious maggots.
Before becoming a software engineer I used to produce CDs; my professional interaction with the RIAA provided direct experiences from which to base my claim.
It's about the marketing machine, not the actual process of printing and shipping CDs to stores anymore. Those costs are cheaper than ever, what's really driving up the cost for the industry is similar to what's driving up the costs for professional sports, salary and marketing costs. In order to get the 'next big thing', companies have to pay more and more to sign established and even 'up and coming' artists to bigger and bigger contracts. They also have to pay for the ever increasing costs to pay radio stations to play their tunes (i know it's illegal, but you know they do it) and get their artists on MTV. The ever increasing costs of filming music videos (you think those girls shake their ass at you for free?) And since the 'artists' are getting less and less talented, the production costs are going higher and higher as well. And that is one thing that iTune and all the internet technology can not change.
The establishment has the connection with radio, magazine, and TV to promote their artists, and they want to get paid for spending millions of dollars on marketing their products. It's no different from fashion industry or any other marketing driven companies, they sell stuff by making it artificially popular. For me, this is no different from talking with their suppliers (artist) to cut down the cost.
What do you call a musician without a girlfriend?
Wait
for
it....
Homeless and broke.
Seriously though, if your friend(s) were real, couldn't they just get a freakin' job to survive? When starving and homeless the first thing on my mind is NOT "hey, I really gotta get a high paying gig with a record label", it would be nice, mind you, but practicality comes first.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
if the RIAA is not going to pay the old kinds of royalties, there is no reason the record labels can not walk away. they could form a new organization or figure out some other method of making their money. the RIAA and the labels have a symbiotic relationship though. i don't know if a new group would treat artists any better. i bet there will always be artists so hungry for fame that they are willing to sign just about anything. maybe with all the bad publicity the record labels and RIAA have gotten in the last few years, artists will at least think twice before blindly signing. some pretty big mainstream artists have come out and said they were being ripped off. there are documentaries about it too. if younger bands are still so crazy to sign 100 record deals (or something that lasts the entirety of their possible careers), then there is not a lot you can do.
things like the iTunes store has giving almost level distribution to smaller bands. the same 'store' that sells the biggest popular artists can also carry a small town band that plays in basements. the big artist may get an image on the splash page, but both are just as easy to find by typing the name in the search box. that whole thing about the long tail is what makes online stores like Amazon, Netflix or iTMS want a HUGE catalog of products. those smaller indie released books or CDs have a very valid place in the new business models. that seems to be a pretty widely accepted economic fact at this point.
i agree with you 100% that as long as the RIAA and the huge labels still have enough momentum, they will be able to keep pushing the hell out of the artists that play by their rules. the average citizen still learns about new popular music by the radio, MTV or whatever. artists that barrage them on tv, print, internet, radio etc etc are the ones whose songs will stick in their heads. if you don't have RIAA artist files on your computer, they can not (legally) harass you.
Because the marginal cost for each additional unit created (ie a song) is negligible. Logic would dictate that there ought to be an increase in the artists' royalties because the sum cost of distributing a song has significantly dropped.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
about the way the music industry is set up right now is why the artists are paid by the distributors as opposed to the other way around. The artists have created the music and should have full control over what happens to that music. They should be paying the distributors/production companies/etc. to handle the things they do.
As I see it, and this may just be the way I buy music, the reason I buy or don't buy music is because I like the artist, or I have heard something from them and want to hear more. I don't buy an artist because Sony or BMG is distributing it (although that may make me not want to buy an artist's CD). The recording industry should be paid for the service they provide and the artists should be the ones in the drivers seat. If the artist doesn't want full control, well thats what agents are for, right?
Clones are people two.
My father plays percussion in one of the worlds leading orchestras. Growing up I was exposed to and learned to enjoy orchestral music; I still do to this day. There is a lot of it out there, but most of the time the major orchestras play a small repertoire; Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, etc. The big names, the things that have been played over and over again. I remember asking him one day, "Why does the orchestra play all this stuff over and over again? Sure, this is good music, but don't people get bored with the same thing over and over again?"
I was told, "There is a saying in the music industry: The audience eats shit."
And it does - to someone who appreciates the 'finer, more nuanced, less well known' areas of an art form. Music, like any art form, has a certain section that appeals the masses; A very small section at that. The casual audience doesn't have the patience or interest to delve deeper most of the time. They have something that makes them happy and they are content with that.
Let's take everyone's "Lave Her" or "Hate Her" 'musician': Britney Spears. Have you ever heard her sing? I watched an interview of her a few years back and she was asked to sing solo. No backup, no music, no effects to cover her voice. It was absolutely atrocious. That doesn't matter though; She performs well enough on stage, and combined with the marketing and enough makeup on her voice to make it acceptable, people are happy with 'her' product. "Enough ketchup and even my mother's cooking is edible."
Personally, I wouldn't even take an album of hers for free. I don't consider it art; I consider it boring, unimaginative, repetitive, and headache-inducing. Ultimately, though, I don't think that it is within the power of a few individuals to determine what 'art' is, except for themselves. It is society's job to determine what is art to society.
Unfortunately (in my opinion), Britney Spears, 50 Cent, Snoop Dog, etc. are all considered artists in society right now. That doesn't matter though; Nobody is holding me captive and forcing me to listen to their product.
Love sees no species.
Its about time the executives get the money they truly deserve... I mean its not the artists who pour their hearts and souls into the music, its the board members. It's definitely the people who wouldn't recognize the Elvis' or Beatles or Ramones of the time. These executives deserve to steal.. er.. earn more money from artists and consumers.
Since most adults who have had to replace their back catalog of cassettes and records have moved to CD, who drove the huge album sales of the 90's. I am sure they will be buying plenty more new Cd's, since they care what Beyoncé, Dixie Chicks, Carrie Underwood, Corinne Bailey Rae, Gnarls Barkley et al have to say.
Also, I know the entire generation of teenagers and young adults, who grew up downloading music off of p2p networks, and find everything cool on myspace. I am sure they are convinced that they want to buy Cd's with root kits on them. That they see the value added by the RIAA and the labels. That they will continue to support the many starving artists who are rapaciously stealing from the poor record execs by taking such a large percentage of the pie from ringtone downloads.
I am sure their business model is in no danger at all. Not jeopardized in the least.
Or I could be wrong...........
It is not like I have ever seen a 70 year old woman tell me, when setting up a new computer for her, to make sure that I put Limewire on the new machine, because she does not want to be without her music.
I am sure young and old alike see the value in purchasing major label music.
vi +
First the RIAA estranged their customers with DRM and other strong-arm tactics. Now they are trying to estrange the artists by lobbying to have royalties reduced.
Can anyone tell me what happens to an organization that puts off both the supply and the demand side of their business model?
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
You've got to be kidding. Those greedy bastards are only concerned about themselves. So the artists make an extra cent on a ringtone. You want half of that. I will never BUY a piece of recorded media again until you start treating the artists and writers fair. You are nothing but greedy bastards. Also since i am on a rant, why don't the artists put more than one good song on a cd or lower the price. I won't pay $18 for a cd with one good song. The artists should sell the music in digital format online and say screw the RIAA. Then what would they do? Nothing but have that fat butt put on the street and have to find a real job.!!!! Like anyone would hire them except an insurance company but that's another rant.
Will never buy another piece of recorded media until the greedy bastards at the RIAA treat the artists fair and leave th
The average band makes maybe roughly 1-2$ per CD sold. FEW artists sell as much as 10,000 of an album. Take those say 20,000 dollars and for conversations sake divide it by the 3-5 band members. Yeah, nice yearly salary. If you are lucky and skilled enough to live of being an artist you play live acts for the "steady" income and your royalites make a bonus.
For royalites to make a liveable income in it self you have to hit superstardom(Gwen stefani, metallica, etc). You would be suprised at how many of the one-hit-wonders get some bling-bling, a couple of celeb parties and end up with no cash at the end of the 15-minutes of fame.
Early in its life, RIAA made one legitimate contribution to recording and the public good. They defined a standard phonograph equalization curve so that every company's records could play back properly on every phonograph. Two poles and two zeros: that's not much on the positive side of the ledger. They probably wouldn't have made it that far, were it not for the then-mighty RCA who made both records and phonographs: being incompatible with RCA was a risky business proposition.
Cut the royalties as much as you want for the big artists - one can only hope that the arrogance and ego displayed by twits such as Metallica is a direct function of the cash they get from the labels. Cutting the royalties will only ensure that smaller artists seek somebody other than the big boys to provide distribution and all of the big labels will (finally) go under, as they so richly deserve. (Well, considering they get cash for each and every audiocassette and blank CD/DVD sold regardless of intended usage of said recording media by the end user they'll always be around.) Unfortunately, now that Streisand's party is calling the shots in Washington expect nothing but pro-RIAA/MPAA legislation as the influence of the Hollywood set just increased by a couple orders of magnitude.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
I knew those guys where aliens. Humans only have 2 feet and the RIAA shot themselves so many times in the foot that they must have more than two thus they are not human... They found the quickest way to drown themselves. Alienate both sources of revenue at the same time and blame everything on the pirates. Good job, I couldn't have done it better.
Wow, usually when someone tries to screw every party in an attempt to line their pockets, they tell the artists that they are trying to make more moeny, so they can give more to the artists, and they tell the consumer that they are trying to lower prices so they can be competitive
Not here, however. Now they are pretty honest about their intentions. They want to give those who produce music the shaft on what they consider to be their biggest money-maker, and they are doing it so they can make more money...No noble intent, no "starving people in Hollywood" scenarios...just greed... I wonder if the brief ever mentioned the RIAA's desire to do a Scrooge McDuck-style swim in a pool full of money...
The recording industry is a bunch of middle-men, plain and simple. They are trying to screw artists and collect taxes on everything related to music, because they know that the only thing they have going for them is that their parent companies own the music stores, which are, also, not doing very well.
See Fredric Dannen's book "Hit Men" for the inside story. A friend who studied at the MTSU school for audio engineering said it was required reading. Apparently the administration felt it necessary to advise their graduates regarding exactly what sort of people they'd be dealing with. Dannen names names, and the photos are priceless. Y'know, you really can be free in the US, you just have to work at avoiding the pimps and slavers.
Similis sum folio de quo ludunt venti.
> Reducing royalties paid to publishers and artists, I suppose is one way to
> achieve this.
They _are_ the publishers. They are proposing to reduce the compulsory royalties paid to songwriters for things like ringtones. This has nothing at all to do with CDs or performers.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Artists retain copyrights over the music they produce. They have contracts with producers and labels allowing the copying of the music into a physical product that can be taxed and sold to the public.
IANAL, but I have looked up some laws to see how ownership and taxes work together. From my understanding, ownership belongs to the person that pays the taxes on a product, usually at the time of sale. Ownership and the ability to make copies for sale or to give away are not the same thing. The product bought by the public is still protected from copying by copyright and/or patent laws.
That said, DRM is being used to restrict ownership of purchased items like music. The producers and labels want to restrict fair use provided by ownership of the product (music in this case), by making use of DRM and saying they are protecting the copyright holders (the artists). Basically what they are doing isn't selling the music, but selling a license to listen to the music.
Now if a person isn't purchasing the ownership of the product they are buying, then they shouldn't have to pay any taxes on the product and that includes sales tax. There still needs to be a tax on the product, but the tax should be on the ones that retain ownership of the physical product even if the physical product is electronic. The amount of taxes should also be based on the number of copies produced, whether its CDs or downloaded copies, the number generated increases the the value of ownership. That is to say, the more copies you own of a product, the greater the value is and the more taxes that will need to be paid.
If the producers and labels want to retain ownership of the physical product they produce by licensing the product rather than selling the ownership to the public, more power to them, but then they should also have to pay the taxes on all the product produced. Basically, the public should only have to pay the base price without any taxes because the owner of the physical product (producers and labels) should be paying the taxes from the revenue they collect from the licensing of the products sold.
And if this is the case, then what the RIAA is doing would be correct in a way in that not only would the producers and labels need to pay a tax on the licenses sold, but would also need to pay taxes on the number of physical copies it owns, which would also be the number of licenses sold plus the number of backup and master copies they hold for themselves.
Basically, the artists own the copyrights for the music they produce and only pay taxes on the royalties they receive from the physical copies sold by their producers and label companies they hold contracts with. The producers and labels own and make physical copies which now they don't want to give up the ownership to by introducing DRM. Taxes have been paid by the public at the time of sale, but in the past that was for gaining the ownership of the product and having fair use rights granted to them. DRM basically strips ownership and fair use rights from the consumer, so why should the consumer continue to have to pay the taxes on those products containing DRM?
Maybe this tax angle hasn't been considered by anyone, but should be.
We obviously need to remove middle men like artists and performers from the picture. Just start giving all our money to entertainment executives. We'll call it "The possibility of Actual Entertainment Tax." I think that's a solution everyone can be happy with. The execs get a new yacht, the artists get to be starving, and we get someone to hate and complain about other than our government leaders. Wonderful!
Shick's Law: There is no problem a good miracle can't solve.
Though to me it is doubtful that the RIAA will succeed in forcing artists to take an even lesser cut... Even if it does succeed in that plight, it is only a matter of time before the RIAA will lose its grip on the artist entirely. And consequently, it will cease to be a necessary middleman/evil for the artists to deal with, in order for their music to be distributed for profit.
The trouble is, I appear to have heard it all before and I'm only 31, it's not like there's much in the top 40 that sounds new or original, or even well executed, and I have tastes that are easlily pleased! I like funky house, ambient/IDM/soundscapes, rock and alternative, yet all I hear on the radio are reality tv show contestants singing cover versions, re-united boy bands from ten years ago, and and seemingly endless supply of US hip hop and R&B, If I had children I wouldn't give them money to buy this stuff..
As long as the RIAA remains successfull in convincing the masses that downloading a copyrighted work is the same as "stealing" that copyrighted work from a store (downloading Brittney = pocketing Brittney and walking out of the store) they will retain their power. Their entire business model is based on social acceptance of this meme, which of course is simply not true. Downloading is not stealing, as the essence of stealing/theft is the deprivation of a rightful owner of his/her property without the owner's consent. Nobody is depriving anyone of any property by downloading a copyrighted work. Loss of a potential sale is not the same thing as theft; if it were, any business who successfully competes with another business, taking away its customers, would be guilty of theft. Note that I'm not necessarily commenting on the morality of downloading copyrighted works. I'm just saying that, whatever it is, it is not a form of theft. I think most people on slashdot are educated enough to know this subtle difference (although somoene will reply and argue with me that downloading a $5,000 CAD program is, in fact, theft). Unfortunately most people are simply not intelligent enough to understand this very subtle but hugely important difference and therefore get sucked in to believing and virally spreading the theft meme. And as long as this continues the RIAA, MPAA, etc will retain their power and lobbying ability. They spend billions advertising this meme. We've even let them into our schools to brainwash kids, who certainly are not sophisticated enough to see why this is not actually theft. Want to crush them? Educate people about why downloading is NOT theft.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
> Someone point me again to that section in US Code that legislates a guaranteed revenue stream for the recording industry?
:(
USC 17 (Copyright)
Granted, that's not what it was originally *supposed* to be for. And it's also why I consider it largely illegitimate. But they've bought and paid for enough of the various facets of copyright law that I think it's fair to say that it's intended to guarantee them a revenue stream at this point. That's a completely illegitimate goal as far as I'm concerned, true, but I'm afraid that's just about the *only* feature of copyright these days
This is part of an ongoing dispute between the Harry Fox Agency, the RIAA, and the ringtone industry over compulsory licenses.
The recording industry in the US has a statutory deal in the Copyright Act which allows them to re-record previously published songs (i.e. issue "cover albums") by paying a fixed royalty determined by Congress and the Librarian of Congress. This is called a "compulsory license". Most music publishers are represented by the Harry Fox Agency, which actually issues the "compulsory license" on request and collects and redistributes the royalties.
Then came ringtones. The Harry Fox Agency, in 2004, took the position that the compulsory license required by law does not cover ringtones. This was a bogus position, and on October 16, 2006, the Registrar of Copyrights ruled that ringtones are subject to the compulsory license. The Harry Fox Agency is taking this badly; "This decision has no effect on HFA's existing policy that DPD licenses ... do not cover ... ringtones or mastertones.
The RIAA is sueing them, and HFA is probably going to lose this one.
This is really a very obscure issue even in the music industry. In the end, ringtones might get cheaper, and we may see the end of that silly distinction in the cellphone world between downloaded tracks and ringtones.
RIAA is trying to screw over their own artists now too! Way to go!
Pretty sure they'll still want the same variable licensing fees that screw over content creators, no matter the length of the clip or percent they have to pay out.
I just tried to buy a sync. license for some content that accidentally got included in a presentation I was filming. It's nearly impossible to stay within law when those you're supposed to buy the license from never return calls because you're too small change for them, and if they do return your call, they have full right to hold your project hostage at that point for as much money as they can get, just because they can.
There are no rules or regulations for what publishers charge for royalties, so I see this doing little good other than giving the artists less of the final chunk they manage to extort from folks.
Copyright is dead, it just doesn't work for new media, and due to greed, it will never be fixed.
(assuming their intentions are to reduce costs to the consumer)
Like CD's are cheaper to mass produce than Compact Cassettes.. You forgot who you are dealing with. Noting with them is to reduce the costs to the consumer. Seen the pressure on Apple to go to tiered prices?
The truth shall set you free!
Has anyone else noticed her initials are BS?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Apple needs a tiered pricing system because some songs are more popular than others...
Digital distribution is cheaper, so the artists margins should be smaller...
Can someone please tell me just WTF the RIAA is good for anymore? If recording and distributing music is so damn easy, why do we need the studio system? Why are artists still backing these guys if word of mouth and sharing does far more to market them?
Notice that, generally, the lousy, insecure artists support RIAA actions while those that actually like music and the showbiz go it alone — and do well?
http://www.lessig.org/blog/
Sure it is, the way they pump out artists with modifications to their vocals and all the industry music magic they use. That's not art, that's a product being produced just the same way a Ford Mustang is produced on an assembly line.
This is the third major recent instance I can remember.
First was having a congressional staffer slip a clause into an unrelated bill that would have made the work of the musicians classified as a "work for hire," which would mean the record labels get the copyright to the music. After this was outed and some stars complained, the RIAA said "Oops, how did that get in there, we are working with Congress to restore the rights of the artists." The RIAA of course hired that staffer for a fat paycheck.
The second was holding back royalties, hiding behind complex accounting so the musicians wouldn't find out. Imagine some 70s musician who is probably owed an unknown amount of royalties, but it would take a $10,000 audit (that he has to pay for) to find out. NY AG Eliot Spitzer nailed them on this, and they owed millions in back royalties.
So, what they're saying is something like: "Our old business model of raping and pillaging artists and selling their work at hyper-inflated prices to a consumer public that has very few other choices, most fairly difficult to do, if they want music, is failing miserably. So we've started finding new ways to sell the same media in ways that the consumer public, once again, has very few other choices with, most fairly difficult to do, which lets our old business model live for a few more years while the public again finds a way to circumvent paying us through the nose for the labors of others. Somehow we think this means that we should pay our indentured serv... ah, that is to say the artists - you know, the guys who we keep claiming are the ones hurt by piracy, even though nearly all musicians who make a lot of money do so primarily with live performance, a format which is inherently unpiratable and has seen absolutely no loss of profitability - deserve to be paid less for their hard work. We justify this with the fact that Chewbacca is a 7' Wookie, and Endor is populated with Ewoks, and that doesn't make any sense. Seriously."
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Its a first step, now we just need to get rid of royalties entirely.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
In your example Joe Schmoe is an ARTIST while Britney Spears is a PERFORMER. So, yes, the RIAA is trying to screw ARTISTS even more than they do now.
And I repeat, Bullshiat. Ringtones cost more than a full song from iTunes (Cingular = $2.49, iTunes = $.99). As a matter of fact, a story from February, 2006 states:
"Record labels love it when fans buy a ring tone of a song they already own -- the industry claims $4 billion in ring-tone sales to date. But in fairness, you shouldn't have to pay separately just to hear your CD tracks or legally acquired MP3s as ring tones."
I say give that money to the artists. They're not swimming in extra money from lawsuits and they're the actual creators of the music. Stop dicking them over!
New artists benefit from the exposure of having their CDs appear in wal-mart, their songs get released and downloaded through ITunes, they get played on the radio. We need clearinghouses for music. There's no reason to accept the RIAA's constituents as that clearing-house, but certainly altering the system so that the mega-bands have an even greater systemic advantadge dosen't strike me as "fair" or "productive."
-GiH
Yes, their margins are "low" at 2%/8%, but low margins does no refute a claim that they are making a "huge profit." Using your reference, warner claimed $3,500,000,000.00 in revenue last year, or (on a 2% profit margin) $70,000,000.00 in profit.
Of course they claim to have earned $1,690,000,000.00 in (gross) profit this year, just a few lines down from their revenue statement. Margins are only important when they begin to scrape around the 1-0% ratio (or lower) where they are spendng nearly as much as they take in. On a buisiness that focuses on volume, margins don't need to be high. Look at wal-mart.
-GiH
Just to add perspective to the observance that most music just too safe, I have read that the real decline came when the big labels' original owners, many of them moguls in the old sense, retired, died or stepped aside to let in the MBAs and accountants. The moguls were nutty and every bit as greedy, but were at least real human beings, as opposed to the coked out executrons minding the store today. The moguls at least gave the A&R people some freedom to develop real artists over time, and quality at least had a chance to bloom.
Not so now...
Who is this delectable creature with an insatiable love of the dead?
What ever happened to people making money from gigs? When I was in bands, we used to give away our CDs (in the early 90s mainly) and make $$ from gigs. Bands like Metallica also used to advocate copying their music as the more people that heard the music, more people went to gigs (where the real money is for artists). Does anyone actually like to gig anymore?
Assholes...
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
To a starving artist, the cost of studio and engineering time can be prohibitive
Ah but artists don't need a full blown studio. Everything needed for a home studio is available from reel to reel tape decks and equalizers or mixers to software. Tascam is one place equipment can be bought. The problem would be having someone who knows how to use the equipment, but a "sound engineer" should be available in many places.
FalconShould there be a Law?
honestly i dont really care if i where to make a hit cd i would want to make all the money i could and honestly the riaa sux moneky balls
GP is just plain wrong on that
If you listen to any of the Everest releases from that period, which were recorded on 35mm tape, on either (properly cleaned) vinyl or the commercially available, prerecorded open-reel tape, you will know what I mean. You'd probably also chuck out your digital music collection in disgust.
Yeap, I loved my vinyl albums and reel to reel tape deck. The first tyme I played a new record I'd record it on reel to reel tape then I'd play the tape. Sound quality was best on a turntable with a new stylus though the vinyl did wearout, so I'd use tapes to listen to, and reel to reel was better than either 8 track or cassette. Boy do I miss the setup I used to have.
For my part, I rarely listen to digital music - it's open reel or vinyl for me.
Though I have some cds I rarely listen to music. Now if vinyl albums were sold again I'd probably listen more. I've heard 45 singles are being released, and I've seen turntables with usb ports in stores. But I haven't seen any with 33, 45, and 78 rpm settings. And yes, I've listened and bought all three speed records though mostly 33 rpm.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Exactly.
A standard recording contract transfers the copyright from the artist to the label. So it really isn't the artist's music -- at least not from a legal perspective. (The labels' grip is so tight that the artists are not even allowed to sell their own CDs at a discount at concerts.)
Big labels have little incentive to treat their artists well. For every artist on the roster, there are 100 more who would love to get a contract. With such a high demand, it's no wonder that the artists get so little.
The only solution is to lower the demand for big-company recording contracts. Artists need to seriously consider the alternatives, and the alternatives need to become more muscular.
riaa is trapper keeper from south park.
Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy
Jerry Pournelle, as in Chaos Manor?
FalconShould there be a Law?
A contract is an agreement between parties to conduct their affairs a certain way. There is no way to predict all future circumstances. The parties negotiate as many foreseeable problems, opportunities and conditions and agree to accept the unpredictable. The contract is binding even when conditions change drastically.
Just because the future doesn't turn out to be identical, or even remotely similiar, to the fantasies that one of the parties had doesn't make the contract less binding.
Just because the RIAA was too stupid to predict and negotiate for terms concerning digital music, cell phones and other digital technologies doesn't mean they get a mulligan on their contractual obligations.
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
My father plays percussion in one of the worlds leading orchestras. Growing up I was exposed to and learned to enjoy orchestral music; I still do to this day. There is a lot of it out there, but most of the time the major orchestras play a small repertoire; Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, etc.
Do you know if he ever played Igor Stravinski's "Firebird Suite"? I'd love to have been there when it opened in Paris. Like how some called Elvis's music "decadent and immoral" the Firebird Suite" was called that as well.
Unfortunately (in my opinion), Britney Spears, 50 Cent, Snoop Dog, etc. are all considered artists in society right now. That doesn't matter though; Nobody is holding me captive and forcing me to listen to their product.
With only a couple of exceptions I don't listen to new singers or groups. Actually I don't listen to music much at all but the newest performers I can name I like are Norah Jones and Neko Case.
FalconShould there be a Law?
This is just the RIAA attempting to rein in yet more control of the artists under their power. The movie studios in the 20's and 30's did the same thing to thier artists before the the actors finally stood up to the studios and formed the precursor to SAG and brought the studio system to its knees. Perhaps this is what is needed in the music industry now. If the musicians and artists took a stand and united against the RIAA perhaps they would actually get fair monies for their talent, own their own music, and not have to be contracted for pennies while the Labels make millions on their names.
-my drachma
-Magdalene --"there are 10 types of people in the world, those who read binary, and those who don't"
Our brain dead policies are causing us to lose sales, so we should pay artists less for the sales we do make.
Why do we want to do this? The same reason we do everything else: For the artists!
Example.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
i hope this gets full blast maybe these artists will wake the fuck up, and start putting music on their own labels where they'll have full ownership, control, and get their music seperate from the barbaric piracy bullshit (tm) which is only paying the riaa and record labels, not the workers aka the artists.
However, the RIAA acknowledging of this could just be a publicity stunt to show that they are trying to adapt to piracy when in fact they are only interested in screwing over the smaller independent artists to benefit the larger record companies. It could be that reduced royalties do not result in lower CD/digital music costs in which case I don't believe reducing royalties is useful.
I don't think this has anything to do with the RIAA trying to do the right thing, the prices will stay the same so they'll just pocket more money.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I had to say it because I honestly don't know their intentions. I agree that they historically have not been interested in consumer rights nor consumer costs. However, their goal in this case, IMO, appears to be to increase sales by reducing piracy as a result of reducing consumer costs. As a result, even though it wasn't their intention, such a move could benefit both the consumer and the music industry.
The RIAA doens't need to reduce the royalties they pay to songwriters to cutdown or reduce piracy, all they need to do is reduce prices. Going from, say 4% royalty payments to 3% only means songwriters earn less while the RIAA members make more money as the prices won't be reduced.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"Now shut the fuck up and get out of my courtroom before I have you all shot"
I know there's a Soviet Russia joke in here somewhere, but it's not coming to me.
You can make it a ChiCom joke by adding, "then I'll bill your family the cost of the bullet."
FalconShould there be a Law?
If this doesn't finally provide the definitive proof of how evil the RIAA is I don't know what will.
The RIAA is killing the recording industry, it MUST be stopped and disbanded at all costs. It is unacceptable to allow this organization to exist any longer, its served its purpose and is no longer needed. All its doing is holding the recording industry back and they are willing to do anything legal and illegal to keep their outdated business models alive.
The RIAA must go away for the better of the world.
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch@gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
One day, mobile broadband Internet access will become affordable enough that one can listen to Internet radio in the car or on the bus and discover independent music that way. But one day is not today, and streams to moving vehicles remain the exclusive domain of companies that can afford Son of Payola.
If Metallica didn't permit themselves to be used for anti-P2P RIAA propaganda, people wouldn't believe the "lie" that they're anti-MP3.
Tech Public Policy stuff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallica#Napster_co
The Metallica/Napster controversy that you mention concerned Metallica's studio recordings, not live recordings. From the article that you linked:
Metallica's defense was that Napster was allowing free access to their back catalogue and not live bootleg recordings, which the band had always encouraged.The first artist who scores big on the net will probably have a tune featuring bells. (The death knell of the RIAA.)
The MPAA probably has a little more time but the end result will be the same.
I'm just waiting for the next step; when they start attacking their own members.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
By "obsolete", do you claim that music download purchases have surpassed CD purchases? If so, can you give a reference supporting this?
I can recognize melodies. I can sing along in private. I can repeat them in private. But I can't write my own because by some calculations, the major music publishers are likely to already have snapped up the copyright on a given musical phrase.
The music studios are capitalist to a degree but they are most certainly unenlightened capitalists.
Most of these people aren't capitalists at all, instead they are the Corporate Aristocracy Thomas Jefferson warned of. A true capitalist, who believes in the freemarket, wouldn't support either patents or copyrights. Adam Smith, the "Father of Capitalism", didn't believe in either of these artifically constructed government granted monopolies.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Do net labels such as Magnatune manage promotion to commuters using commercial FM radio? Do they provide clearance services for songwriters to make sure that they haven't accidentally copied someone else's song (see the "My Sweet Lord" controversy)?
Why would anyone agree to lower the amount paid to the creator of the work? Didn't the artists write and make the work? Why would we want to let the RIAA get more while the artists get less? Isn't it their talent? Their creative ability? Their experiences that are being written about? There's no excuse for such a lame attempt by the RIAA.
The distribution of the music is less, the advertising is less--there's no need to pay them more for doing less. The artists deserve more, not less.
Can't believe the RI fucking AA.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
I remember reading about how Master-P and his sidekicks made big money and got famous selling their mix tapes out of the trunks of their cars. Do these artists REALLY need record companies?
What if master P was promoting his website while selling tapes on the sidewalk?
What if we have it all wrong. What if the RIAA has realized that selling music is no longer a profitable business model, and that here in America, SUING is the most profitable business model. Think about it; you squeeze thousands out of one individual. what if you squeeze from thousands of individuals? that makes millions! Then they just keep a low-profit music/movies industry going because it's the perfect industry for suing left and right (because of piracy) making a little off legit business and a lot off lawsuits.
Found the link via Google!
http://www.elpj.com/
From the website: Pure analog playback without any digitization Digitizing that for CD/Computer use is a simple matter of hooking up the audio output cables (L and R) from an ELP turntable to a high quality computer soundcard or other equivalent setup in order to 'rip vinyl'.
It even plays broken records too! (within reason)
But they are $15k and up!
Only for the audiophile with lots of cash and vinyl records to play with this amazing device!
Maybe Dr. Demento has one—I heard he has probably the worlds largest record collection.
Dude, have you ever had a $2 mcCafe coffee?
Even if the air temp is a normal 70f, the damn coffee is like 92c. I couldnt damn well drink it for 25 mins, what is it with the damn boiling point coffee, is it
to hide their crap beans? Go to any real coffee place and its drinkable with in 2 minutes, but still very warm, but not 3rd degree HOT!!!!
I guess real coffee places use 60%-80% milk, where Mcs use 25% milk and 50% hot water, and 25% coffee.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
So in 1981 (When artists' cut was increased) there was no pirating of mobile ringtones, and now in 2006 there is. Well I guess in way this is true. In the same way the in 1981 there no need for spam filters, IT DID NOT EXIST!!! So as they didn't and ringtone are generally only played for 30secs tops and 2Mins absolute max (Max ringout timer in GSM networks in 2 minutes) surely ringtone only help sell more records whether the ringtone is pirated or not. By extenstion if the labels only obtained royalties of 1% of all ringtones sold that still more than 1981. The argument makes no sence.
Have you read Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton ? At least the latter case was definitely about a single musical phrase, and there are several other cases on Columbia Law Library Music Plagiarism Project that deal with single phrases. What steps should the convicted infringers have taken to prevent their infringements?
any phrase that isn't entirely esoteric can be traced back to earlier pieces that in many cases pre-date copyright by hundreds (and possibly thousands) of years.Can someone affiliated with a microlabel afford to hire a musicologist to do such tracing?
Plagiarism is thus very difficult to prove in law courtsBut when accused, how does one pay for an attorney and an expert witness in the first place?
if anybody ever wanted to know what was at the basis of the RIAA, this shows it all.
beat up the customers, try to roadblock technology, and now stiff the artists.
it's obvious who RIAA's clientele and controllers are... makers of 78 RPM records.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I think, maybe, it's less of a contradiction if you note that he said "it does not have a reason to exist" (present tense) and "in relation to the purpose it served" (past tense). That is, it's possible that it was originally implemented for a good reason, but that reason is no longer applicable. This interpretation of the GP makes more sense when you look at the example he oppened with about laws on land ownership.
Has anyone ever tried an application of the open-source and web 2.0 philosophies to the recording industry? With a little thought, how difficult could it be to set up a system where artists were sponsored by entire communities of music-lovers... something along the lines where each member of this community pays a (monthly? single?) fee towards helping setup and maintain recording facilities, and produce and distribute the albums/singles, and members of that community are able to sponsor bands/groups, and individuals to use those facilities to record production quality audio, which is then released "free" (everyone's already paid!) to the community?
Given the limited availability of recording time, each person or group who wanted to use the facilities had to canvass enough votes from the community in order to get the opportunity to produce a production-quality track.
Benefits: Nobody has to pay for recorded music anymore, or fear punishment for illegal sharing. Sharing is encouraged. Artists who can gather even smallish followings are able to access recording facilities to produce good quality audio, thereby facilitating the introduction of new, fresh music. Artists are selected for recording based on their merits as artists by the community-- no preference for say, only hot 14 year old girls who dance like peelers but can't sing worth shit. And finally, artists still have the opportunity to make it big without their profits stolen by shady recording companies: once they have their recordings, they can gain popularity easily and quickly through mass distribution, therefore creating big audiences for live tours, where all the money is anyway.
Drawbacks: Who's going to organize this/these recording facilities, manage them fairly, and organize the system so that artists get ample chance to use them? What about music produced with the communal facilities getting sold or distributed to the "outside" people (who haven't paid the music fee I mentioned)? Is this kosher?
So long as they continue to make money on the old (through music sales, or lawsuits, etc) they will happily continue to squeeze as much as they can out of their old lemon-model until there's no juice left. Change requires money, or at least risk. Bullying tactics and market dominance might take less of such in the short run (but they're slowly losing said market dominance).
There's absolutely no benefit to under-reporting your profitability when you're a publicly traded company.
There are plenty of benefits. It just depends on to whom and under what circumstances. The RIAA (and to some extent, MPAA) are using the arguement that they're losing money due to piracy, not only in the streets but in the courts. If their net profit climbs overly noticably, even a judge would have to question that. While they're down in the lower percentiles, even if it is a huge dollar figure, they can still complain that "piracy is hurting our business."
Further to that, it has an overall impact on tax reporting and various other things as well. Keep cooking the books, and certain individuals can skim the fat while paying less to the man, less to the artists, and still show a little 'limp' in court like a dog with a hurt paw.
RIAA Wants Artists Royally Screwed A bit more accurate IMO.
First post = troll. Cleverly worded post designed to enrage others = flamebait.
As an audio engineer, someone who lives in Nashville, and has a degree in the study of the Industry, the majority of any artist's income is their live performances. Most artists do not make a dime on their recorded music, the top 20 of course being the exception.
If I had to guess Metallica probably has a gross income of between 500k- $1 million per concert including the guarantee and merchandise. A full-time touring act will make a LOT more money on their live shows than income from recorded music, possibly by an order of magnitude.
Libertas in infinitum
A "recording artist" is not the same thing as a "songwriter". In many cases, they are indeed one and the same person, but the royalty structure are different for each position. The songwriter gets a royalty from a publisher or performing rights org (ASCAP/BMI/SESAC), and the performing artist gets royalties from the music label (usually a member of the RIAA).
Libertas in infinitum
There are no limitations to how far the RIAA will go. I recently read about a campaign against the RIAA war machine. Check out www.digitalfreedom.org Finally a group who won't take BS from them.