Slashdot Mirror
Collegiate Resistance To RIAA In Michigan
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "There are now at least three complaints being investigated in Michigan against the RIAA's unlicensed investigator, SafeNet a/k/a MediaSentry, one of which was filed by Central Michigan University itself. Two other complaints have been filed by students, one from Northern Michigan University and one from University of Michigan. This appears to be part of the growing sense of exasperation colleges and universities are feeling over the RIAA's harassment."
And here I always thought RIAA stood for Really Intelligent American Aliens - imagine that!
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
The worst defense is a bad offense.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Thanks for the updates -- with so little in the way of good things happening on various political and legal fronts, it is great that you spend the time to keep fellow readers informed and encouraged.
That ain't liver; that's beef kidney!
Took them long enough to become exasperated. With the notable exception of Oregon - and even there it took more than one suit to get the State A.G. involved - all of these colleges/universities/bastions of free and open thinking and individual rights have been very slow to fight back against these spurious lawsuits. Too much of a "Not the University's problem" type of thinking on display here.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Or as a non-sarcastic post:
FUCK the middle men who gain most and give little for all the artists hard work, FUCK their rights after creating a monopoly where only they can make big bucks with a large audience. Any kind of industry representative group protecting their copyrights while screwing the artists rights is obviously "harassment".
It's so funny seeing large corporations trying to prevent people from ripping them off. Screw you, loosers! (I don't know what to say about this sentance..). Stop "harassing" me for taking objection to your treatment of the very people who make you profitable.
(I have no expectations of how this post will be modded).
What are the penalties in Michigan for practicing as a private detective? Some states (like Texas) have some pretty strict laws regulating this profession.
Have gnu, will travel.
...RIAA's unlicensed investigator, SafeNet a/k/a MediaSentry, one of which...
This is Slashdot. Isn't that supposed to be:
s/SafeNet/MediaSentry/g
Unlike us and the RIAA/MPAA, Phelps and the Chineses are playing by the same rules.
Screw you, loosers! (I don't know what to say about this sentance..)
Neither do I!
Heh, dicketry aside, I agree entirely. The buggy whip makers face hard times ahead. The sad thing is they could use this transition as an opportunity to make themselves the absolute gods of promotion and marketing, possibly leading out of only media related advertising. Had they began at least researching how to change their business models so that the original value of prospecting new artists and finding true talent was their focus, i think they would find themselves in much calmer waters.
Hell they could have even done both, in an asshat kind of way. Begin shaping their focus on promotion and marketing while still putting out the lawsuits but then backed down earlier when it was becoming obvious to judges that shinnanegans were afoot saying "oh we thought this was good evidence!".
Hell for all i know, maybe this is exactly what they're doing. Pumping the populace for capital to fund the shift in their focus. It would be interesting to see what happens when the RIAA dissolves. I'll be watching for the big 4 suddenly trying to be the good guys again, with their new awareness campaigns funded by the legal fun of now.
Ice Cream has no bones.
Sarcasm only works when it isn't mirroring the sentiment of people that post here. If nobody ever posted that sentiment in a sincere manner, it wouldn't get modded to troll or flamebait.
Of course, I'll get modded to offtopic, because people like wasting their mod points.
Even middle men provide a service - if bands don't want access to a large, well-advertised and well-capitalized market base then they don't have to sign with one of those "middlemen."
Record labels and all those other middlemen are advertisers that pay you. The real money is in concerts.
Now, if you expect to be making between 99% and 101% on every CD sold, go indie. Nobody's forcing anyone to sign on to a major label-slash-middleman.
Now, to continue a theme in this thread, "FUCK" everyone who uses "I really love the artists and hate oppression" as an excuse for pirating music. If you really want to support the artist, buy the CD and then go see a concert. Buy a t-shirt, even.
DATABASE WOW WOW
Don't mess around with a directional Michigan, or you'll get beat.
Nonsense.
Everyone hates those eeevil corporations that employ eeevil 10's of thousands of workers so they can take money home and put food on their table for their eeevil families.
It be better for all of us if they were unemployed and living off the state. And by us I mean shoplifters.
--
The Marines: The few, the proud, the not very bright. - Slashdot tagline 04/21/05
It's about the only thing thats going "right" here lately then...
It's a leather thing
. If you really want to support the artist, DON'T buy the CD and then go see a concert. Buy a t-shirt, even.
Fixed that for you. Revenue from distribution is nil for most artists, if you really want to support them buy merchandise from the whichever-band-it-is's website or attend performances. The promotion angle of the current recording industry has collapsed into itself for the big four, being built around creating the images the advertisers think will sell rather than promotion of talent and advertising the talent. If they truely did shift to a promotion and marketing based business model, they wouldn't be focusing the larger part of their attentions on controlling the distribution channels.
When you control distribution of content and venues, you can tailor a low overhead product to the market rather than finding talent and promoting it. If the ones not being promoted aren't being spun on radio, used in movies/supporting media, or otherwise brought to the publics attention what VALUE have they really given? Having your name on the side of a jewel case crammed in the indie section of your local store doesn't count as advertising or promotion in my book.
As for performances, I can't seem to find any information showing that the recording industry puts effort into providing advertising or promotion for anything but the resulting live albums. I could be wrong though on that one as I'm scrounging between tasks heh.
Ice Cream has no bones.
Whatever, dude. Just because people 'choose' some service/product/ideology/whatever/the RIAA/ that sucks, their 'freedom of choice' doesn't invalidate the suckage.
Now, to continue a theme in this thread, "FUCK" everyone who uses "I really love the artists and hate oppression" as an excuse for pirating music. If you really want to support the artist, buy the CD and then go see a concert. Buy a t-shirt, even.
You bring up a good point. In this big conflict between Pirates and the *AAs, we the users and consumers are the ones that get hurt. But it's easy to forget that the artists themselves are also being taken advantage of by both aggressors as well.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
Yeah, cause no-one thinks of artists as just being freeloaders on society. Musicians don't "work" ok?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Ithaca College has already bent to the demands of the RIAA. Their administrators will release the information of any student to any organization claiming to be working for them. It's almost embarrassing. I hope this changes. I really do.
The problem that college CIO's (and CTO's) are describing are, as the "exasperation" article suggests, very much of their own making, but the article, and most likely the information officers themselves, is misstating the origin of the problem, and that may be complicating their legal responses.
The fundamental problem is that colleges have been hiring the wrong people into CIO/CTO positions and giving them the wrong mission. College CIO's fundamental job is to provide reliable information services on a limited (often far too limited) budget. People are hired into these positions for their willingness and ability to reduce costs while maintaining security and a high quality of service on the campus. In my experience (and I have had a number of them), they are perfectly willing to sacrifice the educational mission of the college and the freedom of educators to accomplish that mission if it will save a few dollars.
In the early part of this decade the RIAA's tactics worked perfectly with the goal of cost control. Large music and video downloads were overwhelming campus gateways and forcing ever larger expenditures on maintaining them. Blocking the ports most commonly used for music and video downloads was an easy solution to this cost problem, so the RIAA provided an excuse for cutting costs. A series of RIAA initiatives that played to CIO cost cutting and revenue enhancement were all easy to adopt.
The take down notices were another story. CIO complaints about having to devote personnel to this task started immediately, and it is getting worse as the costs grow. Legal costs are particularly problematic, especially if they get billed to the CIO's budget. With the costs of RIAA enforcement spinning rapidly out of control, CIO's are caught in a difficult trap of their own devising, and complaining that costs are an issue now will not impress judges who see a precedent in prior complience with RIAA demands.
The only way out of this mess is for colleges to do exactly what one of the judges suggested: to execute take downs without an investigation such that a student can sue the university and the RIAA for a abrogation of their rights, preferably as a class action. The universities could potentially then join the students in suing the RIAA, arguing that the RIAA forced them to abandon due process at the insistence of the courts, largely because Universities can't afford to do the RIAA's investigations for them, but RIAA evidence is often weak and inconsistent.
I don't know if this can be done (the details of this are a lawyers job to sort out), but I doubt that AG's are going to be able to help much given the precedents that colleges have alredy set for the wrong reasons. An avalanche of investigations forced on the courts might lead the courts to start to set the standards of evidence that the RIAA has to meet before filing a take down to begin with.
The real problem is that no such standard currently exists.
The other solution, of course, is legislation. LOL.
Davis http://davis.foulger.net
yesterday there was an article of the EFF website commenting that other colleges (Virginia Tech mentioned) were trying to deflect RIAA harassment.
Formal complaints are much better, but the article did bring up a good point; maybe things would be easier for the campuses that didn't log student's network behaviour, or made logs such that certain behaviours weren't linked to any particular student. Would this be reasonable?
What's the value of information that you don't know?
There are certain socially accepted stereotypes that I'm sick of.
There is a difference between making a living and bing RICH. Why artists have to be rich??
Work for it if you want more money. Nobody can ask for the right to be RICH. A different thing is asking for the right to make a living. And I think that the money the society is giving back to the *AA is MORE THAN ENOUGH to pay a decent salary to all artists. If there is an artists that is making less than whatever is required to make a decent living, or thinks he's not getting he's share of the cake, go complain to the fucking *AAs!. You created them, you supported them, well, you are the father of the monster. It now turned against you? You should have thought about it before.
Millions of developers create the best software ever FOR FREE, and still make a living. They do it because they LOVE what they do. The Stallmans of this world has a lot more moral ground to call themselves artists for coding than the Hetfields for singing.
It's normal to feel sympathy for an artist we like, but that shouldn't stop us from seeing the reality: The artists keep supporting the *AAs by working with them, so The artists have the fault. They are responsible for the actions of the *AAs, so FUCK the *AA supporting artists.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Drug cartels feed thousands, if not millions, of people around the world. Just because an industry pays doesn't mean there is no better alternative for livelihood. Anyone working for ..AA has no sympathy from me.
Gotta lover a gimper. What's a gimper, exactly?
Agreed.
Of course, there's also the "artists" out there who are asking why they can't "just make a living" by doing what they love. The answer, all too often, is that plenty of other people want to do the same thing, and society is just not interested in supporting that many people to do that thing. Once there's "enough" professionals doing a certain activity, there needs to be competition to choose between who gets paid and who goes and does something else. Otherwise everyone will be doing the "fun" jobs and no-one will be doing the hard jobs.
How we know is more important than what we know.
You bring up an interesting point... One thing I've never understood here..
Copyright was extended over there to life + 70 years right? Why?
Why do music artists (and others why benefit from this) have it so good?
Why should their kids (that is who the extension is supposed to be for isn't it??) not have to work like everyone elses?
Are the children of 'copyright creators' incapable of working?
Does anyone have a real answer that doesn't make their children sound like lazy wastes of space?
Or just drop the requirement to register the MAC address to a username.
Then all you could give the RIAA would be the MAC address that IP was assigned to at that time, if a judge requires them to keep logs.
And since a MAC address is easily spoofable, there goes any ability to tie the IP to a computer, much less a person.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
If you really want to support the artist, buy the CD and then go see a concert. Buy a t-shirt, even.
Is it OK for me to go to a concert first? (I just heard and saw Flogging Molly for the first time two days ago.)
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
The publishers naturally create a pyramid system with a few stars on top - it's more profitable, and they're publically owned corporations. It takes less resources to promote a handful of megastars from a large selection of signed acts. The lesser acts sign on because they want their kick at the chance of being the megastars.
I don't particularly like it or the musical result, but it's a perfectly rational business of willing partners. At the root it's really not a music business issue. You're not going to get rid of it as long as you have moral-free stock-based capitalism.
Is it OK for me to go to a concert first? (I just heard and saw Flogging Molly for the first time two days ago.)
So long as it it isn't one of their college circuit shows. Irish+Punk makes no sense in venues without booze. :) I'd also note SideOneDummy Records (their label) is not RIAA affiliated, so none of your cash goes to them for buying Flogging Molly CDs. Also check out Gogol Bordello and Go Betty Go. All three are from the same label and way above average bands (IMHO).
This reminds me of a show I once mixed (I was a freelance sound engineer at the time) The artist, Joe Camilleri (Well known here in Australia) was on a stage in the middle of the main shopping street/mall in Adelaide, right next to a record store. At the side of stage were the record compant reps.
At one point Joe told the audience to buy his CD, then looking pointedly at the record company reps said "Or you could just put 20 cents in the hat"- cause that was how much he got from the CD sales(Which at that time cost $30 aust). The reps looked most uncomfortable, as I LMAO at the mixing desk.
Quite right, recently there was a TV forum on file sharing and one lad had a great perspective on downloading. He said " If I hear something good from an up and coming act, I am happy to buy the CD. I wont however pay for more bling for some mega rich rapper. Summed it up pretty well.
Why is everyone backing the college. Clearly the RIAA is acting in a moral way, as evidenced by all the recent court rulings.
Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
I've been saying this for years. My family and I are having financial trouble right now; you think I care about whether some rich artist gets even more money from me? I've begun to feel this way even about (the few still living) artists that I like, such as Clapton. I remember reading once that he gave away 60 guitars to be auctioned off to charity. At the time, I couldn't even get my hands on one. So, no, I frankly just don't care about artists who are already rich. Simply put, I'm not so I don't see why I should support them. I've got better things to do with my money, like pay the rent.
Another thing that bothers me about these so-called "artists" is how they got where they are in the first place: 1) Some record exec likes them because they follow the formula or 2) they slept with the right person. By the formula, I mean they do exactly what the record execs think will be popular and rarely change it. If you think I'm just cynical then you don't know the music biz very well. One of the things I still respect the Beatles for to this day was breaking out of the cutesie formula the record execs wanted them to and doing their own thing; that qualified them for the label artist. Consider the popular "artists" of today who are following the same old formula. They're powerful enough to tell the record execs "or else" and do what they want, but how many do? Almost none. Meanwhile, hundreds of actually talented artists aren't even being recorded at all.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
I don't agree with the way the RIAA treats quote *artists* unquote. But I wouldn't equate them with drug cartels.
If the RIAA is so stinking bad, I don't understand why 'artists' don't make any sort of competing music label that does things right. You have a group of people with millions of investment capital, where is it?
Pearl Jam? Radiohead? I hear a lot of complaining but not a lot of action. I'm thinking if any number of great, established bands/artists, like the previously mentioned, that could probably get the job done.
But I'm asking why has it not happened yet? With electronic distribution you don't have to deal with anyone you don't want to.
I honestly don't get it.
Anyone?, anyone?
is it the lines of nose candy and women?
the mutual feeling of eveyone thinking they're smarter than everyone else in the industry?
independant labels refusing to sell there soul to sign any 'mainstream' acts, depriving themselves of needed cash in the coffers for the long run?
Seriously... if anyone could shed ANY insight, I'd be more than greateful.
--
The Marines: The few, the proud, the not very bright. - Slashdot tagline 04/21/05
Irish+Punk makes no sense in venues without booze.
Just think of the uproar if you said "Blacks+Rap makes no sense in venues without watermelon and fried chicken". Aren't double standards great?
Does anyone have a real answer that doesn't make their children sound like lazy wastes of space?[snip]
lobbyists
$ make available
Mod parent up +1 Insightful, please.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Irish+Punk makes no sense in venues without booze.
Just think of the uproar if you said "Blacks+Rap makes no sense in venues without watermelon and fried chicken". Aren't double standards great?
I think there is a significant difference. Watermelon and fried chicken are not integral parts of black musical culture, but negative stereotypes about said culture. They have nothing to do with rap music as far as I know.
On the other hand booze is a proud tradition among both the irish music and punk music cultures. Half of Flogging Molly's songs are about drinking. When a band is singing "Whiskey You're the Devil" or "Drunken Lullabies" or "Finnegan's Wake" and the band is discretely drinking dark liquid out of plastic cups... and you have nothing to cheers with and no shots to down, well it is sort of like listening to polka music without beer or a dance floor. It loses half the fun. A goodly number of their songs are traditional Irish drinking songs with specific spots for cheers, played with some faster beats and more nontraditional instruments.
You damn well better buy those CDs- legislators don't exactly bribe themselves, you know! -and our lawyers aren't taking students and grandmas to court out of the goodness and kindness of their hearts, either.
Signed,
Your friends at the RIAA
Except the labels have caught on to the fact that concerts are where the money is, and if you research back stories on this topic, you'll find that they've started putting it into the contracts that the label organizes the concerts and gets the profits from those too.
But I agree, bands are not obligated to sign with an RIAA label. At the same time, I'm not obligated to support bands that do.
Copyright was extended over there to life + 70 years right? Why? Why do music artists (and others why benefit from this) have it so good?
I think you're making a mistake. About the time copyright was extended is about the same time the RIAA formed an illegal cartel controlling music distribution. They used this cartel to force artists to give up their copyrights to the labels or be locked out of mainstream distribution.
Artists that benefit greatly from extended copyrights are a rare exception. For the most part it is the record labels benefiting, while the artists make little or nothing. Too many people look at the the 1% of superstars (who have the leverage to actually negotiate better deals later in their careers) and assume they are representative of musicians. In truth, the median musician working for the RIAA works hard to make music and has to sign over their rights to the label and ends up in debt to the label to boot. Five years ago most RIAA musicians were surviving mostly on t-shirt and memorabilia sales, but the labels have started requiring bigger and bigger cuts of those revenues as well.
The sad thing is, most musicians want to be famous and want their music to be heard and they are willing to sign ludicrous deals and go into serious debt just for a slight chance at that. The alternatives are not very glamorous, keep their day job and play a few gigs on the side, give it up altogether, or go the indy route and know even if they have ten times the talent, they'll probably never have any real chance to make it big like the bands promoted by the big labels.
If you really want to support the artist, DON'T buy the CD and then go see a concert. Buy a t-shirt, even.
Fixed that for you.
Download the track/s then send the band a check for their good looks, straight teeth, whatever, anything that will shield them from a possible claim down the line from disbursing a cut to the record companies.
I look for a band run site, not record co. operated, and an address to mail a check:
Yo, Slash, Edge, Duke here's that money I borrowed for that round of coffee when we were kids.Oh, BTW, nice band.
Anyone?, anyone?
Abba did this -- set themselves up with an end-to-end operation and ended up as (rumour I've heard) one of the richest private corporations in the Nordic regions.
Ok, here's what you do. You find a good lawyer (no longer a contradiction in terms, thanks to NYCL) who knows a bit about corporate law. You don't need that much. Set up a company, limited liability sort of thing, whatever your lawyer recommends that fits within your budget to register and rational expectations for growth(you can always set up a bigger one and sell up to it if you end up needing a different governance model, probably -- YMMV depending on local laws and how you grow as a band). You talk to one of the more reputable accountancy firms and ask them to take you on as a client and find out what their terms will be (run those past your lawyer before you sign anything. In fact run *everything* from that point past your lawyer, including things you may have signed in the past that you thought weren't relevant).
Then you look at distribution media. If you want to flog CD's, find a local indie recording engineer and cut a master. Then you search out reputable CD pressing firms and get them to duplicate them. They can supply full kit including jewel case and graphics if you want, your artwork or theirs (but if you can afford Hipgnosis that's cool too).
At this point you have something to sell. You can send letters (return envelope and price list) and samples out to local record stores, coffee shops, fuel stops and other niche retailers and grow your business. Find a PC or laptop among the group and record everything you do. Don't let this job fall to one of the band members, unless they're unusually focused and don't mind sacrificing the practice, rehearsal and performance time to do this. If you're doing really well, really really well, then find a manager who's a manager and not an RIAA flack and get your lawyer to cut an agreement.
All up you're out a couple thousand for all of this. You might not get a return, audiences are fickle after all. But you might reach stardom too, become the next Savage Garden / Abba / Porcupine Tree or whatever genera, and you'll need that structure to keep the money from evaporating or going to the enemy. Do NOT sign *any* agreements without paying for a lawyer to read and explain just who gets what. In the legal and accounting professions, you do not want to go cheapest route, even if you did buy your first six-string at the five-and-dime.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
I say fuck the RIAA seriously. The artists make a small % off their music while most of it goes to the lablels... and the lables do what exactly?
Promote? I thought MTV, Channel V (Aust) and stuff like the internet do that well enough.
Distribute? In today's day and age Apple does that.
Write songs for the artists? If you cant write songs you are a meerly a preformer, you have no right to call yourself an artist.
Book venues and organize concerts? Umm no thats why you have a manager. The RIAA's role was about recording.
Providing equipment? Nothing a few instruments and a decent PC cant take care off these days.
So seriously, what do the lables do these days impart from acting like pimps and collect money? They are obsolete.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
If the RIAA offer to take you on at that point, *resist the urge* until you are so established that you've reached the end of your performing career. At that point it might make sense to sell out to Sony for far more than your brand will ever be worth. (Worked for Michael Jackson, who sold to Sony for about 1 Billion at the dead end of his career. Just another way to stick it to Sony =).
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Couldn't help myself:
But "Blacks + Rap makes no sense in a venue where everyone's pants fit" not only makes perfect sense it's true!
All of this is now relatively irrelevant.
The RIAA and MPAA bought themselves some of our representatives and they have added some Peer to Peer technology restrictions to the requirements that publicly funded colleges will have to abide by in order to get their money. This memo discusses it, but basically they will have to:
Disclose annually to students that file sharing is bad and illegal
Certify to the Secretary of Education the school will "effectively combat" copyrighted file sharing
Offer alternatives to "illegal filesharing"
Once again our representatives have sold out.
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/epo0815.pdf
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
What? If I'm a band, and I agree to and sign a contract saying I get one cent of every CD sale, how am I being taken advantage of? If the artist and the record company both agree to the terms of the contract, it's a fair deal. Whether you think it's fair doesn't matter because you're not the one signing the contract.
The "think of the artists!" argument doesn't make any sense. If bands really thought they were getting screwed by the RIAA, they'd stop signing contracts with them. If they look around, see thousands of other bands getting screwed by the RIAA, and then sign an RIAA contract anyway, they're idiots getting what they deserve. I just can't feel bad for somebody in that situation.
In reality, the only people screwing the artists are the people pirating music. It's screwing them out of the already tiny fraction of CD sales they agreed in their contract was fair.
Oh, and the bands pretending to dislike the RIAA? They're doing it for the publicity.
Maybe not
Because the enormous machine that has built up Britany Spears, and sunk ridiculous amounts of cash into her publicity, rehab, music, lyrics, etc. The majority of modern "music" is industrialised as fuck, and the performers are a bunch of barbie dolls that present the RIAA's product.
So I disagree. Britany is overpaid.
Of course there are real artists, struggling to get paid, that probably deserve money. I'm sure the majority of music produced these days is entirely due to the producers effort, and finding a face to stick in front of it is just part of the production process.
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Choosing between 'the only game in town' and obscurity with an indie label is not much of a choice for most artists, who simply want to earn enough cash to live while they make more music.
The artists who are established, have toured a lot, etc., are the ones who can thrive with an independent label.
Go to the concerts, get a shirt while you're there. That will support the artist. CD's support the label. Which wouldn't be a bad thing if they would adjust to the 21st century. I agree that they should focus on locating and promoting talent.
TANSTAAFL GIGO Acronyms to live by!
The sad thing is, most musicians want to be famous and want their music to be heard and they are willing to sign ludicrous deals and go into serious debt just for a slight chance at that. The alternatives are not very glamorous, keep their day job and play a few gigs on the side, give it up altogether, or go the indy route and know even if they have ten times the talent, they'll probably never have any real chance to make it big like the bands promoted by the big labels.
Sorry, still not sympathize with them. The world has changed. In fact, it has changed so much that RIAA is desperate of being made obsolete. There is a new way to sell music and to bypass the labels. It's called the Internet. If you are any good, you can make a good money from downloads and it's global. You don't limit yourself to one country at a time. However, you can no longer rely on labels' methods like shoving songs down radio listeners' throats and such. Then again, if you must rely on such tactics, you deserve signing ludicrous deals.
If the artist and the record company both agree to the terms of the contract, it's a fair deal. If bands really thought they were getting screwed by the RIAA, they'd stop signing contracts with them.
They're being taken advantage of by the lawyers and watchdog groups/companies that fight their fans in the name of the record label. I'm not saying anyone's mucking around with their contracts or anything; this isn't about any label in particular, but the RIAA as a whole. AFAIK, artists seldom deal with the RIAA directly, the RIAA's interests are that of the many record labels', not the artists.
...and then sign an RIAA contract anyway, they're idiots getting what they deserve. I just can't feel bad for somebody in that situation.
I don't agree with the whole 'it's fair for them to be idiots' thing, because them being idiots makes it unfair for me, unfair to their fans, unfair to anyone that uses p2p filesharing for legitimate purposes, unfair for people that buy a disc expecting that they can do what they want with it, unfair for people that buy some media but then can't play it because they haven't got the right DRM-enabled device. If you can't feel bad for 'idiot' artists, at least feel bad for yourself.
Not that I'm saying artist's that do like the RIAA don't exactly know what they're doing, because I know some do. Some artists (or their managers) can simply engineer albums to contain only one or two decent songs. They will have successful sales just because of those one or two very popular songs wrapped around other tracks that, for all intents and purposes, are disposable music. If the RIAA can stop people from downloading those one or two extremely popular songs, they do benefit.
In reality, the only people screwing the artists are the people pirating music. It's screwing them out of the already tiny fraction of CD sales they agreed in their contract was fair.
Oh, and the bands pretending to dislike the RIAA? They're doing it for the publicity.
No disrespect intended, but I don't think that you really know for sure what you're talking about. There are recording artists that not only speak out against the RIAA, but the implicitly endorse piracy and bootlegging. Official Bootlegs, talk of the DRM-Free Music, File-sharing as advertising. Look up any of these topics. And it's not just for Indie labels either, but mainstream characters such as Avril Lavigne and Mike Portnoy like to use phrases such as "Free music model" and "copyleft philosophy".
Many aspects of these ideas recording artists benefit from whether or not they care about piracy. Pirates don't hurt artists by copying music. Pirates do hurt artists by giving groups like the RIAA the justification for carrying on as they are.
The RIAA's tactics are unethical and their goals are shortsighted. That's why they are hurting the artists of the record labels that they represent.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
(I have no expectations of how this post will be modded).
Then why mention it?
What? If I'm a band....
If you're a band? If an individual person can be a band, then I think I'd be more alarmed at the genetic mutation involved.
... and then they built the supercollider.
though in this case it is because the labels have all the power, all the strings and they WILL rob steal and lie about money to make sure they get it all.
this is not a lot different than if they didn't go with a label.
Now, where you're RIGHT in saying the small artist needs a label is one which is employed BY the artist. Works FOR the artist. Gets a reasonable portion of the money but doesn't get ALL the money and pass some on to the artist.
In other words, if they weren't like the middlemen we have now.
On the one side that is amusing (but it must be said that the humor here *is* quite special), on the other side you must be really short of amusing things if Slashdot is your only outlet. There's also YouTube :-)
You ought to come down here for a break (he says looking out over the sunlit lake which is full with sailing boats)..
Insert
The real money is in concerts.
If that is true, then why do all the big record labels have hundreds of millions in revenue each year and only a handful of performing artists ever bring in more than a million in their entire lifetime?
Even middle men provide a service - if bands don't want access to a large, well-advertised and well-capitalized market base then they don't have to sign with one of those "middlemen."
That's a terrible way to describe the situation. It's like saying, "if you don't want to use this pass through the mountains, then you don't have to pay the $100,000 toll that the people who are squatting in the pass are demanding." These "middle men" of the MAFIAA have intentionally manipulated the market such that all access to the market must pass through them. If these "middle men" were not there in the first place, then there would be no need for the 'services' they provide (payola, etc).
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I actually did a post awhile back on pcworld (yeah it's kind of my entertainment news of the tech world) about how much a group or artist makes on cd sales vs concerts. I can't recall the actual numbers but it was to the effect of 1.50 per cd (using the rolling stones as an example) where is they sold 1 million copies they had only made 1.5 million while in concert sells it was more around 100 million in revenue thus making cd sells only 1% of the profit an artist or group makes.
I think he meant the real money FOR THE ARTIST is in concerts. the Record industry makes more off cd sales then the artist themselves do.
I agree. Ok Go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ok_go would not be as popular as they are if they had not gone behind Capitol Records back and released their internet video. On their own, for less then 10 dollars, they made their own fame via the internet.
I'm sorry, but the RIAA could care lees about the artist and it's only interest is in the labels and distribution. They view the artist simply as corporate assets. Taken from their website about piracy "Our goal with all these anti-piracy efforts is to protect the ability of the recording industry to invest in new bands and new music and, in the digital space, to give legal online services a chance to flourish."
Now, if you expect to be making between 99% and 101% on every CD sold, go indie.
jebbus fark! do you even understand how much it costs to make a CD? I do I recently did it for a friend...
1 45 minute CD 10 tracks.
About 1 hour spend recording each track and mixing/ audio processing.
10 hours to make the audio.
5 hours paid to an artist to make cover art and Cd booklet.
3 hours meetings.
18 hours spent - gear was a laptop+usb 8 channel capture box+ mixer in his home studio with blankets on the walls and ceiling. we recorded late at night to remove any industrial or car low frequency noise.
Results? Far better sound than in a $125.00 an hour pro studio because the artists were relaxed. Album made for less than $600.00 (including pizza and beer) in recording costs and when they buy in batches of 100 the CD's are $3.95 each.
They sell them for $12.00 at concerts and are now making 250% profit on every CD sold.
Only really dumb artists record in a real studio and spend the insane money on "pro mastering" because it's worthless... you can easily get better than studio recording (One of their tracks is insanely good at stereo separation because I put 2 XY mikes in the center (with a foam audio trap between them) and had them sit in a circle.. the audio on that track is spooky when listened to on a stereo setup. You cant get that good of recordings at a studio, they hurry you along and make the artist nervous.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I think there is a significant difference. Watermelon and fried chicken are not integral parts of black musical culture, but negative stereotypes about said culture.
Wait, wait, wait. At exactly what point did all stereotypes about a minority become negative?
Seriously, look at what you're saying:
"Likes fried chicken" is now an insult.
"Prefers watermelon" is likewise.
In whose reality does this make sense???
Yes, they're stereotypes, but that doesn't make them NECESSARILY negative.
Nobody can ask for the right to be RICH...
...because that's a God-given right.
Just take care not to install yourself in a position of determining who 'deserves' to be rich and who doesn't. Doing that successfully would take talents far beyond any we mere mortals have yet expressed.
I was once upon a time a network admin at a major university in Michigan. All the DMCA complaints would reach my desk eventually. Typically, it was our policy to just report the computer as botted and save the student the hassle.
I'm surprised the great state of Texas isn't pursuing the RIAA for violation of their PI License laws regarding digital investigations. I wonder if they are licensed in the state of Texas...
They could easily collect a lot of cash and get several arrests from the RIAA(or agents) by using every suit they've filed in Texas since 2006 as evidence.
If the law gets overturned, computer professionals win.
If the RIAA gets fined and their people arrested, everyone wins.
I don't see a bad outcome of any states with laws like this filing suits against the RIAA, no matter who wins. It seems like all that would need to happen is for the victim of an RIAA suit to file a complaint about an unlicensed investigator.
Imagine if the RIAA's contractor had to fight lawsuits and answer charges in every state that has laws like this. They'd be in real trouble and possibly do some jail time.
-Viz
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
You find a good lawyer (no longer a contradiction in terms, thanks to NYCL)
Actually, Ray's only my third favorite lawyer. My favorite is the very nice lady who handled my divorce, and my second favorite is her boss, who handled my bankrupcy. Without them I'd have been fuX0red.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-man_band respectfully disagrees with you.
with their new awareness campaigns funded by the legal fun of now.
I'd be surprised if their legal campaigns are bringing in that much capital. Just because you've managed to sue a few people and scare a few others into paying you $10,000 to avoid a lawsuit doesn't mean you're making more money than you're spending on legal fees.
I don't know how profitable their lawsuits are, but to me it seems their main goal with the lawsuit frenzy is to scare people away from downloading illegally, not to make tons of $$ from the lawsuits.
This space up for sale.
You must know inexpensive lawyers and business people who will work for free. If you can do all this in a blinding flash (aka 3 months), you're in for middle to high 5 figures (US$) at a minimum. The lawyer will cost you $350-500/hr, the good business rep who doesn't take no for an answer and doesn't piss everybody off will want about $40-50k for the short engagement (you can get a full year for twice that, if you want to extend the contract). You'll need a couple thousand CDs to start, so tack on 5k, plus about a grand in printing and shipping costs for your letters.
If you manage to clear $6/cd, you'll be working for free until you've sold 10,000 copies, at which point you can all share a latte with the profits. Ideally, you'll have momentum by then, or be out tens of thousands of dollars. At that point you'll probably be ready for the next album, or you'll need to be so that you can get some repeat sales.
Not saying it can't be done, but it's not simple or cheap. Better to try it when you're all young and single, or get a rich guy in the band to find it. Selling your soul to the RIAA generally gets this front money and a basic paycheck, plus the illusion of success. It's no different than starting a business - it takes lot of money and time, and it's often easier to work for someone else for a smaller paycheck even though you'll be treated like shit most of the time.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Wait, wait, wait. At exactly what point did all stereotypes about a minority become negative?
They are not. For example, black men having larger penises is a stereotype, but most would consider it positive. Asian people being good at math is a stereotype and most here would consider that positive, although others consider it negative.
Seriously, look at what you're saying: "Likes fried chicken" is now an insult. "Prefers watermelon" is likewise. In whose reality does this make sense???
In a vacuum, it doesn't make any sense, but that stereotype did not form in a vacuum. It originated with racist caricatures and depictions of blacks, associating them with sloth and mental inferiority. Watermelon originated in Africa, but when the stereotype of all african americans loving it took root in our culture, the association was not with the origin, but with the fact that it was very inexpensive. The same goes with fried chicken. It predated the pressure cooking method. Chicken was cheap meat compared to pork and beef and frying could be done over a fire or stove without the need for an expensive oven. The implication was that blacks were poor... which is still true today statistically, but is considered a negative by pretty much everyone.
Now I'm not african american, but I have discussed this topic with friends who are. It is a sensitive one and one they think of negatively, to the point where one friend would not let her kids eat watermelon in public. Just seeing them eating it instantly conjured memories of those hateful cartoons of black kids with exaggerated lips and glazed expressions, dressed in rags; cartoons people used more than just to poke fun, but to argue against equal rights.
So I say again, if you ignore history or don't think that history is relevant any longer, then there is nothing wrong with associating watermelon and fried chicken with black people. I'd like to say America has moved on. The other day, someone posted this image in a discussion thread about the death of comedian Bernie Mac. Looking at that image, do you see why some people would consider such a stereotype to be a negative one?
The RIAA and school CIOs may have a shaky alliance now, but what happens when this generation of harassed kids/college students gets power.
What happens when this young generation becomes CIOs, lawyers, politicians, etc.? Do you think that they will even hear the RIAA?
Not all studios suck. There are small "indie" ones, just like there are indie musicians. Done right, there's an acoustic environment that makes the musician(s) sound better (things like no square angles) - and having the engineer(s) behind glass means that they can cough (or even spend tome showing another engineer-to-be "the ropes") without the musician having to do a re-take. Can you do interesting things recording at home? Absolutely! Can you provide everything (acoustically) that an indie studio can? I suspect not. As far as being rushed - if that happens - fire your studio. They're not all like that.
Just seeing them eating it instantly conjured memories of those hateful cartoons of black kids with exaggerated lips and glazed expressions, dressed in rags; cartoons people used more than just to poke fun, but to argue against equal rights.
Check the age of your friend, because unless they are at least sixty years old, this probably isn't their own memory at all.
People can take issue with whatever they wish, and it isn't my place to object. I'm just trying to challenge the willingness to perpetuate negativity that doesn't apply in this modern world.
KFC does not equal poverty today.
IN FACT, I'll take this a step farther. My six year old son has NO IDEA what race even means. I once, in trying to get him to clarify which he was talking about asked him 'the white boy or the black boy?' and he was stumped. Didn't know what it meant.
I take that as a sign that if we wanted it to, the negativity of ALL OF THIS would just die away. I'm not planning on teaching my child any different, so here's hoping...
If you really want to support the artist, buy the CD and then go see a concert.
Nah, I'll pirate the music, if I like it, then I'll see the concert both nights, or see it and buy the t-shirt.
What artists really need is an option for internet ad based revenue. So banner ad urls embedded in their mp3s. If you play the mp3 on your machine, then the player shows some rotating ads. You could turn the ads off if you wanted, but that would hurt the artist, so you wouldn't.
Now some evil people would replace the ad links with their own ad links. But the artist could protect against this by having their own banner ad server rotate through album art with links to their site. If you didn't se those, you'd know it was faked. If you saw & clicked, their site would check to see if you were seeing some other ads from them, and offer you an updated mp3 if not.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
To the RIAA's credit, they were trying to serve the _real_ CMU.
Just seeing them eating it instantly conjured memories of those hateful cartoons of black kids with exaggerated lips and glazed expressions, dressed in rags; cartoons people used more than just to poke fun, but to argue against equal rights.
Check the age of your friend, because unless they are at least sixty years old, this probably isn't their own memory at all.
She's twenty-seven. How can you argue young people would not have seen such hateful images, when I linked to an image posted a few days ago? Now it was probably painted long ago, but that doesn't mean young people haven't seen it; even seen it used in a racist context.
People can take issue with whatever they wish, and it isn't my place to object. I'm just trying to challenge the willingness to perpetuate negativity that doesn't apply in this modern world.
The problem is it is still used negatively to refer to blacks in the US. There are still a lot of racists around, enough so that I've heard comments like "he's probably looking for some fried chicken" used in reference to a black guy.
KFC does not equal poverty today.
Actually, I'd argue most fast food is associated with poverty today. It's not an ironclad association, but it exists. I've also heard mocking comments that "those people think Red Lobster is fine dining" used specifically to refer to blacks, in an area where that is a spot where you see a lot of black people going for a nice night out.
IN FACT, I'll take this a step farther. My six year old son has NO IDEA what race even means. I once, in trying to get him to clarify which he was talking about asked him 'the white boy or the black boy?' and he was stumped. Didn't know what it meant.
That's probably a good thing at this stage, but a lot of those things depend upon who is raising a kid and where. I'll bet he knows by the time he's in high school and I'll bet he's heard plenty of racist comments by then too.
I take that as a sign that if we wanted it to, the negativity of ALL OF THIS would just die away. I'm not planning on teaching my child any different, so here's hoping...
I'd like to think that it will just go away over time... but I'm not convinced. I simply know too many racists and have to deal with them on a regular basis. I'm not just talking whites here either. I know a lot of very racist black people, both who make comments about blacks being stupid or who make comments about whites all being rich and spoiled. I once had a guy outright refuse to believe I knew what government cheese tasted like because I was white and white people are all rich in his world view.
I seriously hope negative and positive racial stereotypes go away and people start judging one another as individuals without race playing a significant part. I just don't think it will happen for quite a while yet.
Well... I guess there's going to be at least one person who wouldn't turn them off. I don't think the ad revenue from your single machine is going to be enough.
Fear is the mind killer.
Now it was probably painted long ago, but that doesn't mean young people haven't seen it; even seen it used in a racist context.
If it was painted in a different time, in a different context, what bearing does it have today? It is historical, and shouldn't really offend anyone today, unless the case is being made that society still holds this view. Right?
Actually, I'd argue most fast food is associated with poverty today.
Friend, fast food is EXPENSIVE. Far more so than most below the poverty line can afford to enjoy on a regular basis.
I seriously hope negative and positive racial stereotypes go away and people start judging one another as individuals without race playing a significant part. I just don't think it will happen for quite a while yet.
I feel that a huge step forward would be to stop indulging people that seek to perpetuate the negativity. By defending the argument that fried chicken carries negative connotations, you're reaffirming that it should. If we're moving forward - really, truly making progress, then people of all origins should eat fried chicken with pride. I like fried chicken, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Why should anyone else be?
If it was painted in a different time, in a different context, what bearing does it have today? It is historical, and shouldn't really offend anyone today, unless the case is being made that society still holds this view. Right?
Correct. My argument is that some of our society still does hold this view. I'd say most of our society is still racist to some degree. Have you ever seen this site? It's a collection of really racist comments from internet discussion sites. Here's a quote from Yahoo answers from just the other day, "If Obama gets elected, do you think that investing in KFC and chicken stocks will be a good investment? -Rich, YahooAnswers". Go ahead an look through the site a bit. It will turn your stomach.
Friend, fast food is EXPENSIVE. Far more so than most below the poverty line can afford to enjoy on a regular basis.
Fast food is expensive compared to home cooking, but people below the poverty line do eat it and eat it regularly. This is for several reasons including poor financial decision making and the fact that in many cases the parent or parents are at work all day and it is a fast way to feed the kids.In some states McDonald's takes food stamp cards.
I feel that a huge step forward would be to stop indulging people that seek to perpetuate the negativity. By defending the argument that fried chicken carries negative connotations, you're reaffirming that it should.
I disagree. I very strongly assert that acknowledging reality in no way reaffirms it as a good thing.
If we're moving forward - really, truly making progress, then people of all origins should eat fried chicken with pride. I like fried chicken, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Why should anyone else be?
I don't think people should be ashamed to eat fried chicken. I do, however, understand their hesitation to do so given the very real negative stereotypes.
For example, when the person I was with mad the comment about "he's probably looking for some fried chicken" as a random comment about a black person, should I have ignored the racist implications? One of the most effective ways to counter racism is with negative feedback. There used to be a civil rights campaign called "glower power." Basically, if someone makes a racist comment you don't acknowledge it directly (making them defensive) but simply frown at them and say nothing. It works fairly well because it does not ostracize but does effectively discourage such behavior. By recognizing the racist implications of the comment I heard, I can use this same technique. The racists I know generally stop using such comments around me and I like to think this has helped a little bit. If, on the other hand I pretend I don't understand the racist implications, they seem me as ignorant and they have no negative feedback about the behavior, but a lesser opinion of me making my non-racist comments and actions less likely to be emulated by them.
$5,000? Lawsuits ain't cheap. Capitol vs Foster, defendant asked for ~$68K in lawyer fees for the full case. I can't imagine that RIAA's expenses were less than that. But maybe RIAA gets a bulk discount on "court proof" from Media Sentry...
So... say, 2 or 3 settlements, or a motion and a half?
Losing money is never fun, but I'm having a hard time seeing the fine being anything serious.
In the pocket. If the RIAA keeps on with is bs. Universities need to just stop any and all music from coming into their networks. Ban all websites that have anything to do with music. Just say. Sorry but we don't want to be held liable. And we'll be damned if you're going to sue any of our students. So in order to stop that nonsense we just won't have any music available on our interwebs. When you're ready to be reasonable we can talk. oh and tell you're lawyers to go to hell. F the RIAA!!!!!!
I would bet most bands don't actually care about the piracy. I would also bet that if the bands that did care were given an explanation of ALL impacts that piracy has on them, they probably wouldn't care either. Actually, I'll take that a step further: many bands might actually like piracy, and encourage it.
Before anybody flips out on me, let's compare this to a Microsoft "view" (probably not official) on piracy: Microsoft indirectly profits from piracy because each copy of it's OS that is installed on a machine is one machine that doesn't have a competing OS on it.
In a pseudo-vaguely-similar fashion, a person that has a pirated copy of a band's song is more exposure for them. The act of pirating the music means that person actually wanted to hear that band's work. Just like Microsoft, the band takes no "hit" from the piracy, as that person wasn't going to buy a CD anyway. The additional benefit is that the pirate is probably going to share that music to others, either through electronic means or by playing it for people that may or may not have ever listened to it. That's EXPOSURE.
Look at Metallica. Even though they have "taken a stand" against piracy in the past, they have also openly admitted that one of the single most important factors to their popularity was to piracy. Let's think about this logically for a minute. If CD sales only provide about 1% of a band's revenue, and the other 99% is from concerts: there is a great possibility that a large percent of the fans pirate their music. So, let's say 10% of the audience pirated their music, and it sells for $10/CD (for simplicity's sake): that means the band "lost" $1 per person from the piracy... but WAIT, they got $9/person for the concert! They gained far more than they lost.
Before I step off my soapbox, I have to say I think all this crap from the RIAA is the moanings and groanings of a company that realizes it can't make money from every single copy of every single song from every single artist that has EVER been under their control. Somebody stood up in a board room one day, gave some outrageous figures about how many pirates there are and how much those pirates are "stealing." The main person took that info, freaked out on others, and soon a whole tirade of stupid people started trying to prosecute over stupid shit that only a few of which even have even a small grasp. Had they embraced sharing as a form of free advertisement or ignored it altogether they'd be a much more powerful influence in the industry today.
$me->soapBox->step_down('now');
Sanity is like a condom: rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
English is my third language actually. My first one is Spanish, my second one is a dog-like language that basically uses the words suck, drink, spread and bitch, I use it mostly to communicate with your mother.
And no, no dick in my brain. I have only one dick and it's always inside your mother.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Bullshit.
1st: God Doesn't exist. It's an illusion t of your inferior christian mind.
2nd: A Right is something someone promises to give you if you surrender a power. To gain the right of "security" you gave the power to defend yourself. To gain the right to a fair job, you loosed the power to work. I Don't want any right, thank you very much. I will keep my powers. I Don't pay taxes, I Don't use any of the government provisions. I Don't have any rights, but I Keep all my powers.
The concept of "Right" Is against Evolution.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
There is someone I know close to me (I am not about to say who!) who in the past did opium poppy farming. It was a nice (but not massive) income, better than farming the other standard crops. Some of the crop was used for medicinal purposes, and the rest sold off. There, it does not do nearly the damage it does in the US. I wonder what that means?
I'm trying to figure out what the secret code is in your use of the language, but I guess it escapes my inferior mind.
You've been hoodwinked, my friend. Your rights are yours whether you surrender anything or not. Anyone that tells you otherwise is selling something.
I think he meant the real money FOR THE ARTIST is in concerts. the Record industry makes more off cd sales then the artist themselves do.
Yep, that's correct. I was attempting to show that the money the studios take could ALSO go to the artists, so ignoring it is like leaving money on the table.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
No. You mod him up. I'm not your butt boy.
If I recall, Chocolate Rain was a big hit without the benefit of an expensive studio. Just turn your head to breath. That is all. Musical Gold!
Bullying the largest segment of your paying customers - not a good business model.
No wonder the recording industry's sales have been plummeting.
The RIAA blames plummeting sales on file sharing.
They're too stupid to recognize that bullying your customers drives away sales.
It's been shown time and time again that the biggest downloaders are also the biggest purchasers of CDs.
It's also been shown time and time again that "illegal" file sharing is tremendous free marketing, spurring on sales that would not have happened otherwise.
I'm all for respecting intellectual property.
But the RIAA really is shooting itself in the foot.
Good. The sooner they're dead, the better.
Really, the big record labels are less than useless nowadays, and operate their business just like the mob.
So you're saying opera singers are not artists because they don't write opera? Actors are not artists because they don't write the scripts? The human voice is as much an instrument as a piano, and "artist" does not mean "can do something that requires equipment."
You know, people so frequently forget Lawrence Lessig (CC and EFF) and Eben Moglen (FSF).
And that's why you can revoke a transfer of copyright. I admit that the term through which you cannot revoke is too long, but a transfer of copyright is trivially revocable.
Artists signed up with those middle men to distribute their music. The artists WILLINGLY committed to contracts. Nobody's making them do it. It's the pirates who have been scapegoating those middle men, not the artists who are supposedly the victims.
I'm sure it escapes your inferior mind and your reasoning contaminated of religious bullshit.
Also, Nobody sold me anything. I decide I don't want any rights. I decide I'm not giving away my powers, I don't accept the stupid rules of this society, I despise your society, and won't be part of it. So, the ethical position is to reject the rights it gives me too.
But the way: Fuck you, your god, your fictional jesus, and your holy spirit bullshit.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Oh - you were talking about hits. Sorry, but, above a fairly low minimum, there isn't a lot of need for acoustical quality for a hit. My mistake...
Hmm, I guess tastes differ. The YouTube link was to one of the earlier appearances of Stephen Fry, with one of the funniest sketches he did at the beginning of his career. Nerev have I heard "oh shit" being said in such a meaningful way since :-).
But hey, we can't be all into English Humour, although I have seen Monty Python phrases spread throughout both UK and US English now :-).
Insert