Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Now Blames Journalists For Its Piracy Trouble
adeelarshad82 writes "RIAA executives have written a letter to PCMag expressing 'deep disappointment' for publishing an article on Limewire Alternatives. While the article includes a disclaimer from PCMag that it does not condone the download of copyrighted or illegal material, RIAA executives believe that 'PCMag is slyly encouraging people to steal more music.' The letter goes on to ask PCMag to retract the article from their website. PCMag's Editor in Chief has responded to the letter by stating that music industry's charges remain groundless and that it reeks of desperation. He points out that PCMag covers all aspects of technology, which includes the products, services and activities that some groups and individuals might deem objectionable. He defends publishing the article by saying 'We covered these Limewire alternatives because we knew they would be of interest to our readers. We understand that some might use them to illegally download content. We cannot encourage that action, but also cannot stop it. Reporting on the existence of these services does neither.' PCMag has also refused to retract the article."
In this day and age if your still using limewire or its alternatives for the majority of your music your doing it wrong.
I'll have to check out PCMag and see if it's worth subscribing to.
^^vv<><>BA
Heaven forbid someone should use radio waves for transmitting illegal information! Or, even worse, terrorists might call each other! Let's forbid the very mention of phones and radios too!
Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
Shouldn't the RIAA be going after them for reviewing CD burners that can burn copied files? Or for reviewing software that rips .mp3 files or .wav files from audio CDs? Shouldn't PC Mag and all other publications be restricted from writing about anything that could potentially assist in copying music?
PCMag is as much motivated by economic considerations as the RIAA. The difference is that PCMag is informing its readership and generating publicity for itself, while the RIAA is advertising its rent-seeking behavior and ignorance of the Internet. There is no way the article could be "unpublished" even if PCMag were to comply with these notorious intellectual monopolists.
PCMag is not a music magazine. If it were, there would be ground for such contention; blaming PCMag is saying that a medical journal is pornographic. But then again, the "music industry" isn't at all about music and is not as much concerned about delivering music as it is about owning all the content that exists out there.
More illegal downloading = more lawsuits = more profit for the RIAA.
It cost the RIAA $16 for every dollar they collected with the lawsuits. 2009 sales were off more than 67% compared to 2000. EMI is on the edge of defaulting on its CitiGroup loan and being foreclosed upon.
Yeah, this "everyone is a pirate" angle is pulling in the big bucks, isn't it?
They make more from one person forced to settle than thousands of buyers on itunes
Speaking of which, I am hereby putting everyone on notice who has ever mod'ed me down, that they have cause me emotional distress and based upon the mathematical formulas that the RIAA uses, I will be suing you for
One hundred billion dollars for each moderation. But, we can settle now for just $50,000.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Southpark got it correct. They might as well blame Canada.
PCMag has also refused to retract the article.
+5 Doing the Right Thing
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
To be fair, the summary doesn't claim that "RIAA Now Blames Journalists For Its Piracy Trouble". Rather, the RIAA is merely saying "you aren't helping". To use an analogy, if a magazine published an article on how to get past airport security with a bomb, that doesn't mean anyone would say "we blame [magazine X] for our terrorism problem" (as if it's the one and only reason for terrorism on airplanes), but you could certainly see how they aren't helping things.
I wish Slashdot was a little more objective in reporting the news, instead of just spinning the story in a sensationalist way to confirm what people want to hear.
It cost the RIAA $16 for every dollar they collected with the lawsuits
I've heard a lot of different takes on that. Some attorneys I've talked to about it the say quite the opposite, that given the way their scheme worked, the probably turned a profit. Regardless, you're absolutely correct: the music industry is going down because of their own inability to manage the business in the face of anything even resembling competition.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
So writing an article about P2P programs is encouraging the stealing of music?
I guess, by the same logic, that automobile magazines encourage drunk driving and gun magazines encourage murder.
There's no scientific consensus that life is important.
EMI is on the edge of defaulting on its CitiGroup loan and being foreclosed upon.
Can't happen fast enough!
RIAA artists slyly encouraging ( underage sex | adultery | drive-by shooting | etc... )
You get the idea. Interesting how a certain media group displays a shocking ignorance of their own industry and the industries immediately adjacent to it.
From the TFA: We wanted to send a direct response to the letter writers, but they failed to include a return address.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Maybe you mean fatwa.
The RIAA is acting like a toddler throwing a tantrum.
Why not blame Google for makeing it easy for people to find info on how to download music.
Are PCMag true and mighty freedom warriors, or do they just want to make sure you are always able to 'preview' (and then delete of course) *their* (pirated) magazine copy instead of competitors' ?
If I were an advertiser, I would be more interested in the stats of such downloads than the stats of printed circulation.
EMI is on the edge of defaulting on its CitiGroup loan and being foreclosed upon.
Can't happen fast enough!
Actually, I would be sad to see them go down. Not because I feel sorry for a bunch of idiots who can't manage a business, but because I am sure that there is actually a good amount of music on EMI that IS worth listening to.
A much better alternative would be if EMI were actually able to market their products in a sustainable way. It is a shame that the music will suffer. I am not sorry that in this case a terrible company is going out of business, but that when they do go out of business, a certain amount of music will be lost to a degree.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
And now the analysis by Epic Fail Records executive Brit74:
How you read that and concluded that they weren't blaming the PC Mag article is beyond me, but rest assured that there is no way around the simple fact that the RIAA is beyond a shadow of a doubt blaming PC Mag for "harm done" by "encouraging stealing".
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Nobody accused the music industry of being smart, logical, or able to formulate a business model. But, I'd like to point out that the 2009 sales dip might have something to do with the shitter the world economy is in... :)
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
It cost the RIAA $16 for every dollar they collected with the lawsuits.
For every person they actually take to court, they get several hundred out-of-court settlements.
Evidently one can become a recording industry executive in an English-speaking country without understanding the meaning of a simple word like "steal".
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
the RIAA is declared a terrorist organisation and all it's executive dragged off to Git-mo the better off the world, and the music industry, will be.
Sales were down 67%. How much further down would they be if everyone knew for a fact that there would be no consequences to taking all the music they want for free? I would guess it's a much bigger number. The lawsuits make getting the free stuff a gamble. They're a cost of doing business, not a profit center.
I'm pretty sure that it introduced me to internet porn back around 1994/1995. My dad was a subscriber to the magazine, and while flipping through an issue I saw an article about recommended porn sites. Interestingly the one that caught my eye was actually amateur erotic fiction. Anyway, at the time it never occurred to me that it might be strange to see an endorsement for a porn site in a mainstream computer magazine. Thus, I can't find myself entirely surprised at an article about file-sharing networks.
Then we should all be sure to pirate as much as possible before that happens, so we can save the music for later generations!
I guess it's true then - Crime doesn't pay.
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
Actually, I would be sad to see them go down. Not because I feel sorry for a bunch of idiots who can't manage a business, but because I am sure that there is actually a good amount of music on EMI that IS worth listening to.
EMI actually does have a lot of good music. EMI is a large collection of smaller labels ranging from Blue Note, which publishes tons of classic and modern jazz, to Earache Records, which publishes many of today's best up and coming metal bands.
Yeah, that'll get you good press. Insult the media. Brilliant!
Or is that...
Profit!!
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Oh how I hate dishonesty. I believe that the people behind this magazine published the article with the sole intention of pointing their readers to other sources of pirated material. Now when challenged, they play coy. Cowards. They should at least defend their action for what it was, rather than tucking their tails between their legs and pleading innocence. Journalists have died to defend the freedom of the press, and now these charlatans abuse that freedom by hiding their duplicitous actions behind the good name of journalism.
10% maybe?
A much better alternative would be if EMI were actually able to market their products in a sustainable way.
Uh, EMI doesn't make the music, musicians do. Musicians won't go away just because some dinosaur music publisher does.
I'd like to provide my feedback to both parties in this. I found the email addresses of a couple people at PCMAG that I could write to an express my views. So far, I have found NO email addresses of ANY of the executives who wrote that letter to PCMAG (as seen on Billboard).
My conclusion is clear. PCMAG has at least some interest in what its readers, and the general public, think about this. But the music industry executives clearly have no interest in what people think. They have their heads in the sand. They have some idea of what product they want to deliver, and all they want is to push it so hard that people will just accept it.
I really just wanted to ask them ... personally ... and that means NOT some secretary answering ... I want to hear directly from these executives themselves since they think their names are so important ... just where I can BUY music that will work for me (beyond what Magnatune has). Do they even consider me to be part of their target market? I have some serious doubts. And I bet a lot of people do, now.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The question here, once EMI goes under, is what/to whom the rights devolve to under the terms of their contracts with the artists and labels under the EMI banner. If they devolve to the musicians, great. If they do not, then expect to see a fire-sale to pay off the bond-holders with whatever few scraps leftover to go to the (remaining) share-holders. Frankly, that would probably be the worst result since the musician will have new masters determing to flog the most out of them before the new entity goes bankrupt as well. Indentured servitude is a bitch and well should I know since both sides of my family came over to the US that way. Definitely not bed-side story fodder.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
not just proclaiming our geek cred by poopooing poor p2p client choices
therefore, we need slashdot wisdom on THE filesharing client to use, for those reading this who are not in the know, and to generally get to know what everyone else is doing
thusly:
1. eMule for hard to get and nonessential downloads
2. bittorrent for easy pop stuff. use the Opera internet browser as a bittorrent client
disagree with what i just wrote?
then respond, with your own pointers to expand on our group wisdom
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Some attorneys I've talked to about it the say quite the opposite, that given the way their scheme worked, the probably turned a profit.
I can't imagine how a few hundred people settling for less than $10K each could possibly offset the legal costs on even one of the high-profile lawsuits (none of which have resulted in any money actually being paid to the RIAA).
A much better alternative would be if EMI were actually able to market their products in a sustainable way. It is a shame that the music will suffer. I am not sorry that in this case a terrible company is going out of business, but that when they do go out of business, a certain amount of music will be lost to a degree.
When they go down, their assets will just be bought by another group.
I say we Blender EMI, buy their copyrights and then release them all to the public domain.
I'm in for $500, who's with me?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I'd personally prefer to return the copyrights to the artists.
Maybe it's time to start an exclusively online music label and distribution service?
US, imma only tell you dis once: You is stupid! (derp d'oh dat dat d'oh)
And for ya money I'm grabbin like I'm Keith Rupert! (Murdoch dat dat ho!)
Give me cash for my CDs
and aac's and crap mp3's
You're like a candy store
And I'm a toddlor
You got me suing more and mo- mo- more
For your dough, your dough etc.
-- RIAA
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
the problem is the music industry continually fails to cite any context for their lost sales, other than the idiotic claim that the pirates took all their music.
when was the last time you bought a CD?
when was the last time you bought a DVD?
consumers will typically not buy both. if you're buying a movie, you'll use your "entertainment budget" on that, and skip on the CD for next time.
CD sales have dropped consistently since the late 90s. guess what happened in 1998? DVDs hit the market.
let's compare and contrast with CD player sales. see how they correlate with CD sales? now let's pop DVD and DVD player sales on the same graph. i wonder whether as CDs dip, DVDs increase?
i'm not saying piracy doesn't exist, but i think there's a much bigger culprit for lost CD sales in the mix here.
EMI is on the edge of defaulting on its CitiGroup loan and being foreclosed upon.
Any speculation on what kind of bonuses the execs will receive?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
It's only made it worse because PCMAG didn't back down like most business do when threatened. If it was a smaller magazine or a non tech oriented magazine, they probably would have just pulled the article and you wouldn't even know about it. Most people or businesses can't afford a legal battle with a giant but the RIAA can sue you and keep you in court for years draining your time and money until you collapse. That is why most people comply but sometimes you need to pick your battles.
omfg you guys have never seen Team America.
Actually, I was understating by a factor of four because I have a crappy memory.
"...over a three year period, the RIAA spent over $64 million on this lawsuit campaign... which brought in about $1.4 million in settlement money. We're talking about getting back about 2% of the money spent."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100713/17400810200.shtml
Of course they shall be sold off... like office furniture and company vehicles. What makes you think otherwise?
Sweden is the only country with sustained physical sales; it's also the cradle of some large websites related to this "piracy" thing, and where using them is pretty safe.
Oh, though large labels are still whining about Sweden of course - because they don't really see those sales. They think in terms of (their) "superstars", while it's a case of lots of new, great music made by many indies. They are obsolete, the world where you are be either with a label or don't exist is over.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Nothing at all makes me believe that they won't be sold off like the office furniture. However, that durned degree in economics (and a black-belt in Reality) has me going "and on the other hand" ;-).
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Why not blame Google for makeing it easy for people to find info on how to download music.
Google has the power to make the bands your label is promoting effectively "disappear" from the web by removing them from indexing. They could also ban your label from adwords, crippling your marketing efforts severely. No, it is best not to anger Google if you are in the music business (or indeed any business that relies upon Google services to connect with customers).
No. Probably 20%
Looking at Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia, WP's mention of "Error Control Coding" seems to be the only definition of the acronym that fits the context.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
A much better alternative would be if EMI were actually able to market their products in a sustainable way.
Yeah, if the major labels behaved better I wouldn't mind their continued existence. If they're selling stuff I actually want to listen to, that is in and of itself a sign of progress, and I'll buy that stuff from them.
"Warner, EMI, hear me clearly. Universal Music, update your circuitry" - MC Lars, Download This Song
If EMI goes belly-up, would we end up with a situation analogous to abandonware in the software world?
Sure, someone would make use of the cream-of-the-crop of EMI copyrights (including but certainly not limited to the copyrights relating to a certain quartet from Liverpool), but I can see a lot of lesser stuff going under the radar.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I figure other labels would snap up much of the material from an EMI collapse, and handle it much like how they handle what they have currently.
Logically, other companies in the industry are often well-positioned to buy the industry-specific assets of fallen competitors (for example, in the financial mess, surviving banks snapped up much of the stuff from failed banks).
It would be a cheap(er) way for other labels to expand, they already have complementary distribution infrastructure, et cetera.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Actually, I would be sad to see them go down. Not because I feel sorry for a bunch of idiots who can't manage a business, but because I am sure that there is actually a good amount of music on EMI that IS worth listening to.
I wouldn't be sad at all to see the major labels go down. I doubt the music would simply be lost - when companies go bust, they are generally bought up, often rather cheaply, any assets (here: music) would presumably be taken over by somebody who might even be able to handle it responsibly. Ideally, it be bought up by one of the big libraries and made available for free - far too much music, literature and film is not available to the public because some idiots can't think of a way to make money out of it.
A much better alternative would be if EMI were actually able to market their products in a sustainable way.
And there, I feel, we are at the nub of the problem, as it were: lack of ability.
Actually, I don't mind them doing this. In their desperation, they've just walked out of their Mom's basement without their pants on, with a picket-poster in hand saying "goobbly-booh". I feel so happy when idiots get frustrated and start flapping around helplessly. The societal equivalent of natural selection will take care of them.
Oh and, I am going to start replacing all my insulting curse-words (e.g., douchebag) with "RIAA".
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=569
Also reminded of this line from MC Lars' "Download This Song":
Epic's up in my face like, "Don't steal our songs Lars,"
While Sony sells the burners that are burning CD-R's
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Who says downloading, or making copies for private use is illegal? It depends on where you are.
In many countries, people are forced to pay fees on blank CDs, on printers, on copy machines, even on the memory in MP3 players. Why? The justification for these fees is that people do, in fact, make copies of copyrighted media. Irritating: whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? More irritating: extraordinarily little of this money actually makes it to the artists.
A very few countries got it right: "if our consumers must pay these fees, because you assume they are copying, then they have paid for the right to copy, and this must then be legal". Two countries that I am aware of: Switzerland and Italy. As I understand the law in these two countries (IANAL), uploading is illegal, as is making copies for sale. However, making copies for private use is legal, and this includes both downloading and also making individual copies for friends. The claim that downloading is illegal is therefore disingenuous. The MAFIAA would like for it to be illegal, but it depends on your jurisdiction.
Does anyone know of other countries where downloading is legal? Or have more specific information on the situation in Switzerland and Italy?
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
It's interesting how one of history's biggest monsters (Stalin) was on the good side of a war effort against one of history's other biggest monsters (Hitler)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Yeah, sometimes it takes big companies with contrary interests to successfully stand up to other big companies.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
+1 Funny for your variant of the "copyright infringement != theft" theme.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
But those $64M include the costs of lawsuits, which includes paying lawyers, which is THEM.
So the RIAA may get out with a negative balance, but the guys involved earn big cash.
...for standing up for their beliefs. And for not giving in to threats.
Wish I could say the same for the useless elected politicians though.
Why do you care if a label goes under? a label is a guy with a phone ordering CD productions, and scheduling marketing propaganda for its bands.
- Something the bands themselves are quite capable of doing themselves if they aren't retards.
Labels should never have gotten the power they do over bands and the propagation of music, but they did because the tv/radio stations found it simpler to deal with a handful of contacts instead of dealing with every single band.
With the advent of internet, we don't need tv/radio, and soon tv/radio will just be one of the pages/feeds you can watch/listen to on the internet out of millions.
Which is great, because then musicians are going to perform regularly to make a living instead of coasting on a single song they made 60 years ago.
I don't think it's much to worry about. EMI, like any record company, own a vast amount of IP and that has real value (even if EMI don't seem to know quite how to make the best of it). Some enterprising person would step in, buy and cash in on the IP, more or less guaranteed.
They've already tried that. What happens is that Google removes the offending link from their index and replaces it with a link to the letter they received asking them to remove it.
Then, should Googlebot decide to put it back next time it crawls the web, well that's something Google has no control over.
The music stock will be sold and we will see yet another flood of "Best of" CDs that the new owners releases to recoup the cost.
That will be terrible, but the timing will likely coincide with Cameron's reform of copyright law. If all the musicians affected become disillusioned with the current label/rightsholders/copyright regime that put them in such a miserable situation, they may lobby for drastic changes. That's the silver lining, and here's to hoping.
Go back to the source and sue ARPA for making all this possible.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
If EMI goes under, their assets (including copyrights) will be divided by their credors and assigned for a sale supervised by the credors and a judge. That is how banckrupcy works.
Now, whoever buys the copyrights will probably be interested on some revenue, instead of making music scarce so they can sell their latest trash. That is probable because the buyer probably won't be a studio (all of them are underwater) who has any latest trash to sell. Consequently, whoever buys the copyrights will probably work hard to distribute the music (and yes, that includes lowering the price and putting them on the web) making the whole situation so much better than what we have now.
Rethinking email
You forgot ringtones.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Even if there is no legal consequence, you'll still have to organize all that music, and be sure to not get any virus (yeah for Microsoft helpping the music industry), know where to search for it, and go throught lots of other small problems.
Now, of course, legit music can also get your computer infected, is hard to organize, and has a miriad of other small problems. But it is the labels fault that they invest money into making their products inferior to piracy. They could very well sell a superior product.
Rethinking email
That is the nice thing about capitalism. Also, they aready tried blamming Google, but US justice system isn't that much biased yet.
Rethinking email
Music is already suffering because of restrictions. Try getting decent musical scores for tunes written 100 years ago for various instruments. Even though they are free from copyright they are rare and expensive when located.
One day we will have software that can take an audio feed from a vocal and print it out in any clef for any instrument. That ought to send shock waves up their panties.
My cable package provides quite a few music channels. That probably kills sales as well.
Magazines that talk about P2P softwares don't encourage me to steal music. Talentless hacks who can't sing without heavy autotuning encourage me to give the RIAA the finger and steal music.
You don't really think the labels would allow themselves into an agreement where ANYTHING of value would go to the artists, do you?
I mean come on, they can't even PAY most of the artists in any meaningful manner...
Don't forget games. Those are expensive, espicially on consoles, and the console industry is thriving. Every game purchased could be money that would otherwise be spent on two DVDs, or four CDs.
Apparently the RIAA is upset that we aren't using the far more encompassing MPAA piracy list instead.
http://www.mpaa.org/Resources/fdff7027-1a9e-46dc-9a80-7cf20aa1b686.pdf
Yes, it's real, and right off of the MPAA site, lol! Skip to page 3 for the list. There's honestly some stuff in there I didn't know about, like kino.to
A much better alternative would be if EMI were actually able to market their products in a sustainable way.
Uh, EMI doesn't make the music, musicians do. Musicians won't go away just because some dinosaur music publisher does.
So what is stopping all these poor musicians leaving EMI now and doing everything themselves if music publishers are so pointless?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Which is great, because then musicians are going to perform regularly to make a living instead of coasting on a single song they made 60 years ago.
60 years or ten minutes ago, what's the difference? If people want to listen to that song why shouldn't the musician get paid for it?
Otherwise, all concerts should be mandatorily free of charge.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Also, you are starting from the assumption that most consumers are young teenagers with only pocket money who therefore have a precise, fixed "entertainment budget" so that if they buy a DVD they won't be able to buy a CD.
In fact, a lot of people are likely to buy both.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Don't forget games. Those are expensive, espicially on consoles, and the console industry is thriving. Every game purchased could be money that would otherwise be spent on two DVDs, or four CDs.
Most people (non-hardcore gamers) buy relatively few games though, certainly at full price
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
They are obsolete, the world where you are be either with a label or don't exist is over.
What I don't understand is the argument that it is a good thing to buy indie music, but not major label music, which you should instead pirate.
Although it is logically true that if nobody buys any major label music then the major labels will eventually go bust, I still don't see why indie music is exempt from this brave new music world.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Where are you living? Where I'm shopping (Norway and Ireland), non-blockbuster DVDs usually cost less than CDs. And I feel cheated if I pay more for a CD than a DVD - it just seems like a DVD has more in it than a CD (even if I play the CD many more times than the DVD.)
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Did I made such argument? (and what it has to do with that specific quote?)
"This brave new music world" doesn't obviously mean that, somehow, the lifestyle typical of few stars will be possible to many indies. Most of them will have other jobs, for example. Part - if getting money from music - mostly via live acts (like that's something new...); only some via actual sales of music.
It's important to note how people actually still buy it, if it's good.
(BTW, remember some recent moves / wishes about blocking Creative Commons music? This is old label mindset wishing to block their real competition)
One that hath name thou can not otter
There are, of course, some after-effects. Despite its popularity with others during that era, the "Hitler 'stache" is pretty much considered bad taste to have nowadays in many places.
Yeah, sometimes it takes big companies with contrary interests to successfully stand up to other big companies.
That is the nice thing about capitalism.
Only if the bigger company is on the right side.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It will still be worth listening to after EMI goes into bankruptcy. It's not like a company's assets just evaporate into thin air if it goes bankrupt. They are sold and the proceeds divvied up between the various creditors.
OT: Sustainable marketing? What in the name of Pete is that? Are EMI printing posters on Panda hides nowadays?
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
The MAFIAA would like for it to be illegal, but it depends on your jurisdiction.
If you're talking about the Motion Picture Industry Association of America or the Recording Industry Association of America I think you'll find a clue to their jurisdiction in the name.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Actually I bought around 60 physical CDs combined this year because buying a physical CD is most often the only way to get lossless quality audio. I also paid to download lossless files of a couple of releases and would do so for all my music if it was an option.
Almost every big-budget game nowadays has a musical score. Some feature songs from actual artists. Guess where the money for copyright on the songs is going? Yes, you are sponsoring the RIAA with your gaming habit.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
Shouldn't I then be able to pay once for a license to listen to that song forever? Why shouldn't this be a two way street?
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Sorry, but magazines like PC Mag, Ars Technica and many other websites which help and foster online piracy are a big part of the problem. You don't have them helping software piracy because that will hurt their advertising, but it is popular with their audience to steal music, movies and TV. So that is why they are doing it. This is a big double standard, to help and foster creative piracy. Not even turning a blind eye, but to help and tell people how to pirate, also to literally support anti-copyright policies. Sorry, but this is a big part of the problem. Artists, filmmakers and more need their rights protected. not for people to be stealing more. here you have people saying ridiculous things like "notorious intellectual monopolists" ... what does that even mean or stand for? it is BS !!
Songwriters, artists, labels and more deserve to get paid for their hard work, same for movies, comics and other realms. For noob/idiots to simply say the business model of creating art or entertainment is broken, artists are getting "stolen" from and more is crazy, wrong and just a stupid justication for their stealing, breaking laws and hurting the people they like the creativity of.
Sorry, but website blocking, domain taking back and finding new ways of blocking p2p networks is sounding very appealing right around now. Very real people are getting hurt by IP theft.
It cost the RIAA $16 for every dollar they collected with the lawsuits
Some attorneys I've talked to about it the say quite the opposite, that given the way their scheme worked, the probably turned a profit.
The attorneys' schemes always turn a profit, but we're talking about the RIAA!
*snicker*
Lawyer jokes are never offtopic.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
They don't need the RIAA anymore. Marian Call just recently did a 50 state tour on her own (She only has Hawaii left to perform in and she'll be there around Christmas). She performed at Wootstocks in NYC and in Boston.
UPS Sucks
EMI is on the edge of defaulting on its CitiGroup loan and being foreclosed upon.
Any speculation on what kind of bonuses the execs will receive?
Who knows, but my guess is it would be roughly equivalent to the current retirement benefits of the rest of the company.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Now won't PCMag be happy about all this publicity...
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
I guess that's what I was referring to with my 'with contrary interests' phrasing
Another example: Apple, in the interest of selling consumer electronics, talked the major labels into DRM-free paid downloads.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
You can't just release them to public domain. The copyright still belongs to the musician, the label just has an exclusive right to distribute the works. And in a few years they return to the musicians (see recent /. story over the Eagles copyrights).
Dilbert RSS feed
I was being ironic: the market cannot solve all problems. I'm in favor of trademarks--a big government sponsored social program for business. I'm also in favor of copyright reform. For a reference on intellectual monopoly, I suggest Against Intellectual Monopoly a free online text by economists Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine. I also recommend their web site Against Monopoly. Intellectual monopoly is the exclusive "...right to control how purchasers make use of an idea or creation." This refers to all copies of an idea or creation. Boldrin and Levine assert that "not only should the property rights of innovators be protected but also the rights of those who have legitimately obtained a copy of the idea, directly or indirectly, from the original innovator." It is an empirical and not an ideological question whether and to what extent creators should "...have the right to control how purchasers make use of an idea or creation." The evidence I've seen is that copyrights and patents overwhelmingly favor moneyed interests at the expense of innovators and at significant social cost.
CD isn't lossless. The master used to burn them has much better quality. 44.1kHz is a low sample rate compared to DVD-Audio, which can have up to 192kHz.
Dilbert RSS feed
Organize? Picard can batch process all your music files and compared the audio with a database using a fingerprint, and tag them accordingly. It's also free.
Also, virus with MP3 files? Really? Well, maybe if you use WMP or iTunes to play them.
Dilbert RSS feed
Exactly.
just because a Corporation turns out a negative balance, does not mean that EVERY employee of that company is not earning their paycheques and getting bonuses.
60 years or ten minutes ago, what's the difference? If people want to listen to that song why shouldn't the musician get paid for it?
I'm sorry, but that's one of the most flawed stagnant ideas I've ever heard in my life. what you're saying is artists that have an idea once, should profit from EVERY instance of that idea ever?
so at some point, we'll have a bunch of estates that you have to pay to buy/watch/listen/see/feel/hear/smell anything. if people are allowed indefinite copywrong on material: it will come to this at some point.
IMHO: you should get 10 year copyright on new material, and a 3-5 year copyright on transformational work. This promotes growth, invention, and allows people to revisit their youth as they age, to share that material with their children: hoping that they will then in turn invent new or additional transformational works to continue the flow of information. period.
That is why I thanked Microsoft for helping the music industry. People wouldn't fear virus if it wasn't for them.
There is a long time I've tried to use MusicBrainz to tag something. Maybe I should try that again. But anyway, it can't beat having all your music classified and organized from the moment you buy it.
Rethinking email
And I will generally react favourably toward their advertising clients. Anybody who stands up to those bastards will get a chunk of my business.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
You can't just release them to public domain. The copyright still belongs to the musician, the label just has an exclusive right to distribute the works.
The Eagles are an anomaly because they are megastars. Take a look at the copyright notice on most CDs - the copyright is owned by the label, not the band. They sell it in return for residuals.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
From what I've read the most likely scenario is that Warner Music will buy the recorded music arm, while the music publishing arm will either be retained by Citicorp or sold off to a private equity firm.
"If sorry were enough, we wouldn't need seppuku"
Yeah but it's a lot higher quality than the usual mp3s we get. Sure it isn't 24 bit audio like you could be getting if it was made direct to a DVD but lossless ripped from a CD is far superior to digital download files from itunes.
Best combination of TNG and lolcat humor I've ever read!
I think that's the ONLY such combination I've ever heard.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
What can I say? I love the old Camp Chaos "Monkey for President" cartoons. :)
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Sweet!
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Unless they have been withholding material for release for all these years. Surely all of their catalog is out there in some form or other and safely archived in the collections of the people who love the music - on vinyl, cassette, CD, harddrives, iPods (and their like). I've said this before, but record companies are notoriously bad at actually archiving their own collections. This material is much safer in the hands of hundreds, thousand, millions of avid listeners. If they have been holding back some good material, now is the time to set it free. If they want to charge money for it, no problem, but do so in a way that will make people willing to pay for it. Oh, that has been the problem in recent years. No sympathy for their impending demise. They have mismanaged and exploited from the outset and now is not the time to mourn their loss of control of a catalog they don't deserve to manage. Well, that's my take on it.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Self indulgent self promotion here: Excuse me, but please support me; a regular poster and poor independent musician/producer! http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/eatingbetty3 http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/eatingbetty2 http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/eatingbetty http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bigshiny Also available on iTunes, Amazon, EMusic etc. Just google Eating Betty or ACEtone Studio Free stuff at sig below. Help! I'm too small to succeed!
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Who says downloading, or making copies for private use is illegal? It depends on where you are.
In many countries, people are forced to pay fees on blank CDs, on printers, on copy machines, even on the memory in MP3 players. Why? The justification for these fees is that people do, in fact, make copies of copyrighted media. Irritating: whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? More irritating: extraordinarily little of this money actually makes it to the artists.
A very few countries got it right: "if our consumers must pay these fees, because you assume they are copying, then they have paid for the right to copy, and this must then be legal". Two countries that I am aware of: Switzerland and Italy. As I understand the law in these two countries (IANAL), uploading is illegal, as is making copies for sale. However, making copies for private use is legal, and this includes both downloading and also making individual copies for friends. The claim that downloading is illegal is therefore disingenuous. The MAFIAA would like for it to be illegal, but it depends on your jurisdiction.
Does anyone know of other countries where downloading is legal? Or have more specific information on the situation in Switzerland and Italy?
In the Netherlands downloading music is not illegal, uploading without permission is. We also have a blank CD/DVD fee.
Joost
I wish that more DJ's were like you, and had some degree of autonomy.
Right now Edmonton, Alberta is a market of a bit over a million people. We have 20+ radio stations.
Country western (new style) 4-5
Oldie Goldie Pop 3-4
Rock 3
Multicultural 1 (dutch, chinese, ukranian, ... )
Access Radio multiple music formats, -- jazz, classical, folk.
CBC radio -- english & french. 3
So it's not too bad.
One of the pop/oldie stations has a 'no repeat workday' And it's true. They don't repeat during the day. But the same 40 or 50 songs come back again on Tuesday.
I don't know how the radio market works. I'd love to know how they decide what to put on:
Example: That pop/oldie station has ONE Neil Diamond song in it's rotation. This is a guy who had more than one hit. Why is only one played.
Example: Enya's "Orinoco Flow" got air time -- lots of air time when it came out. Why would any radio station only play the one song? Enya puts out a record every few years. Surely there is more than one that deserves air time.
Lorenna McKennit has had two songs on the pop charts, "The Bonny Swans" and "Mummer's Dance" She sells out audiences at our folk festival every year. But other air time?
Two other fav's of mine, Stan Rogers and James Keelaghan get no air time at all other than an occasional play on CBC.
I don't get it. Why are there not more stations like Access which have actual time slots of classical, folk, jazz, alternative? Why aren't there stations with the 'no repeat work month?'
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
"If the intention is clear" is the imperative part.
We Slashdot readers are a diverse bunch. Some of us have worse command of the English language than others and the cues that good grammar provides help us understand the intention better (or quicker).
English is my third language. When I read a grammatically malformed post, I often have to pause and "re-parse" it to make sure that I understood it correctly -- sort of like reading non-idiomatic code in the programming language of your choice. I do get your meaning but it may take more time.
In short, using good grammar is just polite, like saying "please" and "thank you".
PS,
The above applies tenfold for splitting a sentence between the subject and the comment body. If I had a bullet for every person that does that...