As far as I can tell, they aren't complaining that $125K isn't enough money. Their point is that Fox makes so much money off them that they deserve a more fairly cut slice of the pie. Seinfeld made in the millions per episode for his show. Same reasoning...
This goes along with people saying actors aren't worth the $20 Million or so to put them in a film. Well, they may not be $20 Million talented, but if their face brings in $250 Million in profits then I would say it's a good investment.
is annoying, but Sony does make a minidisc/cd burner stereo component that is available in Japan, or online if you look around enough. It digitally records from MD to a CD, then you can just keep copying the CD, or load it on your computer for editing.
Any good legal team would know that a countersuit is in order in this case. They can sue and recover all of their legal fees straight from the RIAA. Do to the "in the press" nature of the lawsuits, these students can file suit for harrassment, defamation of character, etc. It should be easy to win this case assuming there are no hitches in the initial RIAA claims.
Besides, I bet there are some lawyers who would do this pro bono since it is a high profile case dealing with students who most certainly can't afford it.
You do realize that these "bands that only do their stuff for the money" are just going to work everyday like you or I.
I am a professional musician and have played many a gig just to make money, not because I particularly liked the music I was playing. I definitely do not live the "rock-star lifestyle," but not one of us can say that all that money wouldn't be nice. We definitely can't blame these rich artist for enjoying their money.
As far as the article goes, it seems like a good idea in general. Musicians get paid for appearances, companies license songs for ad campaigns, and, most importantly, record companies basically act as talent agencies. This is one model that the RIAA could look into. Most of these agencies skim a huge percentage off the top for booking gigs for artists. The record companies could make much more money from this method than their current model, which is probably why they aren't doing it yet. Easier to complain than change.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I can tell, they aren't complaining that $125K isn't enough money. Their point is that Fox makes so much money off them that they deserve a more fairly cut slice of the pie. Seinfeld made in the millions per episode for his show. Same reasoning...
This goes along with people saying actors aren't worth the $20 Million or so to put them in a film. Well, they may not be $20 Million talented, but if their face brings in $250 Million in profits then I would say it's a good investment.
is annoying, but Sony does make a minidisc/cd burner stereo component that is available in Japan, or online if you look around enough. It digitally records from MD to a CD, then you can just keep copying the CD, or load it on your computer for editing.
Any good legal team would know that a countersuit is in order in this case. They can sue and recover all of their legal fees straight from the RIAA. Do to the "in the press" nature of the lawsuits, these students can file suit for harrassment, defamation of character, etc. It should be easy to win this case assuming there are no hitches in the initial RIAA claims.
Besides, I bet there are some lawyers who would do this pro bono since it is a high profile case dealing with students who most certainly can't afford it.
You do realize that these "bands that only do their stuff for the money" are just going to work everyday like you or I. I am a professional musician and have played many a gig just to make money, not because I particularly liked the music I was playing. I definitely do not live the "rock-star lifestyle," but not one of us can say that all that money wouldn't be nice. We definitely can't blame these rich artist for enjoying their money. As far as the article goes, it seems like a good idea in general. Musicians get paid for appearances, companies license songs for ad campaigns, and, most importantly, record companies basically act as talent agencies. This is one model that the RIAA could look into. Most of these agencies skim a huge percentage off the top for booking gigs for artists. The record companies could make much more money from this method than their current model, which is probably why they aren't doing it yet. Easier to complain than change.