I think that this is just more of the same sort of exploitation of the artist that we always deal with, though.
From my understanding, the truth is that musicians actually make a substantial amount of their money from touring and merchandising, and CD sales (while there may be a recording bonus or something) serve the artist more in that they promote the artist's tours.
I don't know what the numbers are, but musicians *certainly* make money off of CD sales, but in many cases (especially for newer groups) it might be a piddly contract where the record label pockets the millions of dollars from sales. It's fallacy for us (and foolish music groups like Metallica) to believe that the record labels (who comprise the RIAA more than the actual "artists" the name implies) represent their musicians. They want to strictly pad their pockets.
It *is* illegal to share music that these artists have signed away to their labels, sure. But you all are right in that the RIAA's necessity should be questioned. Why use record labels to break and promote a group when you can just throw the mp3s on the web and get your concert tickets (and possibly more due to the free exposure, rather than forcing a brother to shell $20 for a CD) sold that way.
The musicians should stop figuring that the RIAA and the fight against Napster (or whatever the P2P of the week is) benefits them. I feel it actually limits their exposure. It only helps the execs (who don't have the talent or music capability) with capital increase their wealth in an industry where high capital is becoming less vital (see the success of some indie rock).
There was a time when sculptors and artists had to be subsidized by somebody wealthy to get their works completed. Now, many artists can create great and inspired works and become successful in their own right, without needing this financial backing. The file-sharing dispute illustrates that modern musicians should be looking to do the same.
Maybe we shouldn't worry so much about the monitors and the web forms as keyboards better suited to paws.
Probably the problem is that the dogs just can't type them correctly.
Slashdot Mirror
Where is this that they don't have tax?
I think that this is just more of the same sort of exploitation of the artist that we always deal with, though. From my understanding, the truth is that musicians actually make a substantial amount of their money from touring and merchandising, and CD sales (while there may be a recording bonus or something) serve the artist more in that they promote the artist's tours. I don't know what the numbers are, but musicians *certainly* make money off of CD sales, but in many cases (especially for newer groups) it might be a piddly contract where the record label pockets the millions of dollars from sales. It's fallacy for us (and foolish music groups like Metallica) to believe that the record labels (who comprise the RIAA more than the actual "artists" the name implies) represent their musicians. They want to strictly pad their pockets. It *is* illegal to share music that these artists have signed away to their labels, sure. But you all are right in that the RIAA's necessity should be questioned. Why use record labels to break and promote a group when you can just throw the mp3s on the web and get your concert tickets (and possibly more due to the free exposure, rather than forcing a brother to shell $20 for a CD) sold that way. The musicians should stop figuring that the RIAA and the fight against Napster (or whatever the P2P of the week is) benefits them. I feel it actually limits their exposure. It only helps the execs (who don't have the talent or music capability) with capital increase their wealth in an industry where high capital is becoming less vital (see the success of some indie rock). There was a time when sculptors and artists had to be subsidized by somebody wealthy to get their works completed. Now, many artists can create great and inspired works and become successful in their own right, without needing this financial backing. The file-sharing dispute illustrates that modern musicians should be looking to do the same.
Maybe we shouldn't worry so much about the monitors and the web forms as keyboards better suited to paws. Probably the problem is that the dogs just can't type them correctly.