free jamie

[anonymo]

Ok, the last time I did any research into this (and maybe I should do more) the artist makes MOST of their money from doing live shows and selling things like T-Shirts and what not. When a CD in a store is purchased, most of the money goes to the label. Soo....how is that hurting the artist that made them when I download their songs and more people hear them as a result? In addition how the devil does that fuel the sales number for the majors? I haven't bought anything from them. How are they getting sales out of it? That doesn't make a lick of sense...

 

Because most major labels are conglomerates of distribution, marketing etc. including events, which means that if someone's CD isn't selling well their inclusion on the road shows will be scrapped. The profit on CDs for lesser known artists are so low that the only consideration people make with CD sales are in terms of numbers. When labels and distribution companies see people buying, for example, U2 CDs but no one buying my album (if I were on a major label, just follow me) they shift support towards the CD that sells and changing the minds of record executives is like explaining the purpose of the RIAA to SJ.

[stutters]

sure thing, riaa fanboy. just because i don't agree with your argument doesn't make me incapable of comprehending it. comprende?

[NOFX]

Of course, when they sign a label, dont they give their rights to the music away to some degree?

 

They give away all the rights to the music... they don't even own it anymore. Its illegal for them to make a cd of them playing the song and give it to a friend.

NOFX is one of my all time favorite bands.. when I went by the name nofx back in the day, not many people have heard of the the crappy underground punk band.. They are one of the most success bands out there. Fat Mike started his own record label (what is now Fat Wreck Chords) after the first album or so. Not only do they get all the proceeds from selling their album..They can tour when they please, release albums when they want, and basically do their music however they feel like. They aren't forced to the likings of someone who thinks the record will sell.... They can also do whatever they want with the music they created.

 

The RIAA has a webpage with all the labels that are part of it.. Fat Wreck shows up, but on Fat wreck's page, they have said they have asked the RIAA to take their name off the list many times because they have never had anything to do with them. Just goes to show you how low the RIAA goes to try to show it has support.

 

With this day and age the music can be tranfered to the listener without the use of a record label... The record industry knows this and is doing everything it can to hang on... CDs are a thing of the past. Why don't we continue to force people to use 8 tracks while we are at it? The record labels have no place in this day in age with music. Artist do not need record labels anymore. They can distribute their stuff much easier over the internet...

 

Downloading a song is still not the same experience as buying a CD in the store... the record labels should still produce CDs, but I believe they have absolutely no business in owning the artists music. It just only allows them to have their hands in every nickel that is related to the artist and consequently allows them to sue people for sharing the artists music.... They were able to get away with this back in the early 90 and before because The artist had no choice, if they didn't agree to allow the record company to own the music, their music would no be heard by everyone..

 

The artists aren't the ones suing, its the greedy people who are afraid they are going to lose money, in the long run they have already lost the battle....

[stutters]

The RIAA has a webpage with all the labels that are part of it.. Fat Wreck shows up, but on Fat wreck's page, they have said they have asked the RIAA to take their name off the list many times because they have never had anything to do with them. Just goes to show you how low the RIAA goes to try to show it has support.

qft

http://www.riaaradar.com/search.asp?search...at+Wreck+Chords

[[LaW]Maverick]

Of course, when they sign a label, dont they give their rights to the music away to some degree?

 

They give away all the rights to the music... they don't even own it anymore. Its illegal for them to make a cd of them playing the song and give it to a friend.

NOFX is one of my all time favorite bands.. when I went by the name nofx back in the day, not many people have heard of the the crappy underground punk band.. They are one of the most success bands out there. Fat Mike started his own record label (what is now Fat Wreck Chords) after the first album or so. Not only do they get all the proceeds from selling their album..They can tour when they please, release albums when they want, and basically do their music however they feel like. They aren't forced to the likings of someone who thinks the record will sell.... They can also do whatever they want with the music they created.

 

The RIAA has a webpage with all the labels that are part of it.. Fat Wreck shows up, but on Fat wreck's page, they have said they have asked the RIAA to take their name off the list many times because they have never had anything to do with them. Just goes to show you how low the RIAA goes to try to show it has support.

 

With this day and age the music can be tranfered to the listener without the use of a record label... The record industry knows this and is doing everything it can to hang on... CDs are a thing of the past. Why don't we continue to force people to use 8 tracks while we are at it? The record labels have no place in this day in age with music. Artist do not need record labels anymore. They can distribute their stuff much easier over the internet...

 

Downloading a song is still not the same experience as buying a CD in the store... the record labels should still produce CDs, but I believe they have absolutely no business in owning the artists music. It just only allows them to have their hands in every nickel that is related to the artist and consequently allows them to sue people for sharing the artists music.... They were able to get away with this back in the early 90 and before because The artist had no choice, if they didn't agree to allow the record company to own the music, their music would no be heard by everyone..

 

The artists aren't the ones suing, its the greedy people who are afraid they are going to lose money, in the long run they have already lost the battle....

 

Here Here!!! NOFX hits the nail on the head. :-) If I ever do try hard to make money selling books, it'll be so I can start self-publishing :-) No one is going to make another "Battlefield Earth" with anything I've written! (great book, HORRIBLE movie0

[NOFX]

Heres another link to show the names of the record labels.. note that Fat Wreck Chords is still listed as a member.. last I heard about them trying to get them to take their name off the list was probably a year ago... I seriously wonder how many other labels on there are falsified. Not that I have time to research everyone, but I wouldn't be surprised if some were just made up to make the list larger..

 

http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_se...aboutus_members

 

I would love to see the tables turned and the artist be the one who owns the music and when a record company sells more CD's than what was agreed upon in the contract, the artist can sue the RIAA/label for distributing copyrighted material... this is how it should be... but its not because the system is has been fouled and manipulated by the white collar execs with buttloads of money that lobby to keep the law interpreted irrational and keep these irrational systems in place.

Edited October 10, 2007 by NOFX

[farmerisme]

I mean when someone sells the rights to their music for a price, do they not get something worthwhile out of it? Otherwise why most bands/musicians kill for a contract that gives away their rights? I am not a musician, but seems that what you get out of production, promotion, and guaranteed $ must be worth it. So if a label puts up all that money on artists (that some make them money and I am sure many more LOSE them money) do they not deserve to get the fruits of the sales?

[[LaW]Maverick]

I mean when someone sells the rights to their music for a price, do they not get something worthwhile out of it? Otherwise why most bands/musicians kill for a contract that gives away their rights? I am not a musician, but seems that what you get out of production, promotion, and guaranteed $ must be worth it. So if a label puts up all that money on artists (that some make them money and I am sure many more LOSE them money) do they not deserve to get the fruits of the sales?

 

It's not that they don't deserve to make a living...but these guys make enough of a living to support starving 3rd world countries (in some cases), and I think that's hardly necessary

[farmerisme]

I mean when someone sells the rights to their music for a price, do they not get something worthwhile out of it? Otherwise why most bands/musicians kill for a contract that gives away their rights? I am not a musician, but seems that what you get out of production, promotion, and guaranteed $ must be worth it. So if a label puts up all that money on artists (that some make them money and I am sure many more LOSE them money) do they not deserve to get the fruits of the sales?

 

It's not that they don't deserve to make a living...but these guys make enough of a living to support starving 3rd world countries (in some cases), and I think that's hardly necessary

 

So do all big businesses. Right? Oil, manufacturing, electronics, software, etc. Why all the fuss over the recording industry?

[Saris]

It's true that the money-grubbing aspect of this situation shouldn't draw so much heat because it's no different from some other companies. It is downright extortion though, but its everywhere and we can't change it. *Cough* MICROSOFT PRODUCTS!! *Cough*

 

The only thing that gets me is that it's "You make it-we take it-we keep the profits, here's a few pennies." Kind of an exaggeration, but to someone like me, who probably loves his artwork more than his biological child, it turns your stomach to have someone claim the "rights" to it, and mooch off your hard work and tell you what's good/bad. Everyone who has ever seen my works, and a close friend in the publishing industry, said I would have no problem getting published but I haven't because I HAVE to wait until I have the money and manpower to self publish. [They honestly bug me on a regular basis.]

 

But regardless of why, the fact remains that the music industry HAS been targeted for its outrageous prices, and unlike oil companies that (somewhat) bent to public outcry, all we see is these industries kicking and screaming like babies that they don't want to get off their high horse.

 

Personally, I'd much prefer people turned their attention towards IT companies trying to revoke your rights as a user, and those who would privatize the internet.

[dragonfly]

I thought about sending some of my work to a label, but I dont have time to record even if they want it.

 

Thx for the info nofx. I liked em back in the day too. Also, I second the motion to reinstate 8-tracks. Everything should be recorded analog too. That'd be fun eh Anon?

[[LaW]Maverick]

So do all big businesses. Right? Oil, manufacturing, electronics, software, etc. Why all the fuss over the recording industry?

 

I make a big fuss over them too...lol, these guys are no different.

 

Fact is, the market SHOULD BE CONSUMER DRIVEN, but people don't have the gumption to pull it off, so instead it's driven by the people who manipulate the market for their own gain and poop on our heads while laughing about it and whiping their collective anus's with hundred dollar bills.

 

I.E. I can get a ton of people to admit that Wal*Mart is Satan's candy store, but they keep buying stuff there anyway. They have the proof, but they say "oohh, but the prices are so good." Well, I have news for you, the prices AREN'T that great because you can find better ones in a lot of stores, and much better ones online--Wal*Mart is just easy and people are lazy.

 

It's EASY to just buy stuff even though it's not fair, because that's convenient and you're not forced to find an alternate source. So, that's what people do, then they whine about it and expect something to change.

 

Bottom line: The record companies are POS's in how they do business now (most of them), and that should be changed. As consumers, we have the power to do so, but only if we organize and actual stick to what we say we're going to do. That is unlikely, so chances are that these people will continue to manipulate the market to get what they want. I hope people enjoy being chained to their mp3 players so that they can't let a friend borrow it to listen to music...

[stutters]

personally, i like the candy of satan. i also like being able to get a tub of pickles for like $0.97.

[appalachian_fox]

... I HAVE to wait until I have the money and manpower to self publish.

 

Is it something that can go in a book? Are you familiar with Lulu?

[anonymo]

sure thing, riaa fanboy. just because i don't agree with your argument doesn't make me incapable of comprehending it. comprende?

So you don't agree that an artist's hard work should be protected?

 

Stop reading "The RIAA is doing a good job" or "I don't think there's anything wrong with the RIAA" in my posts and maybe we'll get somewhere.

[stutters]

Stop reading "The RIAA is doing a good job" or "I don't think there's anything wrong with the RIAA" in my posts and maybe we'll get somewhere.

if you're not saying the RIAA is doing or a good job or i don't think there's anything wrong with the riaa, i have no clue what you're arguing. afterall, you said "I will always support what the RIAA stands for and its existence."

 

the riaa stands for extortion.

The passage of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) (P.L. 106-113) set the stage for the USPTO to advise the President, through the Secretary of Commerce, and all Federal agencies, on national and international IP policy issues, including IP protection in other countries. USPTO is also authorized by the AIPA to provide guidance, conduct programs and studies, and otherwise interact with foreign IP offices and international intergovernmental organizations on matters involving the protection of intellectual property.

- USPTO

 

What does copyright protect?

Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."

- USCO

 

so, uh, what exactly is it that the RIAA/MPAA does that our government doesn't already do for us? (and don't say enforce it, because that's not the role of either. courts enforce it, based on the laws)

 

"ahh, but the MPAA/RIAA has the resources to protect copyright owners (ie musicians, et al)."

the RIAA is a privately held corporation. it's controlled by a board of directors. the board of directors sole responsibility is to maximize shareholders wealth. the way to increase shareholder wealth is to increase net income, and that's done by selling high, paying low, and milking your cash cow. that's business. i'm sure at farmer's place, big accounts get more attention, because their business means more money for the company. that's how businesses stay open, right?

 

but that's not the new artist, that's not the 2 or 3 cd artist. it's the artist that makes TRL, billboard, the cover of rolling stone, or your ringtones. there aren't that many of them. even in the recent media defender leaks, none of the targeted offenders were for small budget (but MPAA protected) films. they were blockbusters, things that were either going to make or break the studio (sidebar: 9 major labels are on the board of directors. we did ratios earlier - do you think that's a good percentage of label reps to total labels?). the resources the __AA's use to "protect" your IP are no different than what you could do on your own. if anything, i'd argue the RIAA/MPAA hurts artists, save for the small percentage who go double platinum.

 

if i come up with an invention tomorrow, file it for patent, i've got no agency to protect me if its infringed on. then again, it's not like the states have any shortage of IP lawyers. i can hire one, as needed, to reclaim + damages, which is far more than the petty C&D's the RIAA sends out. why is the recording industry so convinced they need to be protected by a giant - especially when they're as ineffective and inefficient as they arguably are?

 

i've got no issue with big business. i've got no issue with the way big business is done. i do, however, have major issue with the monopoly the riaa is pathetically trying to hold onto. they might be great for the n'syncs of the world, but radiohead seems to be doing fine without them. their new, drm free, name your own price cd, is just as good as any other. and i paid them $10 for it.

 

the riaa is worthless, and committing a sin against man by staying in business (or us allowing them to stay in business).

[[LaW]Maverick]

It scares me...and I still hate iPhones....but I agree with SJ yet again. He's right. Far as I can see the RIAA does approximately jack for "small name" artists, but will go out of their way to protect Brittney Spears (who should just be put out of her misery anyway).

 

Yup, the RIAA gets the ol' rating from Maverick

[anonymo]

The RIAA and CRIA, while drawn on tangents by major record labels by the allure of massive amounts of money still benefit the smaller labels (or are you saying that 99% of the labels who associate themselves with the RIAA don't know what they are doing?). Sure it is bad for consumers who are used to stealing all their music. So is just about every other organization devoted to protecting the rights of their business members. Yes the copyrights are protected under law, but that doesn't cover the labels in the slightest if they don't know they are being stolen from or the hundreds of other reasons they require the services of the RIAA that I'm not going to list here. The mere fact that you ask

so, uh, what exactly is it that the RIAA/MPAA does that our government doesn't already do for us?

tells me exactly why you keep typing these long winded explanations as to why you hate the RIAA. Ignorance.

 

but that's not the new artist, that's not the 2 or 3 cd artist. it's the artist that makes TRL, billboard, the cover of rolling stone, or your ringtones. there aren't that many of them. even in the recent media defender leaks, none of the targeted offenders were for small budget (but MPAA protected) films. they were blockbusters, things that were either going to make or break the studio (sidebar: 9 major labels are on the board of directors. we did ratios earlier - do you think that's a good percentage of label reps to total labels?). the resources the __AA's use to "protect" your IP are no different than what you could do on your own. if anything, i'd argue the RIAA/MPAA hurts artists, save for the small percentage who go double platinum.

 

All you have shown me is that you still don't fully understand the purpose of bodies like the RIAA and their benefit to labels. Of course they "hurt" the smaller artists, just like my lawyer "hurts" me. I could represent myself but I don't have the time or the easy access to resources. All you seem to see is a large corporation that is threatening to make you pay for your music. You can attribute any value you wish to an artist's work, but only their value matters (see radiohead, you think it's good, I think it's worthless and so does Radiohead, until they sell everyone's information collected by their site). I would never agree with the RIAA pandering to the large labels but as they are a private organization it doesn't surprise me.

 

I will always support what the RIAA stands for and its existence [as long as necessary]. I do not think the [current business practice] of the RIAA is working out [for everyone involved]. Changes could be made to better support the members of the RIAA. (sorry it was so confusing )

 

radiohead seems to be doing fine without them.

Ok wait...now I know you're either completely over your head or you're having issues firing neurons. I'll let you decide which.

 

I also find it amusing that your argument as to why artists don't need the RIAA is the same as my argument as why people don't need Apple or OSX. Artists can do it all on their own to maximize profits, sure, but when will they actually play?

 

Sorry if I was harsh, but you needed it. I don't expect to make you lose your unabashed hatred for the RIAA or MPAA but hopefully you will learn some understanding through this which will help you control your willingness to speak on subjects you are [seemingly] ignorant about.

 

The need for the RIAA is diminishing along with that of labels themselves. While marketing, promotion, distribution, publishing, design, recording etc. become easy tasks thanks to computers and the internet the roles of RIAAs and MPAAs and CRIAs will diminish along with the conglomerates who provide the aforementioned services. So chill son.

 

[Ringadon]

this is really just starting to turn into a flame war and should have a stop put to it...

[dragonfly]

this is really just starting to turn into a flame war and should have a stop put to it...

 

I disagree! Shut up! I hate you!

[stutters]

you're not being harsh (or ignorant) any more than i'm being arrogant (or ignorant).

 

because at the end of the day "I will always support what anonymo stands for and its existence," i'd like to shelf this for the next 5 years, and see where we're at.

[anonymo]

Who's flaming?

 

(Oh did I really just open that door? )

 

Sorry I forced you to get petty SJ.

[Saris]

... I HAVE to wait until I have the money and manpower to self publish.

 

Is it something that can go in a book? Are you familiar with Lulu?

Thanks for the link, that site looks pretty handy. I've obviously considered some of my options so far, but I'll definitely keep that one close by to consider.

[NOFX]

TorrentSpy and the MPAA have been involved in a legal fight for quite some time. TorrentSpy is basically a search engine for files that are offered for download via BitTorrent. However, because the MPAA views such BitTorrent as a tool for unauthorized use, it's trying to sue the search engine, rather than go after those who are actually responsible for sharing unauthorized content. There was a slightly troublesome ruling earlier this year, where a judge ordered TorrentSpy to spy on its users -- violating TorrentSpy's own privacy policy. Rather than do so, TorrentSpy decided to block access to US users. Now, you would think this would make the MPAA happy. After all, the site they were so worried about was no longer an issue for the entire US market. Instead, the MPAA is back in court claiming that this action is merely another illegal move by the company. Apparently, the MPAA would rather have TorrentSpy keep operating, but spy on its users, than block access. That doesn't make much sense if TorrentSpy is really such a huge problem. Unless, of course, the MPAA doesn't have any real evidence that TorrentSpy is doing anything wrong -- and this is about the only way it hopes to prove its case.

 

http://techdirt.com/articles/20071012/021537.shtml

Edited October 14, 2007 by NOFX

[nut]

sucks for her... i don't got the money to be slappin round for some nap that got in trouble.

 

 

but if iiii got caught... you'd all help of course.. i mean .. its me.