Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Artists Strive To Wrest Rights From Music Industry

ScuttleMonkey posted about 6 years ago | from the industry-jenga dept.

Music 287

eldavojohn writes "The funny thing about the RIAA & BPI is that the artists are just as tired as the fans with how online music is being handled. So they're trying something new called the Featured Artists' Coalition. FAC's site states in their charter: 'We believe that all music artistes should control their destiny because ultimately it is their art and endeavors that create the pleasure and emotion enjoyed by so many.' As digital releases are increasing, the artists aren't seeing any more money. With the advent of online distribution, are the traditional music industry functions of promotion, samples, radio, and marketing now nothing but costly overhead for the artists? From Iron Maiden to Kate Nash to Radiohead, some big names are backing this new organization."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Death to labels, long live music (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278111)

If there is any way that you can help (adding a banner to link to their website, putting flyers up where appropriate, etc), please do.

Re:Death to labels, long live music (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278163)

what we really need is the technology for hairless pussy.

Sarah Palin: Secret Canadian (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278321)

If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and share it.

Who is Sarah Palin?

U. S. Vice-Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin was born in Wasilla, Alaska, to Charles R. Sheath, a white (not French) CANADIAN from Vancouver, British Columbia and Sarah Sheath, an American from Wasilla. Palin's parents met at the University of Alaska.

When Palin was two years old, her parents divorced. Her father returned to Canada . Her mother then married Roy Martin, a RADICAL Canadian from Manitoba. When Palin was 6 years old, the family relocated to Ottawa. Palin attended a CANADIAN school in Ottawa. She also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Palin takes great care to conceal the fact that she is a Canadian. She is quick to point out that, "She was once a Canadian, but that she also attended Catholic school." Palin's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that she is not Canadian.

Palin's introduction to ice hockey came via her father, and this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Palin returned to Vancouver soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his daughter's education.
Roy Martin, the second husband of Palin's mother, Sarah Sheath, introduced his stepdaughter to Molson Golden and moose hunting. Palin was enrolled in a Canuck school in Ottawa. Canuckism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Canadian terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the US. Since it is politically expedient to be an AMERICAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Sarah Palin has maintained her US citizenship in an attempt to downplay her Canadian background. ALSO, keep in mind that when she was sworn into office she DID NOT use the Alaskan Constitution, but instead the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sarah Palin will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will she show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Palin turns her back to the flag and slouches.

Let us all remain alert concerning Palin's possible place in the chain of Presidential succession.

The Canadians have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States , one of their own!!!!

Re:Sarah Palin: Secret Canadian (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278847)

And why does having a Canuck faggot father make her Canadian? Instead of bullshit posts full of ass faggery hyperbole, maybe you should cite some sources in wiki-tard fashion, nigger lover.

Re:Death to labels, long live music (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278765)

what we really need is the technology for hairless pussy.

Indeed, your wish has been met. [wikipedia.org]

So does this mean people will stop pirating? (5, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | about 6 years ago | (#25278593)

One of the justifications I often hear for piracy is that you're revolting against record labels. Are people now saying that they will in fact stop pirating music if the RIAA isn't a factor?

Why do I have a hard time believing that?

Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 6 years ago | (#25278833)

Someone has a sig that's very appropriate to your current 40% troll rating for this post:

"-1 Uncomfortable Truth"

Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (2, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | about 6 years ago | (#25279039)

It certainly wasn't intended to be a troll. It was half devil's advocate, half genuine belief. A lot of the piracy arguments on Slashdot rely on the RIAA for justification. If that justification didn't exist, I strongly suspect piracy would continue anyway. It's just something to keep in mind whenever somebody tries to absolve themselves of guilty feelings by criticizing the RIAA.

Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (2, Interesting)

Kneo24 (688412) | about 6 years ago | (#25278877)

You're right that most people probably won't stop. However, I doubt most people are using that phrase anyway. The only people you hear using that phrase are the staunch supporters of the artists who are heavily into the whole RIAA debacle in the first place.

However if you're just strictly taking that group into consideration and ignoring the rest, well, I have no fucking clue. Some assuredly will, and some definitely won't (they'll just find other reasons).

Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 6 years ago | (#25279037)

If it means there's a web site I can go to and donate directly to artists I like then, yes, they'll get more money from me.

If I'm "pirating" now it's because:

a) The RIAA's various shenanigans over the last few years has earned my contempt.
b) I don't believe the artist would get any of the money from a CD sale. The RIAA will keep it all.

The only CDs I've bought in the last few years have been from places like CDBaby which state clearly how much the artist will receive from the sale. Buying from any other distribution model is worse than any amount of piracy IMHO.

Re:So does this mean people will stop pirating? (3, Interesting)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | about 6 years ago | (#25279057)

I agree that citizen piracy won't stop, but the artist's still stand to gain from stopping the institutionalized kind.

Stop saying RIAA (4, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | about 6 years ago | (#25278113)

To stop the RIAA, everyone needs to hurt those that fund the RIAA.
These are the companies that need to be vilified.
- Sony
- EMI
- Universal
- Warner Brothers

Re:Stop saying RIAA (2, Funny)

johanatan (1159309) | about 6 years ago | (#25278171)

So, SUEW.

Re:Stop saying RIAA (1)

CarAnalogy (1191053) | about 6 years ago | (#25279065)

W-SUE sounds slightly better IMHO.

Re:Stop saying RIAA (3, Funny)

argent (18001) | about 6 years ago | (#25278185)

Warner Brothers

Yakko, Wakko (and Dot) would never have anything to do with THOSE people!

Re:Stop saying RIAA (2, Informative)

isBandGeek() (1369017) | about 6 years ago | (#25279027)

I was going to buy a VAIO laptop, but decided not to because of Sony's incident with its rootkit, SecuROM, and this too.

The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked! (4, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | about 6 years ago | (#25278119)

Shocked indeed.

Unfortunately, there are far too many (largely former) artists, who would prefer to sit back and let the record labels pull in the money for them.

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278221)

That, and the fact that label lawyers are far more numerous and skilled than whatever an individual artist can possibly muster. I have the feeling this effort will die fairly fast, leaving small new musicians still working in indentured servitude.

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (1)

Jay L (74152) | about 6 years ago | (#25278231)

Really? Who are the former artists that are having their money "pulled in for them" by the record labels, and how much money?

Platinum (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278311)

Any artist that has Platinum level sales. You know the U2s, old fart bands from the 60s & 70s (Rolling Stones, Paul McArtney, The Who), the bubble gum pop idiots, etc

Money? ten of millions. U2, hundreds of millions. Bono could just buy Africa and save it. Same goes for the Stones.

Re:Platinum (4, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | about 6 years ago | (#25278939)

You mean the ones that have incorporated their own record labels in order to keep control over their life's work ?

Yeah, I'm sure they're soooo dependent on the two dozen middlemen that stand between their studios and their fans.

Re:Platinum (1)

morari (1080535) | about 6 years ago | (#25278941)

Rolling Stones, Paul McArtney, The Who

I'm not so sure that's a good argument against the labels. Those are, after all, great bands.

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278437)

Really? Who are the former artists that are having their money "pulled in for them" by the record labels, and how much money?

Britney Spears comes to mind. It isn't long since her last album. Do you really think she is in any shape to make music or that it is really her voice on the CDs? However, she has a big brand (created by labels), a lot of advertising (by labels) behind her and as such people keep buying CDs with her name on them. Same goes for numerous other artists.

I'm pretty sure that plenty of artists benefit a lot from the companies. As much as they could? nah. As much as they should? Arguable. I don't know if you really should become multimillionaire just because you can sing well and work a lot for it (I work a lot too. ;)) as long as you earn your living... But saying that labels are bad for all artists would be very wrong.

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (1)

purpleraison (1042004) | about 6 years ago | (#25278951)

The discussion is about REAL artists, not the Disney and Nickelodeon created/marketed/forced down our kids throats 'artists'.

When bands like the Foo Fighters, or even Radiohead chime in, their opinion is important because they actually have spent considerable time developing their talents and 'making it'. They were not hand-picked by Disney because they are popular with the age 9-13 female viewers of the Disney channel. They had to perform and record for next to nothing, for years. In the end it was their talent, and musicianship that made them famous.

Hanah Montana.... not so much.

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (2, Informative)

nbert (785663) | about 6 years ago | (#25278487)

I don't know much about the structure of the IRAA, but its local puppet Gema [www.gema.de] collects royalties for playing a song in public in Germany (at least if there's a business behind it). They even collect fees from businesses which have a radio running in public areas of their venues (restaurants, stores, hotels ...). It's a stupid system and I wouldn't mention it if Germany wasn't the 2nd largest music market in the world.

So basically whenever "I'm looking for freedom" runs on some station in Germany there's a big check traveling to the US or wherever David Hasselhoff currently lies on the ground trying to eat a burger :)
Like I said I don't have a clue how the RIAA deals with such issues, but the Gema alone should provide enough incentive to keep the current status.

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (1)

lastchance_000 (847415) | about 6 years ago | (#25278849)

In the US, those functions are handled by ASCAP [wikipedia.org] and BMI [wikipedia.org] .

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (4, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | about 6 years ago | (#25278995)

In reality, that "big check" goes to the many people that handle the licensing. The artist gets, at most, a few pennies per play.

That's part of the problem: the system exists primarily to support itself, compensating the artists is a secondary objective.

I think radio stations are largely responsible for the great divide between those who collect royalties, and those who want/expect free music wherever they go. If you tune your car radio to WFKU-FM, you don't pay a penny (though the ads are obnoxious). If a restaurant plays music for its patrons, they're expected to pay licensing fees and/or subscribe to a commercial muzak service. Like many things in the music industry, the distinction was fabricated decades ago, and the business model is pretty much an exercise in hypocrisy.

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (4, Interesting)

magus_melchior (262681) | about 6 years ago | (#25278501)

The labels were a convenient one-stop shop for artists and composers, where they can get a production, publication, and distribution package all in one, and get paid in big enticing chunks. This works great... until you deviate from the contract. Then their label demonstrates that they own them, as wealthy colonists owned the indentured servants of old.

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (2, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | about 6 years ago | (#25278823)

Well, one should certainly expect repercussions for deviating from a contract, and one should consider not signing a contract they plan to deviate from. Just saying. Comparing the voluntary signature on an entertainment contract to slavery is pretty absurd.

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (4, Insightful)

quanticle (843097) | about 6 years ago | (#25278889)

While its entirely unreasonable to compare an RIAA contract to slavery, I do think you're overstating the amount of voluntary choice that one has when signing these contracts. Simply put, many artists see a choice between giving in to the RIAA or languishing in obscurity forever. And, it is in the RIAA's interest to let such a situation continue. This is why these sorts of organizations (by the artists, for the artists) are to be welcomed.

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (2, Insightful)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about 6 years ago | (#25278917)

"If you don't sign here, there's a hundred bands who would kill for the opportunity - I'll just go find someone to replace you" My guess at what the quote would be, but it'd definitely something like that.

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (1)

bonch (38532) | about 6 years ago | (#25279097)

How am I overstating it? There's no duress here. A person doesn't have a right or need to be famous, and if they don't want to be involved with a record company, they shouldn't sign with one. If the alternative is obscurity, that's just life.

An organization like the one in this article is "after the fact." It's made up of mostly established artists who already got their wealth and fame from record companies and only now want to leave them when they have the money to fund their own distribution. I'm just not as impressed.

About Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278649)

This sounds just like a labor union, except for artists. Those guys should have unionized decades ago- look what it did for SAG.

Power for the people- down with Fascism!

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278891)

If you agree with any of this, feel free to repost it in the future.
 
  Song of the piracy apologist:
 
(1) I don't personally believe in copying CDs illegally-- but I think we should avoid using unkind words like "piracy" to describe those that do -- instead, we should describe it as an "infringement", much like a parking infringement.
 
(2) I don't believe in the record companies emotively abusing the word "theft," but I do believe in emotively abusing words like "information," "sharing," and "Copyright Enforcement Militia."
 
(3) I believe that piracy is driven by "overpriced CDs" even though CDs have dropped in price over the years.
 
(4) I believe that piracy is driven by overly long copyright duration, even though most pirated works are recent releases.
 
(5) I believe that illegitimately downloading music is giving the author "free advertising". I don't buy any of the music I download, of course--but lots of other people probably do.
 
(6) I believe that ripping off the artists is wrong. The record companies always rip off the artists. Artists support P2P, except the ones that don't (like Metallica), and they don't agree with me, hence they're greedy or their opinion doesn't count or something.
 
(7) I believe that selling CDs is not a business model, but giving away things for free on the internet is.
 
(8) I believe that artists should be compensated for their work -- preferably by someone else. I mean, they can sell concert tickets (which someone else can buy) or sell t-shirts (to someone else) or something. As long as someone else subsidises my free ride, I'm coooooool with it.
 
(9) I believe in capitalism but only support music business models which involve giving away the fruits of ones labor for free.
 
(10) I believe that copying someone elses music, and redistributing it to my 1,000,000 "best friends" on the internet is sharing. Music is made for sharing. It's my right.
 
(11) I believe that record companies cracking down on piracy is "greed", but a mob demanding free entertainment is not.
 
(12) I believe that it's not really "piracy" unless you charge money for it, because, receiving money is wrong, but taking a free ride is fine.
 
(13) I believe that disallowing copying and redistributing music over Napster is the same as humming my favourite song in public. Because when I hum my favourite song in public, everyone likes it so much that they run home, get out their tape recorders and once they've got a recording of it, they aren't interested in hearing the original any more.
 
(14) I believe that when illegal behaviour destroys a business, it's "free enterprise at work".
 
(15) I believe piracy is simply "free advertising." Even though that's what radio is, but with the legal permission of the copyright holder. Basically, what I really want is to be able to choose the songs I want, listen to them whenever I want, but I don't want to have to pay for it. Essentially, I want the whole thing for free with no strings attached.
 
(16) I believe artists "deserve their money" only in cases in which the RIAA is the bad guy. But in piracy situations, I'm fully justified in ripping them off.
 
What I find amusing is that the pirates seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between creative activity and brainless copying.
 
Since a lot of the people here are GPL/OSS advocates: the "OSS way" applied to this domain is to learn how to play an instrument. Or how to sing or whatever. Then get together with a bunch of other people who can also play music, and make some noise.
 
One of the unfortunate things that has happened to the OSS movement is that a lot of the loudmouth advocates for it don't understand what it's really about. They view it primarily as a means to get free stuff, and then they turn their eyes from the free stuff to the non-free stuff and think to themselves "maybe I'm entitled to get that one for free too". The noble ideals of grass roots participation in the creative process, and/or supporting it in a principled way (namely, boosting the "free foo" movement by preferring free foo to nonfree foo), or for that matter, any other form of moderately principled codes of ethics, are completely lost on them. I think it's a shame that these leeches use OSS, but there's not a whole lot that can or should be done about that. But I'd be much happier if at the very least, they wouldn't confuse the OSS movement (free as in freedom) with the Napster driven movement (free as in "loader").
 
  Significant Rebuttals:
 
Often, the rebuttals to this post are more amusing than the points raised.
 
Witness, for instance, this post [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org], not surprisingly upmodded as "Insightful." I have chosen this reply as representative of the mindset the above list mocks, because it demonstrates quite clearly how deluded the self-righteous values of pirates have become with regards to pirating artists' music. The entire post was an unknowing illustration of every mindset mocked in the list, and it was educational enough to warrant inclusion. It would be amusing if it wasn't depressing:
 
  Well, I do believe in copying CD's. If they're gonna charge me 19.99 for a crappy album that I couldn't listen to beforehand and is 80% filler to buttress the radio hits,
 
Notice that the CD is apparently crappy, yet he will make a copy of it. Why would you make a copy of a crappy album?
 
  if they're gonna charge me $19.99 in spite of the multiple price-fixing they've been found guilty of,
 
I guess he should be angry at his local store, then. Mine charges $11.99 at most. But none of this matters--iTunes presents songs at .99 per song. There is absolutely no excuse anymore when it comes to the high price argument.
 
  then, when I actually like the CD then yeah, I am gonna copy it for my friends.
 
Apparently, he wants to spread this "crappy" album around. It's so crappy, his "friends" will also have copies. Meanwhile, the artist is getting screwed.
 
  In my past experience, my friends wind up buying the CD if they like it,
 
Again, the already-debunked "sampling" argument. This anecdote, raised by all piracy apologists, begins with "In my experience" and then outlines some instance in which someone actually went and bought the CD after hearing a copy of it. This is supposed to justify the blatant piracy and copyright infringement, as if the other 99% of Kazaa users are merely "sampling" the music. It flies in the face of not only common logic, but human nature. If you can get something for free you would otherewise have to pay for, it's natural to want it for free.
 
  and that's with a full 16/44 copy, not some crappy mp3. Though my burner is so old, it's really a pain in the ass so you've gotta be a pretty good friend.
 
The artists appreciate your support of their rights by pirating their music. All in the hopes someone decides to buy the full CD. Quite a risk you're taking on their behalf.
 
  I don't see how anybody is abusing "sharing", that's exactly what we're doing.
 
The point whooshes completely over his head--the complaints against the RIAA painting people as "thieves," then turning around and painting copyright infringement as "sharing."
 
  Giving voice to that which we think is worth other people knowing about.
 
Witness the spin--"giving voice to that which we think is worth other people knowing about." The issue of it being completely illegal is ignored. The issue of spreading an artist's music so that others don't have to pay for it, thereby ripping them off, is completely ignored. Suddenly, you're "giving a voice," a positive spin that is meant to invoke emotive feelings of goodness and freedom. Typical propoganda.
 
  I don't know anybody that shares music that they don't like.
 
Completely irrelevant. If you like music, you should pay for it. Use iTunes or spend 12 bucks on the CD. You don't magically have the copyright transferred to you from the copyright holder so that you can "give a voice" to "sharing."
 
  I don't see how anybody is abusing the word "information". Please elaborate.
 
Apparently, the phrase "information sharing" has escaped this poor soul's ears. It's another classic spin used by piracy apologists to justify their activities.
 
  And this is the first time I've heard "Copyright enforcement militia", and as much as it tugs at my heartstrings I prefer cartel.
 
And I prefer "criminals," because legally and morally, that's what pirates are. Ripping off artists in the name of some hippie mindset justified in their minds in order to remove the pang of guilt the feel over the fact that nobody will be able to make money making music. Because they end up "giving a voice" to every song that comes out.
 
  Not true. As overpriced as CD have been found repeatedly in courts of law to be, people continue to buy them, and in increasing numbers.
 
The yearly decline in CD sales is magically not happening in this person's mind. In fact, sales are somehow increasing. No stats are given, and no facts. It's just happening in his mind. Can't argue with that kind of research.
 
  I believe that what drives piracy is the ClearChannel takeover of radio coupled with the consolidation of the "record industry" into two or three major monoliths, which led to the overwhelming proliferation of incredibly bad, bland, uninspired, uninteresting, untalented, demographically safe crap being promoted by Corporate Music.
 
The classic hivemind argument.
 
Apparently, GETTING SOMETHING WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY FOR IT isn't the underlying factor in piracy. This is an example of the niche opinions of Slashdot somehow being projected onto the majority of society. Outside of Slashdot, nobody knows or cares about the "RIAA."
 
If music is so terrible, nobody would be pirating it. This is another example--the old fogies here at Slashdot believe the bands today are "crappy," ignoring the fact that today's generation loves them. Somehow, someone's individual opinion in a post on Slashdot is supposed to represent the entire CD-buying demographic.
 
Somehow, the ClearChannel takeover of radio is supposed to be the reason for piracy. Apparently, people can't buy CDs because a certain companies owns radio stations. I guess ClearChannel has agents set up at record stores to prevent you from buying CDs, and hackers online to prevent you from buying via online music stores like iTunes.
 
  All people want is to hear good music again.
 
If music is so bad, why is it being pirated so much? Again, ignorance of the fact that today's youth loves today's music. The Slashdot fogies who think The Who is still relevant believe all of today's music is bad. Sounds like my parents.
 
Music doesn't get pirated because nobody wants to hear it...it gets pirated because people want to hear it without having to pay for it. This is not a hard situation to figure out.
 
  It's hard to look at the history of copyright law and not see Disney et al's just-one-more-extention policy as a money grab. Copyright law was specifically written to allow copyrights to expire after a reasonable time to allow works of IP to enter into the public domain. These regulations were sound and just and were written for a reason.
 
This paragraph is bizarre, because it's in response to the point that piracy apologists attempt to justify piracy as a response to copyright extensions, when most pirated works are recent releases. His entire retort is irrelevant.
 
  I do believe that showing other people how good a certain artist is could possibly result in that person buying the CD. Sharing crappy, lossy MP3's is one way of showing them how good it is, just like radio used to be.
 
This means pretending the copyright magically transferred to you and delivering "free advertising" is legal. 100% of the people downloading from you will also magically run out and buy the CD instead of just listening to the mp3 you gave them.
 
The truth, as we all know, is that maybe 2% of people will actually go out and buy a CD when they already have it downloaded. Most people can't tell the difference between 192kpbs mp3s and a standard CD. But piracy apologists will use any argument to distract from the fact that they have yet to reply to--what they're doing is legally and morally wrong.
 
  BUT. I have bought dozens of CD's that I liked the MP3's of. And I don't see why you feel the need to conflate the two unless you're afraid of your own argument's invalidity.
 
In other words, "My anecdotal situation means that all the millions of Kazaa users are all going to buy CDs of their mp3s, especially mp3s that I'm sending them. It's 'free advertising,' and I don't understand how you could possibly point out the fact that what I'm doing is illegal and wrong toward music artists--giving people a reason not to pay for the music by ripping a free version and giving it to them."
 
  Wow, you really have a poor grasp on the situation.
 
The amusing part is that I know full well what goes on in the music industry. Trust me on this.
 
  Let me rephrase for you: I believe that ripping off the artists is wrong.
 
The obvious question then becomes--how can you justify pirating an artist's music?
 
EVERYONE TAKE NOTICE--this is the bizarre contradiction that cannot be understood. This is the heart of the propoganda spin. In a pirate's mind, it is simply ignored because it makes no sense and they know it. How does pirating music prevent an artist from being ripped off? Aren't you preventing them from being paid? Aren't you giving away the fruits of their labor? Did you get their permission to do this? Did you know artists willingly sign their contracts? The list of reactions could fill paragraphs, but let's continue.
 
Again, just for the record, a piracy apologist has actually stated that they believing ripping off artists is wrong. The mind boggles.
 
  The record companies always have and always will rip off the artists. Some artists, usually those whose immediate financial future depends on the gratitude of Corporate Music, support P2P. Some artists, mostly those whose immediate financial furtures *do* depend on Corporate Music, don't support P2P, like Metalicca, and don't agree with me, hence one must realize their opinions are informed directly by their vested interests.
 
"Vested interests" means making a living making music. This entire reply was a pointless statement that didn't actually say anything knew but merely restated. "Some artists support P2P, and some don't." No kidding. But if you believe record labels rip artists off, how is giving away their music so that NOBODY gets paid any better? How can you explain that artists willingly sign their contracts? Have you actually spoken to any of the artists you are ripping off, or did you just assume you're "protecting" them as you grabbed their latest album for free?
 
  Selling CD's is indeed a business model, but not one that meets the needs of today's consumer.
 
What are the needs of today's consumer? Are you a business major? Are you saying it's okay to pirate the fruits of artists' labor because you don't believe CDs are a viable business model?
 
What makes you think they're not a viable business model--the fact that sales are going down? Did you honestly not factor in the multitude of piracy amongst college students and youth that goes on? And if you didn't, why did you ignore this factor? Obviously it will have an impact.
 
  The consumer *will* go where they can get the best product, this is called "competition" and is a vital component of capitalism.
 
Oh, no. I can see where this is going.
 
  Or don't you believe in capitalism?
 
And there you have it. Apparently, piracy is capitalism. Just another form of "competition." Not paying for something is capitalism. And if you believe in paying for the CD at the store and not getting for free, you don't believe in capitalism. Again, the mind boggles, but this deserves further examination.
 
How does one's brain actually reach this conclusion? It would be interesting to chart out the logical process that lead to this incredible leap. It's more amazing because you know that to this piracy apologist, it's not insane at all.
 
Somehow, a band working their way through clubs, signing to a major label, taking three months out of their lives to slave away on a record album for the label to promote and advertise and put in stores, and people buying the CD that gets put out, is not capitalism.
 
Somehow, the band doing all that, and then some college students ripping the CD and putting it online so that nobody has to pay for it, is capitalism.
 
I don't ever expect an explanation for this. I merely illustrate it here for the amazement of all. Welcome to the great lengths that pirates have gone to in order to remove the stigma of criminality from their online activities. Infringing on someone else's rights is somehow just another form of free enterprise.
 
Remind me again the next time the GPL gets violated and people here are up in arms--"don't you believe in capitalism?"
 
  And I'm not giving anything away, if I was then I wouldn't have it anymore because I'd have given it away.
 
It does not register in the mind of this too-far-gone pirate that you can give a copy of something away. What's more intriguing is that the phrase "giving away" is such a red flag in their minds. Who cares?
 
  I *share*.
 
Thank you for the clarification. Criminals always share their goods. Notice that this person stated before that they didn't see instances in which the word "sharing" was being emotively abused. Then goes right out and does it.
 
  If it sounds innocent that's because it is.
 
If my previous statement about criminals sounded like flamebait, it wasn't. If you infringe on somebody else's copyrights by distributing their intellectual property, that is illegal. It is also immoral. You are giving away copies of their work so that they don't get paid for it. Again, you will never, ever be able to justify this--especially to an artist's face. Why? Because you'll never ask them and you never have.
 
It is not innocent. Are you saying the law should allow people to pirate anything that is copyrighted? How will John Carmack ever make money on Doom 3 if pirates simply copy it everywhere so that nobody has to actually buy or order it? Can you explain that? And can you explain how it is "capitalism" and "competition?"
 
No...of course you can't. You're a music pirate who has simply justified copyright infringement in your mind because you're used to the convenience of downloading, and now you're bitter that someone is trying to take away the free ride.
 
  I believe that artists should be compensated for their work, preferably by as many people as possible.
 
How do you expect that to happen if nobody will buy the CDs because they've had someone "share" it with them online?
 
  I mean, they can sell concert tickets to people who heard about them through P2P, or sell t-shirts to people who heard about them through P2P, or sell CD's to people who heard about them through P2P, or sell iTunes downloads to people who've heard about them through P2P.
 
Welcome to the logic of irrationality. The point this statement is a retort to was about how piracy apologists say that very thing in order to explain how artists will be compensated, meanwhile never actually buying any t-shirts, concert tickets, etc. themselves.
 
This also ties into the debunked "free advertising" argument, which doesn't matter anyway because you weren't given permission by the copyright holder to share their material online. If you believe the copyright of the GPL should be upheld, you must also believe in upholding the rights of other copyright holders. Or else you are a hypocrite making yourself look like a fool. Intellectual property rights exist so that people can make a living from their ideas--which includes music. Are you saying artists don't have that right?
 
P2P is not being used as a free radio. It's being used to pirate music without paying for it. The fact that this person ignores this simple fact tells you how far their mind has gone to justify their activities. The other 99% of Kazaa and eMule users simply don't exist in his mind. Magically, P2P is this community-driven radio in which people "share" "free advertising" with each other. This is a head-in-the-clouds ideal that is absolutely far from the real situation, but hey, it justifies piracy in a neat little sentence. "People will 'hear about them through P2P' which makes it all right!"
 
One wonders if this person also believes bootleg t-shirts are all right, or concert bootlegs, because they're merely "competition"...well, it doesn't matter. That would shatter his religion of piracy. And yes, it has become a religion.
 
  As an artist myself,
 
Oh? Name your band and give me your website, then "share" all of your albums and never get paid for them.
 
  I fully appreciate the artists' need for compensation to subsidize future works, almost as much as I appreciate P2P's potential as a promotional utility and distribution channel.
 
How will artists get paid on a distribution channel that does not enforce payment?
 
You honestly expect everyone to embrace a distribution channel in which nobody pays for anything, and the business model is dependent on the "good will" of the downloader who "might or might not" buy the album once they've downloaded it? Why would someone buy an album they already just got for free?
 
  I believe in capitalism.
 
Yes...and your definition of capitalism, per above, is free distribution of everything without paying for it. Very capitalistic, indeed.
 
  The music business model I support the most is traditional CD stores, which I visit about once or twice a month to buy things that I've heard online.
 
It's not that people must buy CDs or iTunes songs, it's that they should respect the rights of copyright holders and not rip artists off by pirating their music with bizarre justifications about "giving a voice" and "sharing" other people's works that normally you must pay for. Do you also do the same with games, movies, and other software?
 
  Almost all business models involve giving away a sample of the product
 
Since when is downloading an entire album in a RAR file just a "sample of the product?" iTunes gives you samples, as do most music stores which let you hear the album through headphones.
 
P2P piracy is unnecessary, but more importantly, it's not prevalent for the reason you describe--it's just people freeloading to get things without paying for them. To deny this is to remain purposely ignorant to what's happening, which simply weakens your argument all the more.
 
  (cheese cubes at grocery stores, songs on radio and MTV back when you could actually hear good music there, advertisements, test drives of cars, etc).
 
Yes, somehow that compares to having entire discographies available on P2P services, often in uncompressed APE format. They are merely "samples." And with the eventuality of Internet2, people will be able to download entire catalogues in 30 minutes...this is just for "sharing" purposes.
 
  I believe that copying someone elses music that I paid for in a store, and redistributing a lossy MP3-compressed version of it to my 1,000,000 aquaintances on the internet is sharing.
 
Yes, it is illegally sharing music. Nobody is arguing this.
 
  Music is made for sharing so that more people can buy it if they like it.
 
Music is made for entertainment that people can choose to purchase or not. It is not a right. And it is not something you have the right to "share" with people for your own selfish reasons--whether or not you believe radio is evil, or today's music sucks, or CDs are overpriced, has absolutely nothing to do with the copyright holder's distribution rights being trampled on because some college academic students have access to the university T1 line.
 
  Not only is it my right under "fair use", it's beneficial for the artists.
 
Witness a fundamental misunderstanding of Fair Use. Fair Use lets you make an archival backup of the material you purchased. Fair Use has absolutely nothing to do with illegally sharing that backup with other people so that they don't pay for the original material.
 
Obviously it is not beneficial for artists to give away their music albums so that people don't pay for them. That's like saying giving away Doom 3 will be beneficial to John Carmack. Don't you think the CDs are being put out because they are intended to be bought? Did you get the artist's permission to distribute their copyrighted material? Did you even consider the rights of the copyright holder?
 
  I believe that the record industry filing thousands of lawsuits against people it knows can't afford to fight them is extortion.
 
It is not extortion to protect your copyrights. If people are illegally distributing copyrighted materials without the creator's permission, you have no legal basis to stand on.
 
  I believe that the public desire to hear a wide sampling of music, some of which is bound to appeal to them, is nothing new,
 
No, it's not. That has nothing to do with freeloading albums. iTunes provides samples, music stores provide samples, radio provides samples, online radio provides samples, and so on.
 
Nobody is using Kazaa or eMule to "sample" albums. They're using it to get music for free without paying for it.
 
  and used to be met by radio before the massive de-regulation and conglomeration of the 90's. You'll notice that's about the time good music disappeared from the public sphere.
 
No, you'll notice that. Others will say music is just as good as it ever was. And yet others will say you're just not looking hard enough.
 
Guess what--your niche opinion does not magically extend to the entire rest of society.
 
And it's also irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with piracy. You don't have the right to pirate music because you think music is bad. In fact, it doesn't even make sense. Why would you pirate music you don't think is good?
 
  I believe that it's not really piracy unless you keep it and don't pay for it.
 
Copyright infringement occurs when you download the music. If you believe Kazaa will police itself, and that users will, "out of the goodness of their hearts," solemnly swear to delete the albums so they can run out and buy them, you are purposely clouding the issue to avoid the facts.
 
  Anyting I've downloaded that I haven't eventually bought I've erased.
 
Congratulations. Because you, one person, deleted things you didn't buy, that means illegally distributing materials without the copyright holders' permission is legal and moral. I'll remember that during the next GPL violation Slashdot article.
 
  13 is just ridiculous, you're being pedantic and you know it. If you've got a point then make it, but it's only fair for you to stay in the bounds of reality here.
 
I quoted this one simply because it speaks for itself. The person educating me about "sharing" versus stealing and "free advertising" and "competition" is complaining about pedantics.
 
  Guilty as charged. See also "Boston Tea Party"...
 
After all, online P2P music piracy has everything to do with "taxation without representation," which was the reason for the outrage over the East India Company's tax benefits via the Tea Act of 1773.
 
Somehow, nobody can just NOT buy the CDs if they hate the RIAA so much. They have to go and "share" them instead. Ripping off the artists is supposed to prove something.
 
  I believe P2P is basically free advertising.
 
"Free advertising" implies two things:
 
1.) That everyone is "sampling" all this advertising in order to go out and buy the CDs. 99% of the time, this is not the case. You are purposely ignoring common sense and human nature.
 
2.) The more important point that makes everything else moot--the copyright does not transfer to you. You do not have the permission of the copyright holder to distribute their entire works in order to "advertise" for them. If you believe in copyright enforcement of the GPL, you can't ignore this. Essentially, you want copyrights obliterated so that nobody can make money off of anything they created, because you're used to the convenience of downloading it all and don't want the free ride to disappear.
 
  Since that's what radio used to be before the ClearChannel takeover.
 
Which has nothing to do with anything. You don't have the right to pirate artists' music because you don't like ClearChannel. There are plenty of alternatives.
 
  Basically, what I really want is to be able to sample a large and diverse variety of music to better inform my music buying decisions,
 
So use iTunes, listen to online radio, use music kiosks in music stores, and so on. You do not have the right to break the law and "sample" materials. You're not actually sampling anything, because a sample is a smaller amount of something greater. P2P allows the entire product to be given away so that you don't have to pursue the legal alternative of paying for it. It is the opposite of capitalism and of competition. You were probably one of the same people to jump up and hate "M$" for bundling IE for free in order to crush competitors. By your definition it would be "competition" and "capitalism" as usual.
 
  since CD's are so ridiculously overpiced I can't really afford to buy a bad one.
 
That has nothing to do with piracy. You don't have the right to pirate music because you believe $11.99 is "ridiculously priced." Even iTunes is currently .99 a song.
 
  Conclusion:
 
The entire drive of the piracy apologist mindset is to justify an illegal and immoral act. It is illegal because it breaks the law--it disregards copyright law (something championed in GPL situations) and pretends that copyright holders have no rights. The creators of the pirated materials are disregarded in the face of opposition toward some "evil" corporation--in this case, the scapegoat is the RIAA.
 
More importantly, it is immoral. You are disrespecting the artists. You did not ask for their permission. You've never spoken to them about it. If they dislike P2P, they are poked fun at. The entire piracy movement is an attempt to get things for free, freeloading off the capitalist system that created the environment in which the materials could be created. You do not protect artists from their own contracts (you know, the ones they signed themselves) by making sure they're never paid for their efforts. Pretending everyone else should go out and see concerts and buy t-shirts is an attempt to deflect blame. Notice the person making this claim never actually buys tickets or t-shirts themselves. It's always "someone else."
 
  Song of the piracy apologist: "GIMME THAT, THAT'S MINE! GIMME THAT, THAT'S MINE!"

Re:The RIAA doesn't represent ARTISTS? I'm shocked (1)

Sinkael (1089531) | about 6 years ago | (#25279155)

Holy shit, great wall of text, was all that really needed, I mean you post basically broke down to; Anyone who downloads music is a pirate, pirates are scoundrels and have no morals. Ninja's are better.

File sharing faggots (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278133)

File sharers [twofo.co.uk] support terrorism.

Well. (5, Insightful)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | about 6 years ago | (#25278139)

Here it is. The start of the final fall of the RIAA and its ilk.

The musicians and songwriters are revolting and refusing to be put in their place.

The only question remains: Will they re-do what the RIAA has done? Will they seek an iron-fist of control?

Re:Well. (2, Informative)

gdog05 (975196) | about 6 years ago | (#25278243)

Sorry, I clicked on Redundant by accident. I'm a bad mod. This post is to fix.

Re:Well. (4, Funny)

Ortega-Starfire (930563) | about 6 years ago | (#25278537)

Congrats, you have taken the first steps along a far greater path. May your moderations be moderate in their moderation of other moderations.

Re:Well. (2, Funny)

irtza (893217) | about 6 years ago | (#25279031)

what the meta-moderation are you talking about?

Re:Well. (1)

ivandavidoff (969036) | about 6 years ago | (#25278345)

This is not about the consumer. It's about the artist being fairly compensated. And artists SHOULD be compensated. Not the labels. The artists. So some measure of control should be granted them. But then, if artists receive a mere fraction of what RIAA tries to extract from the consumer, it will be much more than they're receiving now. Stealing from labels is illegal. Stealing from artists is immoral.

Re:Well. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278467)

Define "artist". A lot of so-called artists are really just mouthpieces for RIAA labels. They have no talent and if it weren't for the sheer number of other professionals making sure they are always looking and sounding better than they really do and getting way more airplay than is justified, they'd be complete failures.

I'm all for real artists having control, but face it, a lot of the folks claiming to be artists are a lot better off with the RIAA labels.

Re:Well. (4, Interesting)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | about 6 years ago | (#25278493)

Thats precisely it: "Pirates" are also some of the biggest spenders. They buy collections just to have them, they download them when the works are 'not released yet', they buy concert tickets, they buy auxiliary materials like DVDs and tshirts.

When some faceless, emotionless company "Owns" a band, and the people know that damn near no money goes back to the artists, downloading and sharing doesnt matter. Who does it hurt? Who gives a shit, its some corporation.

Instead, now you're "pirating" from the artists directly. Wouldn't that be sad if your help got the group disbanded because they couldn't afford it? I mean, they then are getting direct money from selling product. Then again... isn't pirating another form of advertisement, and one that specifically Adobe and MS used at one time?

Perhaps one could encourage purchasing via addons and other perks, rather than "sue-happy hours in court". Something about Honey and Vinegar...

Steve Ballmer is the new Justin Timberlake (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 6 years ago | (#25278949)

Instead, now you're "pirating" from the artists directly. [..] Then again... isn't pirating another form of advertisement, and one that specifically Adobe and MS used at one time?

Adobe's last album sucked ass, and as for MS, Bill Gates never could sing. It's even worse now that they've got Steve Ballmer on lead vocals, he's already burned out four auto-tuners trying to get his "singing" into shape.

The videos are even more horrific, featuring as they do Ballmer performing highly-synchronised dance routines in an open shirt for an intended audience of 10 to 14 year old girls. Upon seeing this, many such girls have been permanently scarred at a sensitive time in their emotional development.

Re:Well. (2, Insightful)

spyrochaete (707033) | about 6 years ago | (#25278571)

Stealing from labels is illegal. Stealing from artists is immoral.

Is the RIAA truly stealing from artists when musicians willfully sign with a member of the organization? I have little sympathy for artists who knowingly endorse litigation against their fans by earning money for the RIAA.

iron fist for control doesnt work. (1)

unity100 (970058) | about 6 years ago | (#25278407)

if it worked, it would have worked for riaa.

all it did was to alienate listeners.

Re:Well. (5, Insightful)

HiVizDiver (640486) | about 6 years ago | (#25278435)

I do firmly believe that the RIAA (and, by extension, the MPAA) are FAR from out of tricks. They didn't get to the positions they are by being stupid, just greedy.

I fervently hope that I'm wrong, but we've been hearing the "This is it! The death of the RIAA!" announcements for YEARS.

Re:Well. (2, Interesting)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | about 6 years ago | (#25278605)

Well, that's obvious.

The RIAA will NOT die overnight. They wont die tomorrow, nor will they die 5 years from now (unless disbanded via RICO). Ling Chi comes to mind as the form of death.

If no or few artists sign on, they will end up with fewer talented artists while the rest of them create their own music guilds and trade unions in which they giants will have to deal with. With fewer One-Hit-Wonders to milk profits, they will be forced to lower overall advertising. Those musicians who are in the guilds not represented by the RIAA will be able to provide low or no cost media as teasers for self-advertising. The CC is already well used in this regard.

This is no fast swift death. This is death by a thousand cuts, each only nicking a small portion of flesh. Unfortunately, a corporation cannot take opium to allay the pain.

Re:Well. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278623)

I fervently hope that I'm wrong, but we've been hearing the "This is it! The death of the RIAA!" announcements for YEARS.

Well this is a first for me. My first "Finally the year of the linu... oh, sorry. I should be asleep.

Of course the MAFIAA has a few tricks up their sleeve. It would be shocking if they didn't. But new artists are wising up to their tactics, and now that established artist are proclaiming that the riaa doesn't represent them, and are rallying against them, I hope the riaa will find it harder to stay alive.

It's time for change :)

Re:Well. (1)

turd_sandwich (1364529) | about 6 years ago | (#25278689)

Truly, this will be the year of the death of the RIAA on the desktop!

*ducks*

Re:Well. (4, Interesting)

steelfood (895457) | about 6 years ago | (#25278807)

See, here's the thing. Stuff like this takes time. Things don't just collapse like Lehman or AIG. Actually, not even Lehman or AIG fell overnight, despite all appearances. They've been in trouble for at least a year now.

The timeframe for social change is typically on the order of 10 years, about a half-generation or a decade. Outright revolutions take even longer, about 20 years or twice as long. The American Revolution began in the 1760's and ended in the 1780's. The unrest that brought about the American Civil War began in the 1840's and finally ended in the 1860's.

The RIAA doesn't just represent a bunch of companies, it's an industry, a business model. TThe fall of the RIAA began with Napster, but only because the genie had been let out of the bottle. Things didn't really start rolling until they began suing normal people, because people don't much care about what goes on around them until it hits their pocketbooks, or threatens to.

Then, it was just bad PR for musicians to be associated with companies that sued their fans, and it was all a matter of time. But even then, it takes time for artists and fans alike to realize that they can cut out the middleman and do better. They're not going to necessarily be superstars, but how many artists get to become superstars, and at the expense of how many others?

Had the RIAA not started suing people, it might've taken longer for them to be rendered antiquated, perhaps another 10 years. But that was an eventuality. The world changes, regardless of anybody's desires. It is an inevitability. The RIAA decided to put their resources into fighting the change rather than working with it. For that reason alone, they are destined to fall. It's like swimming against the current. Eventually, they will tire, and when they do, they will drown.

Re:Well. (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | about 6 years ago | (#25278811)

I do firmly believe that the RIAA (and, by extension, the MPAA) are FAR from out of tricks. They didn't get to the positions they are by being stupid, just greedy.

Indeed. If I had tagging powers, I'd probably put up "goodluckwiththat" -- the artists don't own the radiowaves and the music video networks like the RIAA does. I've helped one or two one-hit-wonders make it out of their garages and into Billboard's top 40 through word-of-mouth and spamming "request-a-song" radio shows when they were signed with no-name independent labels, but for the most part, a new band's exposure begins with the 4 capital letters of "RIAA" -- though once they have a flowing fanbase, they can keep them updated on their own with a "We're releasing a new album!"

RIAA may no longer be the alpha and omega of the music business, but they definitely have a firm grip on the alpha. Spreading your song to 130 people on music networking sites is not exposure. Broadcasting to +80 million listeners is.

Re:Well. (1)

catbertscousin (770186) | about 6 years ago | (#25278835)

The musicians and songwriters are revolting!

Wait . . .

Good for Them (2, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | about 6 years ago | (#25278167)

But will it simply turn into a gambling chip against the RIAA to get a marginally better deal?

Re:Good for Them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278279)

no big deal, but this is usually phrased as "bargaining chip"

Re:Good for Them (2, Interesting)

Artraze (600366) | about 6 years ago | (#25278475)

> But will it simply turn into a gambling chip against the RIAA to get a marginally better deal?

What do you mean "turn into"? It already _is_. You quit your job if you're fed up with it; you threaten to quit if you want something. The only real question here is how long the RIAA takes to meet their demands. Too slow and they'll quit for real.

Remember that there's a love-hate relationship between artists and the RIAA. Working in entertainment usually means giving up making good money (doing something else) to do something you love. The only time you make excellent money is when you become a superstar. If the RIAA didn't exist, that will almost never happen, while with it, you stand a pretty good chance (and basically no chance if you are against it). So artists put up with the RIAA because they'd otherwise probably be looking at flipping burgers and doing gigs on the weekends. The internet has made that not quite as true, but they'll still probably never be able to book a large venue.

Re:Good for Them (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 6 years ago | (#25278739)

The only time you make excellent money is when you become a superstar.

Ok.

If the RIAA didn't exist, that will almost never happen,

It would happen with the same unlikeliness it happens now.

while with it, you stand a pretty good chance

Uh, no you don't. You stand a terrible chance. First you have to get signed, which is brutally hard, and if you do get signed for the most part, they -decide- exactly how big you get.

(and basically no chance if you are against it).

Primarily because they've muscled you out of all the major places you might have a chance of getting major exposure. If they didn't exist, anyone would have a shot of getting that exposure, not just 'signed bands'.

So artists put up with the RIAA because they'd otherwise probably be looking at flipping burgers and doing gigs on the weekends.

And even after signing this is usually their fate. The RIAA meaning Warner/Sony/EMI/Universal screw the vast majority of the artists they sign.

The internet has made that not quite as true, but they'll still probably never be able to book a large venue.

Again, because they are competing with bands backed by a 900-lb gorilla. Take away the gorilla and bands will still rise to the top and fill large venues. They'll even hire people to do PR, and negotiate merchandise deals, and crap like that.

So don't sign (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278223)

Keep your signature off their damn contract, and you can have all this right now. (That's assuming that you are, in addition to a musician, a marketing expert.)

Costly overhead (1)

BigGar' (411008) | about 6 years ago | (#25278225)

The question is not "Are they costly overhead?" the question is "Are they JUST costly overhead?"

Sorry if this is offtopic but... (5, Funny)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about 6 years ago | (#25278247)

... actually it's not offtopic since it refers to a tag on this story - but why are all the stories now being tagged 'story?' What's it going to be next? Tagging them with 'words?'

Re:Sorry if this is offtopic but... (0, Offtopic)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | about 6 years ago | (#25278263)

Thanks for the idea. Tagging now...

Re:Sorry if this is offtopic but... (1, Offtopic)

hurfy (735314) | about 6 years ago | (#25278429)

One question answered...you can learn something here :(

Now why is my screen spazzing out when i mouse over the tags :/

Has anyone actually used the tags for anything?

lol

Anyways, back to the RIAA...no wait, back away from the RIAA...errr, where were we?

Re:Sorry if this is offtopic but... (1, Informative)

Reziac (43301) | about 6 years ago | (#25278451)

The tags are all messed up in low-bandwidth/no-CSS/no-JS mode, too.

Re:Sorry if this is offtopic but... (0, Offtopic)

Jeremy Visser (1205626) | about 6 years ago | (#25278637)

I'm guessing that they'll be rolling out tagging for non-story items, i.e. comments and journals.

Because they use a generic tag hierarchy, (http://slashdot.org/tag/lolcats), which could conceivably show stories, tags, and journals, having stories tagged as "story" could give you a way to filter out all the cruft that you don't want.

Re:Sorry if this is offtopic but... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 6 years ago | (#25278967)

If you put your mouse over the tag, it tells you what kind of tag it is[1]. The 'story' tag is a 'Type Tag'. The next two up, 'tech' and 'music' are 'System Tags' (presumably because they correspond to the system categories), and the top level ones are 'Top Tags' - and, at the time of writing, both 'story' and 'words' are in this category.

Presumably, at some point, things that are not stories will appear. I have idle.slashdot.org blocked from my front page, but I'd imagine things in this category get a type tag of 'pointlesswasteoftimeandbandwidth' or similar.

[1] Yes, in this era of ubiquitous touchscreens, some UI designers really are stupid enough to rely on mouseover working. And they make a pop-up of grey text on a translucent white background which appears over grey text on a white background...

Re:Sorry if this is offtopic but... (2, Funny)

Eil (82413) | about 6 years ago | (#25279017)

This is to differentiate them from the non-news sections of Slashdot which are appearing more frequently and are instead tagged as "crap".

Website looks interesting (1)

ThatGuyJon (1299463) | about 6 years ago | (#25278255)

From the "Our Campaign" page...

Copyright owners to be obliged to follow a "use it or lose it" approach to the copyrights they control. Despite new technology, many copyright owners fail to release recordings to the public. As a result many artists lose out and fans can only access such material illegally. A "use it or lose it" contractual provision should automatically apply so that an artists' work is always available for legal purchase by the public, digitally and physically.

That's an interesting sign that this could really be different from the RIAA, and not just artists searching for a larger slice of the pie.

Re:Website looks interesting (1)

east coast (590680) | about 6 years ago | (#25278693)

Oh? By telling an artist how they have to use their art or risk having it taken from them? At least with a contract you know the terms up front. This is going to lead to artists being stripped of their works if they feel that the work is no longer suitable for public release. I don't know how anyone can read this as a victory for anyone but those counting the dollars.

Re:Website looks interesting (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278885)

Ok, how about this - if you ever release a work for public sale, then it must ALWAYS be available for public sale - no putting the genie back in the bottle.
If you want full control of your work, keep it to yourself.
What really irritates me is some corporate entity (or person, I suppose) who holds the rights to some body of work. I want it. Fred has an old original, and he wants a gazillion dollars for it on ebay. Martha has one in her attic, but forgot she has it. The corporation feels it is not worth their while to sell it to me, because it's only worth about five bucks, and it would cost them fifty to get it to me, so they just refuse to part with it.
Why should I not be able to get it at a reasonable cost? Fred is just unreasonable. Martha is just an unknown to me, I could never find her. The creator has long since given up the work, or lost interest. Why is this lost to ME? My only real option is to try to pirate it somewhere. I think once something (Intelectual Property, actually)is put up for sale, it should then forever be available - and if the copyright holder chooses to not make it available to me, then it should automatically fall into the public domain. Which it should do after a reasonable - REASONABLE (NOT practically-forever) amount of time anyway.

Just my 0.02

Re:Website looks interesting (1)

east coast (590680) | about 6 years ago | (#25279025)

Artists, just like anyone else, shouldn't be forced to bend to your will. Period. They have rights. Why is it their rights are taken as an aside to your desire to be entertained? Get off your high horse and join us in the human race.

Further more, if Fred has it but you don't feel like paying his price why should Artist X be forced to produce it? I'm sick of this feeling of entitlement today by people who feel that they shouldn't have to invest anything of themselves into a system but they should reap all the fruit from it. The artist has the right to produce or not produce their work, Fred has the right to resell the work but you do not have the right to determine what is a reasonable price to force someone else to produce it for you.

Re:Website looks interesting (1)

Skinkie (815924) | about 6 years ago | (#25278715)

True, but only a capitalist way of thinking. First they want contracts really bad. Then the artists are going to wine about those same contracts. If you don't like your contract break it up, and act like it, don't give away your rights for quick fixes. Or act like an employee, like any other employee get paid once for your work. Basically what they want it to act as entrepreneurs for their own music and try to grab more crowd. While the label might be carefully planning the releases of different artists to get them as much exposure on the old fashioned, time sharing media, like radio and television.

Will they become the new RIAA? (2, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about 6 years ago | (#25278309)

It seems to me that for the FAC to serve the interests of the artists, there will need to be a legal arm for them. Furthermore, to even become famous, there needs to be some form of marketing and promotions for artists. Marketing and promotions is what the labels provide... in exchange for the souls of the artists.

Is the FAC prepared to provide this to its members? If so, then great... but is it really so different from what the Labels and RIAA provide? I suppose it remains to be seen... clearly, at least from the outside, it seems to favor artists more... for now.

FAC : RIAA == Manager : Pimp ?

Re:Will they become the new RIAA? (4, Insightful)

DragonTHC (208439) | about 6 years ago | (#25278461)

I think you have it completely wrong here.

think less in terms of your own cleverness, and more in terms of publishing.

Classical publishing is the model we're seeing here. Though, I understand the parallels are not perfect.

The RIAA represents publishers. The web says, "we don't need no stinking publishers". Authors and 'artistes' are wondering why they're sticking to the old school publishing method when it provides so little return. They are going to try the new method. Self publishing is now possible and cost effective. The artists know this. The artists have the product. They have the name. Without artists, the RIAA and its member companies make a big 'whooshing' sound. i.e. vacuum.

We will see labels and publishers suing artists for not renewing contracts. We will also see some artists re-invent themselves due to not owning their 'image'. The only thing that the RIAA's member companies bring to the table now is capital. The market isn't loyal to the publishers. The people are fans of artists, not labels. What we are seeing is the birth of a new industry from the ashes of an old one. The recording industry is at its knees and this, my friends, is its death knell. Long live music and the interminable spirit of human culture.

Re:Will they become the new RIAA? (1)

NoobixCube (1133473) | about 6 years ago | (#25278707)

Some artists may not be able to get moving without funding from their nation's specific arm of the RIAA. That's actually good though - some of the most popular artists today are just the same crap being foisted on us year after year because the recording industry has decided that's what we want. If singers and songwriters start getting directly paid for their work, we'll probably see a lot of new styles emerging.

I hereby declare this age "The Renaissance of the Troubadour"! It's a weird title, but I hope it sticks, because it's catchy :P

RIAA mebers ARE NOT PUBLISHERS! (4, Insightful)

raehl (609729) | about 6 years ago | (#25278725)

They're promoters.

You don't need the record company to get your CDs made or your music distributed. You need the record company to get your song on the radio, to get your band on Leno or SNL, to get critics to listen to your stuff....

Being able to distribute your own music cheaply doesn't replace the record label - you still have to get anyone to want to listen to your music at all.

Re:Will they become the new RIAA? (1)

tkw954 (709413) | about 6 years ago | (#25278743)

The only thing that the RIAA's member companies bring to the table now is capital.

They also have a significant promotional infrastructure in place.

Re:Will they become the new RIAA? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 6 years ago | (#25279125)

Who needs that when you've got the Internet? On the Internet you don't need to print posters and you never run out of window space.

On the Internet a few music-loving bloggers could replace the promotional mechanism of the entire music industry.

Donation link (2, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | about 6 years ago | (#25278375)

give it.

damn publishers! (4, Informative)

LingNoi (1066278) | about 6 years ago | (#25278415)

The rights for performers should be improved to bring them more into line with those granted to authors (songwriters, lyricists and composers). Authorâ(TM)s rights are much stronger because their rights model was developed 100 years before performers' rights. Some key differences:
- if an artist's recording is used in a TV advertisement in the UK, the author gets paid (via PRS) every time it is broadcast but the performers do not
- if an artist's record is played on free-to-air radio in the US the author gets paid public performance income (via ASCAP or BMI) but the performers do not
- if an artist's recording is used in a feature film, the author but not the performer gets paid public performance income every time the film is shown in a UK cinema.

and there you have it ladies and gentlemen. The recording industries bullshit lies. Piracy be damned. The reason artists make squat is because the publishes have stolen all the money!

Re:damn publishers! (1)

geedra (1009933) | about 6 years ago | (#25278595)

I think you're missing the point. Sounds to me like the authors are getting paid but not the performers. If these "performers" were writing their own damn songs, they wouldn't be complaining (as much). Funny how that works, eh?

Re:damn publishers! (1)

Zironic (1112127) | about 6 years ago | (#25278699)

Based on the amount of covers I've seen I'd say that performing is quite a lot easier then authoring and thus it makes sense that the authors get paid more.

Re:damn publishers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25279047)

Actually, the publishers are right. The pirates take all the money. The publishers are just referring to themselves in the 3rd person!

We need market to decide the price of any album (5, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | about 6 years ago | (#25278427)

I dont want MBA types deciding what price should an album from a particular artist should be sold. they naturally decide on how much they can get out of the pockets of the consumer.

and since, artist is bound by contract to the label, it is another form of monopoly - you wont be able to get records of that artist from any other label.

lets not fool ourselves. this is no competition. just like in the fields of patenting, it hurts our society.

we need market decide what they want to pay for any music piece. or, the artist even.

Re:We need market to decide the price of any album (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 6 years ago | (#25278559)

Maybe you've never thought about it before, but art is a non interchangeable good. You can't swap a Picasso for Johnny smiths drawering. Some individual is always going to be setting a base price for it. If the artist doesn't' sign with a label they must still decide how much they will charge for their services and goods. They only way the free market would decide the prices is if the artist gave up all rights on their music and anyone who wanted to distribute their music set their own price.

Re:We need market to decide the price of any album (1)

fishbowl (7759) | about 6 years ago | (#25278735)

You seem to be under the impression that it's not a "free market" if the producer of a product sets the asking price.

Where do you get the idea that a free market depends on producers surrendering rights?

I'll bet you don't apply the same concept to real estate or any other producer/consumer situation. I'm trying very hard not to post a car analogy, thank me later.

Re:We need market to decide the price of any album (1)

SnowDog74 (745848) | about 6 years ago | (#25278567)

The market does decide. No government entity steps in and determines retail pricing or gross margin. Sellers and buyers are market forces... If the market of buyers doesn't want to pay $15.98 for a CD, then they ought to boycott it.

If they're serious enough, buyers will, either as a group of individuals or an organized collective, force retail margins down.

Piracy is thought to be an answer but it does nothing to set a better market price, or to attract artists away from bad record deals (which they are responsible themselves for opting to sign into) by giving them evidence of a profitable alternative.

Market price isn't a gun put to the heads of consumers by some "MBA types". Let's not reduce this debate to paraphrasing the stereotypes perpetuated by pop films of the equally insipid motion picture industry. In doing so, you're ironically reinforcing the very intellectual bankruptcy you claim to be fighting.

it's simple (2, Interesting)

HaeMaker (221642) | about 6 years ago | (#25278471)

STOP SIGNING RECORD CONTRACTS!

There is no reason to do that anymore, at least there shouldn't be. Make the music, record it, and put it on iTunes or some other media.

Burn it to CD-R and sell it on eBay or Amazon. CD-Rs cost less than $0.25 now.

Re:it's simple (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278573)

To hell with recording. Play live and negotiate for a percentage of the bar. Don't even bother with ticket sales or cover. If you're good enough, people will come in and drink. If you suck, people will still come in and drink. You should be able to take home as much as the bartenders and waitresses did on the night you played.

Re:it's simple (1)

meringuoid (568297) | about 6 years ago | (#25279171)

You should be able to take home as much as the bartenders and waitresses did on the night you played.

Perhaps rather more than that would be fair. The band are expected to bring their own instruments, amplifiers and speakers, while the rest of the staff are not expected to provide the equipment necessary for their roles. The band make a greater investment in their role in the evening, and so ought to receive a greater dividend of the proceeds.

Re:it's simple (2, Interesting)

Trogre (513942) | about 6 years ago | (#25278705)

Distribution isn't the problem. Is hasn't been for nearly a decade.

The problem is promotion. You can put up your music for purchase just about anywhere, but "who's gonna buy it, kid - you?".

That's where the labels hold power. They control how much exposure (advertising, radio time, etc) your music gets. I suppose you could try and promote your own music, but spamming is generally frowned upon.

Re:it's simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278911)

I don't know, the internet seems like a great way to advertise to millions at a low cost. You don't have to spam, just buy ad space, put up a site and submit it to services like Digg for coverage. If you produce stuff that people like, you will become popular naturally.

Re:it's simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278821)

So... do you sign a contract when you put it on iTunes, or some other media?

Minimizing the middleperson (3, Interesting)

Neanderthal Ninny (1153369) | about 6 years ago | (#25278517)

Most of the labels (ie RCA, EMI, Sony,etc.) are the middleperson (gender neutral) issue here. Most labels are unfair to the artist so I think that the artist should be like Prince the revolt against all of the unfair labels. However not all labels are this bad. Independent and smaller labels are more fair in their distribution of royalties and doesn't have "Wall Street" pressure to "perform".
Right now Wall Street is only good for learning what a fraud it is and prevention of this fraud.

Re:Minimizing the middleperson (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | about 6 years ago | (#25278793)

I'd rather not try to minimize my middleperson. He's small enough as it is.

Established artists (4, Interesting)

bonch (38532) | about 6 years ago | (#25278519)

As idealistic as these announcements are, it's almost always established acts who do this--acts that have already benefited and made money from being distributed by a record company.

That's why I wasn't impressed when Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead released music for free, because they sure weren't doing that 10 years ago when they needed the money.

And I am tired of the 'artists' (2, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | about 6 years ago | (#25278615)

I am tired of artists complaining that it is all the labels faults. Did Radiohead not cave into the labels in hopes of fame and making money, or did they just think the new name would be more 'artistic'. Did the band join EMI for free, or did not EMI pay them a sum of money in exchange for doing what EMI wanted. Do artist trade creative control for up front payment, or is that more indicative of a business in which the purpose is to make money, not art. Reportable Radiohead demanded 10 million pounds before they were willing to continue their art, and changed labels in hopes of getting that money.

There is nothing wrong with making money, but be honest. Whether a label gets the money, or performer, or the drug dealer, ultimately gets the money makes no difference. They are all after the same thing, maximizing profits. The label deserves significant profit because they are the ones promoting the performer and providing the upfront capital. The sell out performer, or 'artist', deserves some profit because they provide the raw material. The drug dealer deserves some profit because they provide a necessary product.

In any case, once yo sell yourself I don't see much room for moral arguments about art. I respect honest people, like the late Robert Heinlein, who provided excellent entertainment, but never pretended his work was anything else than it was. He wrote to make money, he wrote for a market, and if one publisher would not buy his work, he would move to another. He did not cry like a whiny child that he had to work to make his money. No one is putting a gun to these 'artists' heads making the accept the offers from the labels. They could just go out and be artists, if they would give up the money. I buy all sorts of music like that, for instance if that's entertainment [bitmunk.com]

Exactly. (2, Insightful)

raehl (609729) | about 6 years ago | (#25278787)

The thing is, there is a HUGE oversupply of "artists". There are way, way, way more people who want to be stars than there is a need for stars.

By comparison, there is much, much, much less money sitting around to turn one of the many people who want to be a star into an actual star.

The "artists" don't get much from the record company because if the "artist" isn't willing to take what the record company will give them, there is a long line of other people who will take it just to be famous.

The actual music is only one small part of the final product, and it's the most readily available.

Rights need not be "wrested" (1)

fishbowl (7759) | about 6 years ago | (#25278921)

You have rights by virtue of being the creator of an original work that is in a form that lasts more than a short duration of time.

You may give these rights away, or you may assign some of all of them for consideration.

The suggestion is that they are taken away unfairly or by force, but the fact of the matter is, they are assigned by contract.

FAC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25278991)

Bah! They should have called themselves the Featured Artists Guild! Everyone would then quake in their boots at the thought of the FAG coming down hard on the RIAA's arse.

Someone else who thinks that way (2, Informative)

Weaselmancer (533834) | about 6 years ago | (#25279167)

Here's someone else who is also sick of the RIAA and decided to go rogue. Mike Patton with Ipecac Recordings. [ipecac.com]

Total freedom to release anything you want, no multi album contracts so you're not locked in, and royalty checks that favor the artist.

Ipecac is distinguished from most labels (independent labels included) by their policy of signing bands to only one album contracts. "Lawyers or businesspeople call us morons for only doing one-record deals," Werckman scoffs. "They say, 'You're not really anything, then.' Well, we like our catalogue. We like the records we put out. Our bands aren't rushing away. Our job isn't to own any artist. We're here to put out the art that people create."[2]

Ipecac also presses no more than twenty thousand units at a time.[2]

Low overhead and no video or promotional cost partnered with very little distribution costs allow for hearty royalties "Every six months I send those guys the fattest royalty checks," Werckman says. "It's great. It's the way it should be. Even bands that are very successful â" when they get royalty checks from us, they're stunned."

Source. [wikipedia.org]

I'm pleased other people are getting fed up with the RIAA. And I'm *very* pleased they're starting to demonstrate that they are unnecessary.

It won't be long now, I'm thinking.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?