Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

RIAA Wants Artist Royalties Lowered

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the why-should-they-get-paid-it-is-not-their-music dept.

Music 399

laughingcoyote writes "The RIAA has asked the panel of federal government Copyright Royalty Judges to lower royalties paid to publishers and songwriters. They're specifically after digital recordings, and uses like cell phone ringtones. They say that the rates (which were placed in 1981) don't apply the same way to new technologies." From the article: "According to The Hollywood Reporter, the RIAA maintains that in the modern period when piracy began devastating the record industry profits to publishers from sales of ringtones and other 'innovative services' grew dramatically. Record industry executives believe this to be cause to advocate reducing the royalties paid to the artists who wrote the original music."

cancel ×

399 comments

one would hope... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183178)

One would hope that all those artists who've been letting themselves get used by the RIAA in their anti-piracy campaign get a good look at this.

This could be a good thing (5, Interesting)

Heir Of The Mess (939658) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183398)

If the RIAA start driving away the artists then it makes the RIAA even less of a player. Just think one day the artists and the fans might connect directly on the internet with no middle man in between to screw the artists and sue the fans.

Their greed will be their undoing. I wonder why it hasn't been their undoing in the past though?

Re:This could be a good thing (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183520)

I have often wondered why the recording industry, faced with increasing competition from other distribution technologies, has not concluded that "recording" no longer is a viable business today.
They should go out of business or enter into new ventures, instead of bitching all the time.

I bet the association of Watt steam-enging manufacturers also experiences difficult times these days. But they don't try to blame the Otto internal combustion engine people all the time.

Re:This could be a good thing (4, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183802)

The Newcomen Engine people are still pissed at the Watt people for breaking their monopoly on manually-operated steam engines.

Re:This could be a good thing (5, Insightful)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183828)

Just think one day the artists and the fans might connect directly on the internet with no middle man in between to screw the artists and sue the fans.

That day has already arrived, and it has brought little change. We already have lots of artists, mainly the kind who can't get signed up by a record label, who publish their work online. It is only the tiny minority that get signed up by a major record label that we hear about though, and they are precisely the ones who will not 'cut out the middleman', because for them, the RIAA actually do provide a service: they advertise and brainwash the public into liking those choice few artists who are blessed with RIAA's stamp, leading to a tiny minority of artists making virtually all of the income in the music industry. How many artists are played on MTV? Not many.

[The RIAA's] greed will be their undoing. I wonder why it hasn't been their undoing in the past though?

The problem is that the public is very easily controlled by advertising and the media. So long as that is true, the RIAA will be able to create a few 'big acts', and to get the public to listen only to them. A few 'big acts' are easily controlled by the RIAA, especially since those acts will only make money as long as the public is convinced that they like them - which is the only thing the RIAA is good at.

In this media-driven age, I don't expect things to change anytime soon. But yes, cheap recording and publishing technology is helpful, even if only in a small way.

Re:one would hope... (5, Interesting)

joshetc (955226) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183514)

I would think it would be the exact opposite. In the last 25 years the cost of audio production equipment, cd presses (well equivelant to mainstream of yester-year) and printing presses (for inserts) have advanced dramatically and gone wait down in price. I think its about time artists begin recording their own music or grouping together for recordings then paying the labels a small cut for mass reproduction of their music...

Re:one would hope... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183816)

I think that much of the (ahem) value the labels offer is in production facilities. No matter how good a musician you are, if your tracks aren't well-engineered your music will still suck from the listener's perspective. To a starving artist, the cost of studio and engineering time can be prohibitive, so the labels provide that in exchange for a usurious contract. Maybe it's time for that to change: it's just a service, after all. And since we're now in a "service economy" someone should step up to the plate and provide it.

Please refer back to this article (5, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183182)

...when the RIAA claims to do anything in the future for the sake of artists. They are not working for the artists as we all know, but this is a compelling argument detached from the copyright infringement case.

RIAA does *not* represent artists (5, Informative)

JoostSchuttelaar (863737) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183276)

when the RIAA claims to do anything in the future for the sake of artists.
The Recording Industry Association of America represents the recording industry, like record labels and distributors, not artists.

Re:RIAA does *not* represent artists (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183328)

The Recording Industry Association of America represents the recording industry, like record labels and distributors, not artists.

It's easy to get confused simply because they lie about it so much. "Won't somebody think of the starving artists!" is their main battle cry, not "Won't somebody think of the fat record company executives". However, it's also easy to avoid confusion by simply reminding yourself that they are lying weasels with the ethical standards of a rat. Never take anything they say at face value and you won't get misled (as often).

What the fuck man, have you no compassion? (5, Funny)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183742)

I personally know of 3 music artists that have died due to starvation, just in the last 2 weeks. One was a good friend involved on the verge of signing a big record deal with Sony music, but someone leaked the band's latest album on the net before the deal could be signed.. Once Sony realized pirates were using the internat to mass-copy the album, the lawyers walked away and my friend was left homeless and broke.. it was horrible watching his body decompose before my very eyes, I hope you never have to go through the same experience

Re:What the fuck man, have you no compassion? (0)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183800)

Bodies don't decompose before your very eyes unless you have a Time Dilation Field. And if you have one of those you could probably sell it for much more than any record deal would get.

Re:RIAA does *not* represent artists (5, Insightful)

Maestro4k (707634) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183374)

The Recording Industry Association of America represents the recording industry, like record labels and distributors, not artists.

Yes, but they like to use the artists for sympathy in their anti-piracy propaganda. But don't take my word for it, check out this page on their website [riaa.com] where we have the following (emphasis added):

Though it would appear that record companies are still making their money and that artists are still getting rich, these impressions are mere fallacies. Each sale by a pirate represents a lost legitimate sale, thereby depriving not only the record company of profits, but also the artist, producer, songwriter, publisher, retailer, ... and the list goes on.

...

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the creative artists lose. Musicians, singers, songwriters and producers don't get the royalties and fees they've earned. Virtually all artists (95%) depend on these fees to make a living. The artists also depend on their reputations, which are damaged by the inferior quality of pirated copies sold to the public.

So yes, they DO claim they're doing this for the sake of the artists, you and the grandparent are both correct. The RIAA are claiming to be fighting piracy at least partially for the artists' benefit (although note it says "perhaps most importantly" about the artists) while at the same time trying to stab the artists in the back (again) by lowering their royalties even though they say that 95% of artists depend on those royalties to make a living. That last bit about artists' reputations suffering from sales of inferior quality pirated copies is kinda questionable in this day and age. A pirated CD should sound the same as the real thing, sometimes better since they'll remove any DRM crap from it.

Personally I don't see how they do it, having a soul-ectomy must be a job requirement.

Re:RIAA does *not* represent artists (1)

bvdbos (724595) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183436)

not to mention the part "Each sale by a pirate represents a lost legitimate sale". As if I would legitimately buy all music I download (I don't buy pirated cd's but I do use shareaza and bittorrent).

Re:RIAA does *not* represent artists (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183536)

Each sale by a pirate probably does represent a lost legitimate sale. If you are willing to give a pirate money, then you would probably be willing to give the artist that money (ethical concerns of paying the RIAA aside). It is somewhat misleading, because very few people actually buy pirate CDs. It is also misleading, because it ignored fact that part of the reason that it represents a lost sale is that the official CD is so overpriced people don't consider it worth purchasing.

Re:RIAA does *not* represent artists (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183780)

t is somewhat misleading, because very few people actually buy pirate CDs.
While that might be true in your little corner of the world, it's certainly not true worldwide. In Asia and Africa (and possibly South America) "pirate" CDs sell like hotcakes. Go there and you'll see some at every street corner. I suppose that this is what the RIAA is pointing at.

In "western" countries (Europe, US, Australia, etc.) there is presumably much less of this. Although it *might* be present in some very specialised markets (note the might). But the chances of getting caught and the risk are so much greater that I'm not sure many would think it worthwhile.

Re:RIAA does *not* represent artists (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183596)

reputations, which are damaged by the inferior quality of pirated copies sold to the public

Yet out of one of the other mouths they've been claiming for years that "piracy" is affecting them so broadly because of the perfect nature of said pirated copies. Someone point me again to that section in US Code that legislates a guaranteed revenue stream for the recording industry?

Re:RIAA does *not* represent artists (4, Informative)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183870)

The artists also depend on their reputations, which are damaged by the inferior quality of pirated copies sold to the public.
Bullshit. If I buy a pirated CD and it skips, I know it's because the pirate didn't use a good blank, or burned it too fast; if I download an MP3 and it sounds tinny or muffled, I know it's because it was poorly compressed; but if I go to a store, buy a CD, and it doesn't work on some players, can't be ripped, or infects my computer with malware... now THAT is sure to make one stop buying legit CDs completely!

Re:Please refer back to this article (3, Insightful)

Storklerk (529418) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183468)

...when the RIAA claims to do anything in the future for the sake of artists.
Also refer to this article the next time they claim that the artists are starving because of the pirates.

Why artists? (1, Insightful)

matt me (850665) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183546)

Since when did so many ppl start calling Green Day and James Blunt artists? Before it was only people in the industry, but now it's filtered through the radio down to us. It's ridiculous, this ain't Pablo Picasso or Banksy we're talking about. It's a play by the RIAA to make people consider the creative talents of those divine people (jonny borrel, pete doherty) who make the music we listen to. And while we worship them, treating as gold their invaluable educated views on such issues as fiscal policy and nanotechnology, the RIAA will use their talents as justification to extend copyrights indefinately, and fuck with royalties for those less powerful.

When you say artists, I think you're talking about sculptors, architects and painters. Our english language has a word for people who make music: musicians (which contains composers, instrumentalists and singers). I understand there exist some genius (and under-rated) musicians whose fabulous talent is a blessing to our world, and deserve to be referred to alongside of da Vinci and their work compared to Guenica, but there is a lot of shit on the radio that is not original, made by people who are not talented. An excuse for music, it isn't art for sure.

To illustrate this ludicrousity, just go check out some profiles on deviantART (if you don't know it, it houses some fantastic photography, painting, sculpture and drawing). Read someone's profile and beneath "favourite styles of art: painting, tapestry" you can read on so many profiles "favourite artists: green day, fall out boy" , "favourite artists: james blunt, spice girls". It hurts to think about what these people were thinking they were being asked.

So please, call U2 a band and Bono a musician.

Re:Why artists? (4, Insightful)

Emmettfish (573105) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183642)

Alright, clownshoes, listen up.

Comparing the entirety of the music industry to the entirety of DeviantArt is fucking insane, as most people on DeviantArt do not make at their vocation, let alone their business. You are comparing a 15-year-old kid's drawing of a Yu-Gi-Oh character to the entire catalog of the Beatles.

By lumping 'musicians' as their own group, away from 'artists,' it's like saying that music somehow has a baseline for appreciation that is lower than that of, say, Rodin. Yet the Rodin Museum has to advertise like crazy to get people in the door, and Green Day sells out in seconds.

Does this mean that Green Day is better than Rodin? No. Does this mean that your analogy is nearly indescribably obtuse? Yes.

Music is art. Some music is brilliant. Other music is not. Some paintings are brilliant. Other paintings are not. Do the math -- Music is art.

Re:Why artists? (1)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183680)

Paintings are a form of artwork.
Not all painters are artists.

Music is a form of artwork.
Not all musicians are artists.

That's said: This story is about songwriters, all of whom are artists.

Re:Why artists? (1)

edward2020 (985450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183744)

Perhaps you should have said... Paintings are a form of artwork. Not all painters are artists. Music is a form of artwork. Not all musicians are artists. Songwriting is a form of arwork. Not all songwriters are artists.

Re:Why artists? (1)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183806)

Perhaps you should have said... Songwriting is a form of arwork. Not all songwriters are artists.
Because that would be wrong. Whether you appreciate their art or not, it's still artwork.

Re:Why artists? (4, Interesting)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183792)

Not all musicians are artists.
"Artist" is "industryspeak" to designate a content creator. It's different than the popular meaning of the word. Whether the output has any artistic value or not is irrelevant. It's faster than saying for example "the guy who moves his lips on the video while the ugly fattie we can't show sings on the sound track".

Re:Why artists? (1)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183818)

It's faster than saying for example "the guy who moves his lips on the video while the ugly fattie we can't show sings on the sound track".
Let me say this real slowly for you: The article is NOT talking about all musicians. The article is talking about SONGWRITERS. There's a difference. Songwriters are artists. They create works of art.

Re:Why artists? (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183784)

The english language has a name for sculptors, architects and painters, It's sculptors, architects and painters. To argue that the only valid art is visual is shortsighted. Music is performance art. In your narrow definition, plays are just as insiginificant as music. I find your opinion offensive, Although you did mention truly horrid musicians.

Re:Please refer back to this article (2, Funny)

Iriestx (1033648) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183694)

...when the RIAA claims to do anything in the future for the sake of artists. They are not working for the artists as we all know, but this is a compelling argument detached from the copyright infringement case.
Hey, lawyers are artists too.. right?

Oblig. article links (5, Informative)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183790)

They are not working for the artists as we all know, but this is a compelling argument detached from the copyright infringement case.

Just to add to this, here are articles by different artists about being ripped off:

Steve Albini [negativland.com]
Courtney Love [salon.com]
Steve Vai [vai.com]

Sounds Good (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183184)

Rates of $15 per CD don't apply the same way with new technologies either, so it should be more like $3-4 per CD.

What? Ohhh, my bad. These rules don't apply to the RIAA - just to everyone else they screw over.

Obviously its the other way round (5, Insightful)

arun_s (877518) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183192)

They say that the rates (which were placed in 1981) don't apply the same way to new technologies.
Technology has made it easier for the distribution of media. Its them who should be getting lesser 'royalties' for each copy sold, not the artists.

Re:Obviously its the other way round (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183440)

Technology has made it easier for the distribution of media. Its them who should be getting lesser 'royalties' for each copy sold, not the artists.
I don't know... I despise the RIAA as much as the next guy, but doesn't it make sense to pay less royalties for a song used as a ringtone, compared to what you'd pay for the full quality version meant to be listened to? On the other hand... the last thing we need is ringtones becoming cheaper.

I couldn't really tell from the article what the RIAA intends exactly. Maybe the article was deliberately vague; it being rather biased.

Re:Obviously its the other way round (2, Insightful)

moranar (632206) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183498)

Paying less royalties for different quality would lead to a classification of media we don't need at all. Think of the opposite situation: recording agencies would then be in the position to ask a higher price for "superior" media like DVDs or CDs. A creation is a creation no matter what the media or quality is (as long as it is recognizable, of course).

Re:Obviously its the other way round (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183606)

I am referring not to a classification of media, but to a classification of application, which already exists. Royalties are different for consumer CDs, radio plays, music played in bars, cover versions for karaoke or elevator muzac, etc. This is the same song being used in different ways, under different royalty schemes. Why not an additional schedule for ringtones, which are arguably a whole new application of recorded music?

Of course the question is what the RIAA is really after. Do they want different royalties for all digital media? And what does "lower royalties" mean? Is it the $ amount or the ratio of royalties against revenues for the producer? If anything, lower distribution costs should mean the percentage of the proceeds given to the artists should go up, not down. But this article is too vague to start bashing the RIAA over the head with, much as I'd like to.

Re:Obviously its the other way round (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183504)

doesn't it make sense to pay less royalties for a song used as a ringtone, compared to what you'd pay for the full quality version meant to be listened to?

Given that the artist's effort was the same to produce the idea that becomes the song anyway, I am not sure. If you meant that one should pay less for a reduced quality item, then the artist/publisher ratio should remain the same for a ringtone, reducing its overall cost. It seems instead that publishers want the ratio to change.

Re:Obviously its the other way round (1)

norton_I (64015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183532)

The article says "ringtones and other digital recordings" which might imply that it was refering to all digital recordings (both iTunes and ringtones). While it is true that digital music services may cost less than CDs, they should really pass the savings onto the publishers -- it costs the same to produce the music whether sold as a CD or mp3, but the distribution costs are lower for the mp3. Ringtones I could believe (since they are of less value than the full, high quality recording) should earn the musicians less money except they usually sell for $2-$3, compared with the $.99 on iTunes or about $1/track for CDs.

Of course, all of the digital music options are cheaper than most CD singles, so if nobody actually wants more than a track or two, everyone makes less money. I leave it as an excercise to the reader to determine if this is a bad thing.

Re:Obviously its the other way round (2, Insightful)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183554)

On the other hand... the last thing we need is ringtones becoming cheaper.

They probably would not get cheaper, but the RIAA's members would get a bigger share of the pie at the expense of the artists.

Re:Obviously its the other way round (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183564)

Not really. The ringtones themselves are cheaper so therefore the artist already gets less royalties then they would for a proper song. Oh and what the RIAA intends is quite obvious. They intend to pocket the money and if anything increase the price of ringtones.

Re:Obviously its the other way round (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183610)

No, it doesn't make sense at all to pay a smaller percentage of the royalties the RIAA gets from the ringtone sellers to the artists. Although they already deduce some fraction for shipping, packaging and "breakage" even for songs that are distributed electronically, they apparently want an even larger peace of the cake. They don't want to reduce the cost or the ringtone sellers at all, just increase the part they can take. One can only hope that their attempt to enrich themselves at the cost of the artists backfires.

Re:Obviously its the other way round (2, Insightful)

CatoNine (638960) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183474)

Damn, you beat me to it stating the obvious :-).
Electronic distrbution costs the distributers nothing other than a sales rep signing the contract and an accountant raking in the cash. De telco's, iTunes', etc. and the *customer* pay for the distribution. Artists shoud seriously wonder what the added value of the distributors is here.

Cost is not all dollars and cents (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183710)

It costs them the power of distribution.

Controlling the flow of information can be a very powerful thing.

There are some things money just can't buy.

RIAA = Middlemen - Excise. (5, Insightful)

Cordath (581672) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183492)

The major labels had a legitimate niche back when it took a massive distibution network to press an artists records and deliver them to record stores across the world. Today, distribution is a non-issue. It used to take massive ammounts of money to produce a good recording. Today, all the equipment that is required can be bought for less than a modest car. In fact, many major label recordings made today are of substantially lower quality than those of independants. It's not just the equipment, but the people using it. If upper-management orders the knob-jockeys to "make it louder" that's what they do, even if it means mixing tracks so hot that they clip continually. The labels remain the masters of big-budget promotion, but some bands have managed to be successful as independants with a tiny fraction of the promotion budget that a major label band gets. How do they do it? Make good music.

In all honesty, the labels aren't good for consumers. They stifle creativity and promote the stagnation of musical forms by promoting "safe" music over the innovative. This is why a top-40 music station sounds so homogenous whether it's playing pop-country, pop-rock, or pop-rap. Instead of promoting original artists, they hire 40 year old men to write songs about a teenage girl's life, hire a model who can't sing to sing those songs, and then digitally correct the tone-deaf waif's caterwallings in much the same way they air-brush away her zits and about 40 pounds. Then they promote this manufactured crap so heavily that it squeezes good music into the musical margins of life.

The labels aren't good for artists. Only a tiny percentage of artists signed to major labels ever make a profit. Most wind up in debt to the labels with no control over the rights to their own creations. Is the purpose of a record label to make money for itself or is it to make money for the artists? In the past RIAA has argued that artists provide a service, much like recording engineers or the squeegee monkeys that keep the windows of the exec's corner offices clean. They pay their lawyers better than 99.999% of their artists. Those lawyers enforce a copyright system designed to pump money into those corner offices at any cost. One of the costs happens to be the freedom of artists. Take the amen break for example. A whole musical genre grew up around a single sample made 40 years ago because the copyright on it was never enforced. What legally aborted genres might exist today were it not for the labels' lawyers?

Personally, I think RIAA and the major labels know all this. They know they have no legitimate role to play in distribution. They know they manufacture and promote crap because promoting original music carries risk. They screw the artists both financially and creatively. On some level, although they'd never admit it, they even realize that the labels are, at the most fundamental level, only there to get the music from the artist to the consumer and the money from the consumer to the artist. They're middlemen and they know it.

How do you improve any business transaction for both the consumer and the supplier? Cut out the middlemen.

Re:RIAA = Middlemen - Excise. (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183690)

"Take the amen break for example. A whole musical genre grew up around a single sample made 40 years ago because the copyright on it was never enforced."

Technically correct, but let's be accurate as well. I can think of a good 5 genres that sprang up around the Amen break in various forms (sped up, slowed down, reversed, etc.) off the top of my head.

Re:RIAA = Middlemen - Excise. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183752)

It's spelled independent and not independant.

Re:RIAA = Middlemen - Excise. (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183760)

Just thought I should mention that upper management doesn't have a hand in the final production mastering, unless it is to deliberately make a recording sound poor.

All the licensed, mastered CDs I've heard have sounded better than an indie band's recording.

There's a reason some of the EQ settings on the soundboards have little plastic boxes cemented around the nob.

So technically speaking, the production quality is unparallel. But as we all know and can hear, that means nothing for content.

Artists and Writers Deserve Their Own Living (3, Insightful)

Soloact (805735) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183206)

The royalty schedule was implemented to encourage artists to continue with music by being able to make a reasonable living of the trade. These payments were increased so that the artists would actually receive money, instead of constantly owing the recording companies and thus being enslaved by them. The companies also, for years, "enslaved" the songwriters by signing them to publishing contracts, then claiming the works as IP. This is why I support independent musicians and songwriters. By lowering the royalties that are currently being paid, grudgingly by the recording companies to the artists involved, would be yet another huge backward step in the creative arts. Quite sad to see these sort of things in the works. I hope those pushing for the reductions fail in their quest. Would also be great if it was reversed, and increases in royalties paid to the artists resulted.

Re:Artists and Writers Deserve Their Own Living (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183524)

Why not scrap the whole concept of copyright on music and replace it full out with a mandatory point-of-sale/broadcast royalty? Sure, it would drive a stake through the heart of the RIAA vampires, but it would restore competition in the sector and greatly benefit consumers and artists. Even more so for independents (and music lovers), as the removal of exclusive rights would greatly diminish the value of excessive marketing, leading to a wider diversity and more widespread distribution of royalties.

Re:Artists and Writers Deserve Their Own Living (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183550)

I would love to see compulsory, non-discriminatory, licensing for copyright works. If you want to publish something, you have to publish it to everyone. If you don't, then you get trade secrets protection instead.

What about CD prices? (4, Insightful)

achesterase (918544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183212)

But with the same argumentation, wouldn't one then also come to the conclusion that CD prices are massively inflated, as are prices for the DRM-laden digital variants?

Re:What about CD prices? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183382)

"wouldn't one then also come to the conclusion that CD prices are massively inflated,"

Not really, entertainment is one of the few constant priced expenses we've had in our lives.

For instance, I use to spend around $7 - $9 for cassettes and around $10 - $14 on LPs back in the day. My first CD player was in the mid '80s...CDs were easily $20. These days, I couldn't imagine spending any more on my CDs than I did my LPs.

So, the cost of entertainment on CD has gotten cheaper over the last 20 years. However, the cost to produce this music has gone up every year. I certainly know the rates I charge my clients has gone up significantly since getting into the music industry (though personally, that has been simply to weed out the underbrush, and to keep my prices 'competitive' -- if you are charging significantly less than others of the same caliber, the assumption is that you really aren't in the same class). I know when I first started working, $20k was enough to record a 3 piece rock group that was expected to sell at the national level. To hit these same numbers today, a factor of 10 is necessary.

It isn't the cost of the technology to record, nor the medium (i.e., there is no reason downloadable medium costs less than CDs...the *ONLY* thing you are saving is counter-space...them endcaps cost a lot of money)...it is, and has always been, the people that make it expensive. Not one of us are going to take a pay cut so that you can get your entertainment a little cheaper.

Or wait a second...isn't this the site that always gets a little bitchy when people start to talk about outsourcing their jobs overseas? Maybe I can replace all of my session players with Indians and Asians. Replace our management with the 419 operators in Nigeria...nah, I trust those guys a little more. Quite honestly, the musicians I hear from overseas are just as good. Heck, a few of these are go to guys when I need something recorded but my client can't afford the name players (I have a drummer in Vietnam that I can send a scratch track to with minimal tracking on, and tell him the artist / style we were hoping to have, and generally he is so good, we have to go back and restructure the song around the stuff he provided to show it off a little more).

So the outsourcing is going on as I speak. Its not much right now, but it will happen. And we try not to do it that much (most bigger artists are union, which means a restriction on this sort of activity).

So how about your job? I'm certain that someone in a third world country could do it faster, more efficient, and cheaper. I could safely argue that your job worth is massively inflated for what you do. Capitalism is only held together by the loose threads that I pretend you are worth what you say you are and in return you do the same for me. You decide that you can go elsewhere cheaper, and I'll agree in theory. I'll also let the world know how insignificant your job really is in return. Again, let me know how you feel about this when you are outsourced and your belief in the idea that the 'other guys' will be providing just as good of quality in return.

Re:What about CD prices? (1)

j35ter (895427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183560)

Nice argument. Doesn't hold its water, though!
Sure, the world needs resellers (for the time being, at least), but the RIAA members do zip in productivity. Sure, they organize recording, printing and marketing of artistic content, but they just don't admit that their ways are becoming outdated. The new market doesn't need Sony, Warner & Co. anymore; with YouTube,iTunes Kazaa and the rest of the pack, many of the old dinosaurs should start looking for a new job - after all, if thousands of workers lost their industrial jobs due to outsourcing, I will hardly worry about the fate of some jobless RIAA lawyers.

WTF? (1, Funny)

Dracos (107777) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183218)

Even a 10 year old running a lemonade stand could see that this logic doesn't have a hole, because it is a hole.

So, we officially need to find a replacement word for the first A in RIAA, because it doesn't standa for Artists anymore. I suggest something like this:

Recording Industry Asshats of America.

If this doesn't get the artists' attention, nothing will. I wonder what Lars thinks about it. He managed to sue Napster out of any meaningful existence, maybe he can be of use here. It's not like Metallica is doing much of anything now anyway.

Re:WTF? (4, Informative)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183296)

So, we officially need to find a replacement word for the first A in RIAA, because it doesn't standa for Artists anymore. I suggest something like this:

It never stood for "Artists" in the first place... It for "association"... as in "Record Industry Association of America" [riaa.com]

Follow the link and be amazed... the Artists DO NOT feature in the RIAA's thoughts at all, they're only concern is for the publishing rights holders as in the publishers, not the artists.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.

Re:WTF? (1)

ringo74 (970328) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183834)

My personal favorite is the Recording Industry Against Artists ;)

To the artists we say? (1)

toxyn (1037972) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183228)

Translation: We want more money for providing the immensly important service of alienating your fans! Oh, and btw, you get nothing.... *darth vader theme* It just makes me sick...

Re:To the artists we say? (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183404)

Artists: "Nooooooooooooo!"

Finally! They are doing something right (possibly) (2, Funny)

Cocoshimmy (933014) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183244)

Finally, there is something I agree with the RIAA on (assuming their intentions are to reduce costs to the consumer). Publishers, and to a certain extent artists (mainstream) tend to over charge for their IP which partially results in higher CD costs and this results in extensive piracy. Not only that, the over inflated royalties are charged to movie companies developing their soundtracks which pass on those extra costs to the consumer resulting in over priced movie tickets/rentals/dvds which further drives piracy.

Piracy can never be fully eliminated but if you charge a price that the public is willing to pay, then they are significantly less likely to resort to piracy. Reducing royalties paid to publishers and artists, I suppose is one way to achieve this.

However, the RIAA acknowledging of this could just be a publicity stunt to show that they are trying to adapt to piracy when in fact they are only interested in screwing over the smaller independent artists to benefit the larger record companies. It could be that reduced royalties do not result in lower CD/digital music costs in which case I don't believe reducing royalties is useful.

Re:Finally! They are doing something right (possib (1)

b.burl (1034274) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183278)

assuming their intentions are to reduce costs to the consumer
This is a joke right?

Re:Finally! They are doing something right (possib (2, Funny)

Cocoshimmy (933014) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183318)

I had to say it because I honestly don't know their intentions. I agree that they historically have not been interested in consumer rights nor consumer costs. However, their goal in this case, IMO, appears to be to increase sales by reducing piracy as a result of reducing consumer costs. As a result, even though it wasn't their intention, such a move could benefit both the consumer and the music industry.

Re:Finally! They are doing something right (possib (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183366)

And you think they will pass the cost saving onto the consumer?

Mod parent funny please ^_^

Re:Finally! They are doing something right (possib (1)

j35ter (895427) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183372)

He gave a legit argument. Many a reader forgot that the RIAA is *not* a body of its own, but rather a prolonged arm of the record labels.<br>Since they have to compete with online stores, P2P, and an audience growing more and more mature (mature as in not that stupid anymore:), they have to reduce the price of their songs.<br><br>RI stands for *Record Industy* (I dont see the artists mentioned anywhere), so I assume that it will be logical to let the artists suffer from price cuts. <br> BTW, Is there also an artists association? If yes, what are they doing?

What are these people SMOKING?????? (5, Insightful)

Lloyd_Bryant (73136) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183294)

First I read the slashdot article, and thought to myself "okay, the editors are smoking crack again".

Then I read the referenced article.

I owe the editors an apology for my mistaken assumption.

From TFA:
As quoted by The Hollywood Reporter,"Mechanical royalties currently are out of whack with historical and international rates," RIAA executive VP and General Counsel Steven Marks said. "We hope the judges will restore the proper balance by reducing the rate and moving to a more flexible percentage rate structure so that record companies can continue to create the sound recordings that drive revenues for music publishers."


In other words, the RIAA has actually admitted what most Slashdotters have know all along - their crusade is concerned strictly with the "revenues for music publishers", and if enhancing said revenues means screwing the artists, then so be it.

Another point: "...so that record companies can continue to create the sound recordings...". Since when did record companies start creating anything? They take the creations of the artists, slap their name on them, and bleed off the majority of the profits for themselves.

I thought that the RIAA couldn't possibly sink any lower - looks like I was wrong.

Re:What are these people SMOKING?????? (2, Interesting)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183656)

It would be great if a judge looked at this case, weighed the evidence, then said "ACTUALLY, RIAA, I'm assigning all royalties to the people who create the music, with the exception of a small stipend to pay you for lawyers' fees, since that's your sole function these days. Now shut the fuck up and get out of my courtroom before I have you all shot."

Well, I can dream.

Re:What are these people SMOKING?????? (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183724)

Since when did record companies start creating anything?

Well, creating a recording is not the same as creating music. It used to be expensive and difficult, accessible only to people with proper budgets. But if that is the only thing that RIAA is doing for us, then god help them. These days almost anyone can afford a quality digital recording, and they can do it without leaving their garage. Even when a band has no money at all, having any kind of popularity should allow it to mooch a recording session off a fan.

Look at the Sublime [wikipedia.org] phenomenon. These guys recorded most of their music during private parties. Have you seen the video clips? What was their "recording studio" like? Most of the time it is a corner in a room with a bunch of punks who are almost too drunk to hold their PBR cans.

The more I find out about the contemporary music history, the more I am convinced that creators of great music are motivated not by royalties, but instead by weed, acid, coke, and opiates.

Terrorism (1)

Stormx2 (1003260) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183302)

I'm sitting here in the UK reading about all these RIAA stories and thinking "Man, you guys in the USA have it bad". They're taking away the rights of music lovers AND artists. Its a war on consumers and musicians. I don't know what else to say, except I hope it is stopped before it spreads to other parts of the world.

Re:Terrorism (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183380)

well, it pretty much already is here. The BPI have been being bitches to us and our sovereign parliament for ages, I hope someone finally gives them a good dose of shut the hell up.

Re:Terrorism (1)

Stormx2 (1003260) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183422)

Yeah they bitch but they don't go around sueing single mothers for thousands of pounds... The thing is that small bands on small labels get about what they should be getting. The proportion of royalties they receive is about right. Sure a lot of people pirate their music but its good publicity. I'm a big fan of try before you buy... Some of the record I've bought you would never have heard mentioned on the radio or on MTV2. On bigger labels... well thats just it. Big labels are big labels because a) They've probably worked their way up through aggressive business practices (and you'd expect them too) b) They give the artists very little money, unless their whole style and look is that of someone who's wealthy c) They absolutely ruin any talent through overproduction And whats more they can't get enough of doing it. The RIAA was set up by these companies. Its not out to protect the rights of the consumer or the musicians, its out there to increase the profits that the record companies rake in.

Funny thing is... (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183874)

that this is the artist faults. They go with labels that push RIAA. The up and coming artists need to put their fears and doubts aside and simple go via the web. As it is, there are plenty of tools out there for doing the recording. In fact, I suspect that magnatune or even apple would do well to push concerts from their top indies.

RIAA will be cut-off completely =soon= (1)

zitintheass (1005533) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183310)

In a wake of sites like YouTube.com Emusic.com that pay artist back and a internet penetration on a rise there is no place for RIAA in years to come. Lower royalties..? nope, exactly the opposite, artist royalties will jump up due to cutting off the middlemen (RIAA) and there will be fierce competition in the "music hostings" of YouTube.com and alikes. Also more and more youngsters opts for emusic.com myspace.com etc. instead of RIAA & publishers. Its only matter of time when they will be rendered non-important and taken over by YouTube.com, GOOGLE, Yahoo or other 10%+ growing companies.

Who needs the RIAA? (1)

chuckdarw1n (1037970) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183314)

Loathe as I am to employ such an overused cliche, the phrase 'rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic' springs to mind, here. The 'record industry' is irrelevant - it just doesn't know it, yet.

More: how are the RIAA trying to remain relevant (1)

steve_l (109732) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183576)

If you look at the RIAA's tactics, its an attempt to remain relevant in a world where their core value "ability to control the supply chain to the retail outlets" is gone.

1. Attempts (successful in the US, not yet in the UK) to extend copyright. ==retain revenue from legacy products.

2. Attempts (like this) to maximise revenue from new content sales.

3. Attempts to impose a tax on all media-enabled devices, a tax which doesnt correlate to any track sales, so is probably exempt from the need to give the songwriters, publishers or artists any money.

#3 is the most insidious, because despite the tax, there's no guarantee you get anything for it. After all, in the UK we pay a tax on blank cassettes ("home taping is killing music"), yet they still dont like you copying it.

If they can get a tax out of every MP3 player, then they will go for the DVD-RW drives and the PCs, and then the broadband connection. While the publishers will go after the printers...

-steve

Good. (5, Insightful)

AngstAndGuitar (732149) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183332)

When music creation becomes unprofitable, only those who seek to do it out of love will persist.
I really think that we'll see an improvement in the quality of music as a result of this.

Unprofitable != Good (1)

superbrose (1030148) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183558)

I hope that music creation will never become unprofitable, because to me it sounds unfair not to financially reward artists for their great work, hopefully inspired by passion rather than greed.

However, obviously it's the artists who decide how to publish their own music. And if they decide to sign evil agreements with greedy institutions then that is their choice and they have to live with the consequences.

These days there are alternative ways of publishing music for artists. Some artists, like unclebob [unclebobworld.co.uk] simply put their music on their own web site and hope and pray for donations. Others publish their work on sites that have fairer deals.

Personally I hope that sites like magnatune [magnatune.com] will become more widely used, so that the industry as a whole becomes more ethical.

Re:Good. (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183670)

I really think that we'll see an improvement in the quality of music as a result of this.

And on what evidence are you basing this conclusion?

All the non-RIAA music I've come across has been significantly worse, at best.

How could NOT getting paid to make music, possibly make the music any better?

Great... (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183722)

Yeah, I'm sure that's what happen. I mean, what kind of market or industry would worsen with unprofitability? Well, I mean, apart from every single market that has become unprofitable in history. But I'm sure music will inspire dedicated composers to risk their financial futures in distributing their work.

Or, of course, they can rely on the Internet. Or, more accurately, the people who would be able to find your site and be prepared to pay for your music. Of course, those people are probably the most able to share out your music without permission or royalties...

Re:Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183880)

What you're saying is that musicians should never be allowed to quit their day jobs, no matter how good they are.

Think about it.

There is an easy solution to this.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183338)

All RIAA members have to do is to lower their share of the revenue. That'll get the price down no problem (as it's the majority part), thus also addressing that piracy problem they're so worried about (nothing to do with promoting mainly crap, nooo). And it would thus result in less damages caused by dead people, grandmothers and children because the per song costs would be lower - hell, it may then not even be worth suing them and being made to look ridiculous in the first place.

And lower income would stop the RIAA wasting money on expensive buildings and lawsuits, maybe sack a whole batch of those idiots that came up with the idea of suing their own customers (generating a generation growing up with nothing but hate for RIAA), it would no longer be worth bribing laws through Congress - I mean, I can just go on with benefits here.

In Powerpoint speak (yeeach) this seems to me a win-win approach.

Alternatively, putting the lot on detail to Iraq for a while could work as well. Let them do some real work. Or send them to Africa to work between people that are really starving so they know what the word actually means.

This is a racial case (0, Offtopic)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183342)

It is racism to assume certain cultural behaviour as normal.

The "emotional" evidence should be never used in the court. Period.

The problem with American culture is too much "I", too little of "we". That is the course of many domestic and other conflicts resulting in serious crimes. That is the course of record-high prison population in US - individualism. People are not thinking social, they are not thinking of preserving social order, when they are acting. There actions are exlusively determined by their egos. "Why would I benefit from this action? How I save my butt in this course of events?".

High level of crime leads to necessity of going over the board in persecuting. Crime is not done in public most of the times. So called forensic science and admitting "emotional" evidence in court has little to do with science and truth. Everything has to be explained by science and that leads to the biased view of what science can do and cannot do at this time: most of the time people overestimate scientific data.

This happens in publishing scientific results as well. People are getting away with overblown claims and get publications in "respected" journals. /Flame

Re:This is a racial case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183390)

parent was drunk at the time of posting.

confirmed.

Starving? (1)

ms1234 (211056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183348)

What? They're not starving enough yet to justify the piracy comments?

You people misunderstand the RIAA (3, Funny)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183354)

Most times they screw the consumer for the artist.

But this time, given the popularity of ringtones, they're screwing the artist for the children.

Eh...? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183378)

the RIAA maintains that in the modern period when piracy began devastating the record industry profits to publishers from sales of ringtones and other 'innovative services' grew dramatically.

Is it just me or does this sentence make no fucking sense?

Re:Eh...? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183512)

the RIAA maintains that in the modern period when piracy began devastating the record industry profits to publishers from sales of ringtones and other 'innovative services' grew dramatically.
 
Is it just me or does this sentence make no fucking sense?
Here's the proper decomposition:

the RIAA maintains that (in the modern period when piracy began devastating the record industry) profits to publishers from sales of ringtones and other 'innovative services' grew dramatically.

Re:Eh...? (2, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183804)

Is it just me or does this sentence make no fucking sense?

      After all the coke they've done, you expect it to make sense?

The bright side (2, Insightful)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183414)

Well, when they're done fucking the artists, at least there's nowhere else for them to turn.

Stabbing the artists in the back (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183460)

This is a completely abhorrent move. The artists are in debt to the companies (from their advances), and now they're going to be reimbursed *slower*?

The RIAA (and the distribution companies) just see royalties as another income stream after the public have paid up front for product and the artists have gone into debt to produce it in the first place.

Isn't this one of those quick rich plans:

1. Loan shark the capital to the artists (advances)
2. Grab all the retail income and rip off as much as we can through phoney accounting
3. Skim the remaining "profits" before offsetting previously loan sharked funds (thereby impoverishing artists)
4. Pass on the option to extend the artists contract thereby getting more money for free if the rubes sign with another company - without actually having to keep the music in print and paying off the artist's debt in the meantime.
5. Keep the copyright for 75 years (the rubes'll be dead by then)
6. Bribe lawmakers to give you successive extensions so you keep it forever anyway.
7. (We'll think of other things as time goes by.)
8. Profit? "Hell we did that at step 1, the rest is where we make out like bandits"

The mob's in the wrong business - oh wait, you mean the mob's *already* in this business. Oh.

It is completly OK (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183482)

After all, dead artist signing petition for a longer copyright protection do not need that much money, so the royalty can be lowered.

Time to boycott. (1)

rayk_sland (791740) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183538)

Alright! Is there any way we can boycott this offensive organization, this thing that RMS calls a government supported conspiracy? Please Please Please?

Re:Time to boycott. (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183580)

It is simple, buy music from other sources.

What do Federal judges have to do with this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17183566)

Why can't the music industry just make contracts with artists (the way I thought they did it all along)?

The more the artist sells, the more royalties he might get. Or some artists might prefer a fixed payment and sell their right to royalties...

Why should some judge decide what's good for every artist and music company in the USA?

As an Artist Myself... (3, Insightful)

ponderance (1032902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183634)

This truly makes me furious. This is just one reason I've chosen to stay independent. Granted the only choices I've had were smaller labels like Grey Flat and Saddle Creek. This is truly a disgusting move by the RIAA. It's not bad enough they're making the publicity stunt lawsuits against perpetrators of free advertising (file downloaders), now they need to cut even more from their artists. Just like when the MPAA started their "want a backup copy? buy one." comments in press meetings, this makes me want to remember to "engage in piracy." Thank you, Capitalism. Thank you.

Re:As an Artist Myself... (2, Insightful)

flyneye (84093) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183688)

Have you thought about maybe getting a different business model than an obviously obsolete one?(no ,im not trolling)The future I can see involves releasing songs online for free and promoting oneself.Money is made by touring.No RIAA no record co.No middleman just you and your support team.This is the best way to kill the diseased industry.Amputation.
          Its no secret the industry is dying,no point in going down with it.There are several GNU-like licenses out there,Open music etc. Look em over.
When you think about it,the industry dying,it's a good thing.The industry promoted mostly(i said mostly not all) talentless,manipulable artists,obscuring many lesser knowns with the real goods.The internet is the great equalizer.A level playing field if you will.Your success depends on your talent and effort.
These are revolutionary times my friend,pick your side carefully.

For fucks sake, no. (3, Interesting)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183692)

Just, no. Greedy fuckers. If anything the royalty rates need raising to apply to new technologies, considering how much revenue the industry and artists are losing from people downloading instead of buying.

Absolutely fucking disgusting.

What kind of math is the RIAA using? (1)

Programmer_Errant (1004370) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183730)

Royalties are a percentage of revenue AFAIK. If the industry is getting less revenue, then they're *already* paying out less royalties. Is the RIAA assuming the public is as mathematically challenged as they are? What are they using for lawyers? Bugblatter beasts?

wtf? (2, Insightful)

DaveG, the Quantum P (664195) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183746)

"According to The Hollywood Reporter, the RIAA maintains that in the modern period when piracy began devastating the record industry profits to publishers from sales of ringtones and other 'innovative services' grew dramatically. Record industry executives believe this to be cause to advocate reducing the royalties paid to the artists who wrote the original music."

Let me get this straight - record industry profits were devasted when profits from 'innovative services' dramatically grew ?

Talk about contradicting yourself.

Let's read between the lines (1)

IsmoVuorinen (637255) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183768)

> "when piracy began devastating the record industry"

Is it really piracy that's devastating it, or the lawsuits against n+1 John/Jane Does, paid (not directly) from the royalties that were going to the artists.

The same people told us that VCR taping WILL kill the movie industry.

Dear RIAA (1)

Khan (19367) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183770)

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU! for showing your true colors in writing. Perhaps now, all of the doubters will finally understand what we've known for the last seven years. That would be that the RIAA only cares about themselves. Hugs and kisses to Lars!

-Khan

Another Good Reason to Kill the Industry (2, Interesting)

flyneye (84093) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183812)

The music industry is bad m'kay. If you don't believe it deserves to die look here [negativland.com] , m'kay. This is an insiders view of the music industry so pay close attention.Then tell me if it wouldn't be a better idea for artists to promote themselves on the net,giving away their mp3s under some gnu-like license and making money touring.
Some of you will remember Steve Albini from "Big Black" others will remember him as producing Nirvana. Either way it just isn't worth the worry of supporting the industry in any way.Sure some jobs will be lost,but hey to quote Ted Knight in "Caddyshack"," The world needs ditchdiggers too".

Then and now.... (1)

Shaltenn (1031884) | more than 7 years ago | (#17183844)

RIAA Then: You must pay us royalties to allow the use (fair or not!) of our music!
RIAA Now: Crap! Lawsuits aren't working anymore! We need another form of income... AHA! Those bastard, good for nothing artists are getting royalties for every song! hmm... No more royalties for them, it should all go into our pockets! BRILLIANT!

The only reason a group like this continues to exist is because average joe-consumer doesn't care about paying for 15-20$ for a CD which is worth (let's say conservatively) about 6-7$.

All they (the consumer as a whole, most of the people at Slashdot and other Music afficionados (sp?) find it ridiculous because there is some background knowledge.

This whole situation is just sickening.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...