See title inside: ...

Post #284,904

5/18/07 5:28:23 PM

[link|http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070517/media_nm/copyright_dc|Clone^WDigital Pirate wars: Episode MCMVII: The Galatic Empire^W^WCopyright Alliance strikes back!]

Inspired by this [link|http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pirate-wars%7C-episode-iv/riaa-viacom-microsoft-and-others-form-galactic-empire-copyright-alliance-261704.php|Gizmodo page]

As you can see the "big boys" not able to understand change, are all there.

Of course it is being promoted as: [link|http://www.copyrightalliance.org/node/42|Broad New Coalition Launched To Promote Creativity, Jobs, and Growth Through Copyright]

Umm yeah, uhh, huh.

--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ i_wethey
PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0

Post #284,905

by Andrew Grygus

5/18/07 7:00:24 PM

Personally I am in favor of strong copyright protection.

If you want something that's copyrighted, pay for it, create your own version, or support people who release under Creative Commons or a similar license.

Even in the case of the RIAA and their overpriced CDs, yes they're exploiters but they have a legal rights to the copyrights they've negotiated for. I support their right to go after infringers. Don't like it, don't buy. Figure out a way to pay artists directly so they don't have to go through the exploiters.

Oh, that's right - you don't want to pay the artists at all - they're artists, after all and artists are supposed to be starving in a cold water flat. Yeah,that's the ticket.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #284,911

by folkert

5/18/07 10:02:40 PM

Pegged, I am.

Blow it out your but AG.

It things like the BIG 29 are doing that make "their" copyrighted works completely laughable.

What I care about most, is the fair-use stuff they are trying to litigate out. Using the DMCA in much questionable methods, using the new law for fair-use to imprison people for playing the tunes they got on CD, on their iPOD or Computer or even the MP3 player they have in their car.

I'd gladly pay the over priced CDs *IF* and ONLY *IF* the artists got more than $0.50 to $0.75 from the $19.95 - $35.95 cost I pay for the CDs.

The artists deserve better, this is not the 50s or 60s when they *HAD* to tour to gain popularity. Now a day, a good band doesn't need to tour, except to make money, and even then the RIAA wants 90% of the proceeds from that now, they feel they are OWED it.

Post #284,913

by Andrew Grygus

5/18/07 10:46:12 PM

Re: Pegged, I am.

Blow it out your own butt.

The reason there's no really viable alternative channel is you're all so used to stealing from the RIAA for free you're not interested in financing an alternative channel - that actually costs some money!

"The artists aren't getting enough" is just a sorry excuse with no substance - with the RIAA they get something - with your way they get nothing at all.

"Sharing" and the RIAA do so truely deserve each other. If it weren't for collateral damage (like the DMCA) I'd consider it pure fun to watch the two sides at each other's throats.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #284,918

by pwhysall

5/19/07 4:53:04 AM

There's alternatives, too.

I buy my music off eMusic and bleep.com (home of The Aphex Twin), and (very rarely, cuz it's expensive) off iTunes. I also track a number of the netlabels who let you download their stuff for free ([link|http://www.mono211.com|http://www.mono211.com] is one) and keep a weather eye on [link|http://www.legaltorrents.com|http://www.legaltorrents.com].

You don't have to buy music off the majors.

Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]

Post #284,920

by Andrew Grygus

5/19/07 6:52:26 AM

Well, I'm glad there's something going . . .

. . but are they seeing some money gets back to the artists? You can't live on air these days.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #284,921

by pwhysall

5/19/07 7:03:05 AM

5/19/07 7:04:03 AM

Re: Well, I'm glad there's something going . . .

To be honest, I have no idea.

I would imagine, however, that the independent labels are somewhat less predatory towards their clients (i.e. the artists) then the majors are.

ETA: And in the case of bleep.com, that website is the label's. So what you pay there will go to the artist as if you bought a CD.

Edited by pwhysall May 19, 2007, 07:04:03 AM EDT

Expand All History

Post #284,925

by bepatient

5/19/07 9:51:32 AM

I call BS

There is a hugely successful alternative channel...but it had to be created by someone outside of the industry.

When the ARTISTS THEMSELVES (read T Dolby, T Rundgren, S Vai and others) refuse to play in the space of the majors there should be some minor red flags showing up.

Better, how on earth could someone publish 3 monster selling cds and be broke? Ask the Dixie Chicks who had to sue to get additional royalties while Sony build a multimillion dollar new music publishing office in Nashville.

I would bet if you compare the amount of cassette tapes sold in the 70s you would probably not be far from the amount of downloads in the 90s.

The problem with the music business is NOT, repeat NOT downloading. Its crap content at rape prices.

If the industry for paying for music was so bad, how could Apple make so much money on iTunes? How could Napster have re-invented?

People will pay. But $2 per track (even for the garbage) is too high...and thats what you get with a 20$ cd. And they don't even market the 3$ cd single anymore...which people used to buy (because the latest Timberlake disk has 1 maybe 2 solid tracks)...so they force you to the 20 on an item that has the same cost basis. iTunes? Want one track. Gimme a buck. And guess what. It works.

So to your point about not being willing to pay. People pay. The RIAA and the industry have a model RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM that proves its viable. And still they sue college students.

So who exactly is it, do you think, thats not interested in that scary new thing called the internet? The customers..or the suppliers?

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #284,949

by Another Scott

5/19/07 8:59:17 PM

Agree and disagree.

If the industry for paying for music was so bad, how could Apple make so much money on iTunes? How could Napster have re-invented?

People will pay. But $2 per track (even for the garbage) is too high...and thats what you get with a 20$ cd. And they don't even market the 3$ cd single anymore...which people used to buy (because the latest Timberlake disk has 1 maybe 2 solid tracks)...so they force you to the 20 on an item that has the same cost basis. iTunes? Want one track. Gimme a buck. And guess what. It works.

Is Apple making money at the iTunes store? I seem to recall that they weren't making much money at all there - they were, instead, making boatloads of money on the iPods. But some have recently argued that they do actually make some money on each sale - e.g. [link|http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2007/04/23/apple-turns-out-itunes-makes-money-pacific-crest-says-subscription-service-seems-inevitable/|this] Barron's article.

BestBuy supposedly has put many of the record store chains out of business. Most of the new music stuff they're pushing seems to be around $15. I don't know of anyone who is selling CDs at list price.

I think you and Andrew are both right. Andrew's right that too many people think that copying MP3s is fine and that there's noting wrong with having a 20,000 song music collection without having paid for any of the music in any format. You're right that the RIAA and record companies are looking excuses for falling sales rather than considering their own business practices.

As for how someone could sell millions of albums and have nothing to show for it, if they were adults when they signed the contracts, and if the contracts had a limited timespan, and if the contract was not misrepresented to the artists, well, they're adults and should know what they're doing. People have known since the early 1960s that the record companies rarely pay the artists much at all (witness the Beatles). People these days should know better.

If the contracts were misrepresented, then perhaps a class-action suit is in order. I wonder if someone like the late Johnny Cochran's [link|http://www.cochranfirm.com/|firm] would be interested.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #284,950

by folkert

5/19/07 10:06:37 PM

Agree and disagree.

I have nearly 800 CDs. I have about 300 "current" music and 500 Classical/Opera/Orchestral/etc CDs too.

So, paying for "none of it in any form", I call BS

I also have about 300 DVDs and VHS tapes. so as far as stealing those... ba-ba-ba-bah.

Post #284,951

by Another Scott

5/19/07 10:26:19 PM

I wasn't including you (or Bill). Please read it again. :-)

I'm sure we've all seen kids who seem to enjoy getting as much as they can without having to work for or pay for it. Those are the people I was talking about. Not people who have bought 3 copies of "Dark Side of the Moon" over the years and want one on an iPod, too. Not people who get a few songs from friends.

"Legally" there may not be much difference between those groups, at least if we believe the RIAA's interpretation. I think Fair Use should come into play far more often than the RIAA does, but if someone has paid for almost none of their collection, then something's wrong.

Just my $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #284,956

by bepatient

5/20/07 2:34:35 AM

Big box retailers

The independent music store's days were numbered. Circuit City, Best Buy, Walmart etc...could afford a smaller margin and make it up on volume.

Theres still Sam Goody around here..but I don't know how much longer they'll last.

And those folks with the 20k music collection were the same one's in the 70s with boxes of cassettes taped from all their friends albums...and they are still the minority.

Don't misunderstand. There is room for enforcement in internet space...but it is not at all the reason why the music industry is imploding.

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Post #284,965

by Andrew Grygus

5/20/07 11:32:40 AM

5/20/07 11:52:40 AM

20k certainly is a minority, but . . .

. . every computer I see that's been touched by anyone under 24 has at least a few dozen to a hundred or so "shared" songs on it. Multiply that few dozen by the number of pre-24s who have computers and it comes out a pretty big number. Multiply that number by 5% to get actual lost sales and it's still pretty big.

Now I'm not saying those sales should belong to the RIAA, I'm saying that an alternative distribution going around the RIAA and properly rewarding creative talent will not become significant as long as stealing from the RIAA costs nothing.

And yeah, iTunes is a new alternate channel, but it's still under the control of a large, greedy corporation - I doubt artists are getting much more from iTunes sales than from RIAA sales.

So most music today is junk anyway? perhaps that's because the talent pool is drying up. What intelligent, talented person wants to participate in a marketplace where they'll clearly be ripped off by distributors and end users alike, and by anyone else who can get a finger into the pie. Better to go to law school or drive trucks.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Edited by Andrew Grygus May 20, 2007, 11:52:40 AM EDT

Expand All History

Post #284,966

by folkert

5/20/07 12:53:05 PM

The one thing I am wondering though.

How is it, that the RIAA gets a "media" tax on every blank cassette, CD and NOW DVD, along with the MPAA getting a bigger one for DVDs?

Assumptions and payments are far and wide NOT fair. The (RI|MP)AA have FAR to much power and far to much influence on the "Laws" that surround copyright (and patent for that matter). They are wielding the DMCA and now newer "soon to be" laws much like the Grim Reaper wields his scythe during a nuclear explosion over a populace in a city.

They don't care about "what is fair" they care about the money and only the money. Not recovering payments for artists. Artists don't get ANY money from the quick $3700 settlements. Nor do they get any funds from the $750,000 lawsuits they have won. But the Artists pay the "losses" the RIAA has suffered out of the "royalty fund". How is that? Yes, fair?

And those less than 24 year old kids, they have been sharing music since they have been able to share. Since the first affordable reel to reel tape machines, to the affordable cassettes, to the affordable CDs, to now the affordable DVDs, and soon affordable HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray.

These same "sharing violators" are the same people that (used to) buy HUGE amounts of music later on in life. They (The RIAA) are biting the hand that feeds, later on. They claim they are losing with current pirating... I can see it. But they are tearing up the foundations for many of these same "pirate" that can't afford the music now, that will be able to afford the music later, once they get job and have finances to pay for them. The RIAA are turning off the spigot themselves and the RIAA doesn't see the problem.

I've bought (as an example) "Rush - Moving Pictures" so many times, I've really forgotten the true number. But right now, I have an two versions of it in CD form, "Moving Pictures" and "Moving Pictures - The Rush Remasters" in my collection. I know I've bought at least 4 more CDs of it (scratched, broken, driven over) and at least 5 cassettes (maybe more due to wear out and being "borrowed" (stolen) more than once) and I have 3 Vinyls of it, one so worn it is HORRIBLE, One played until I got CDs and another I bought at the same time as it was a "Buy one get one half price" at "Believe in Music" at the time. ("Believe in Music" is dead and gone)

So, summary goes like this: The RIAA doesn't want ANYONE to listen to ANY music the RIAA isn't paid for. This includes seed music to get people to buy later in life. They want the money NOW rather than later. This bodes horribly for them, as they are trying to change a phenomena that has been going on since "Reel to Reel" tapes were affordable. They are holding on so tightly they are killing the "for pay" music themselves. If they want to really make the industry right, they need to pay the artists properly and gently guide the channel(s). If they don't they will become (and largely have been already) a non-player in the industry that is seemingly passing them by.

Post #284,967

by Andrew Grygus

5/20/07 1:47:52 PM

Yes, they are being stupid, short sighted and greedy.

Unfortunately it's hard to fight them effectively when the moral high ground has been lost. No matter how you point out their greed, stupidity and interference with your enjoyment they scream "billions lost to piracy" - that backed with plenty of lobbyist cash and political contributions gets them whatever they want.

Piracy works very well for them, just as it did for Microsoft. Not only does it give them political leverage but it makes it difficult for a distribution system that goes around them to thrive. It's hard to compete with "free" downloads. As with all anti-piracy measures, it's the innocents who are hurt while the guilty thrive.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #284,982

by boxley

5/20/07 11:34:13 PM

small labels selling direct, psychopathic records comes to

mind. They got hosed by a biggie, got a lawyer aand said fuck you all. They appear to be doing nicely in their market.
thanx,
bill

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]

Post #284,912

by JayMehaffey

5/18/07 10:41:28 PM

In a very limited way I agree

Even in the case of the RIAA and their overpriced CDs, yes they're exploiters but they have a legal rights to the copyrights they've negotiated for. I support their right to go after infringers. Don't like it, don't buy. Figure out a way to pay artists directly so they don't have to go through the exploiters.

Er, for the lawsuits against actual infringers I have no problem. There blanket suits, extortion suits and horrible court practices I have a problem with.

And all the effort the RIAA and other industry groups put into preventing any other channels for music is morally wrong, and probably illegal if anti-monopoly and RICO statues where enforced fairly.

Jay

Post #284,919

by pwhysall

5/19/07 4:55:54 AM

What other channels are prevented?

If they're "prevented", then the RIAA is doing a piss-poor job of stopping me getting legal, unencumbered music from a number of sources...

Mind you, if you like mainstream music (I don't), you're probably screwed.

A good reason to see if you can escape your musical comfort zone, I wot.

Post #284,922

by ubernostrum

5/19/07 7:52:54 AM

Well, there are the folks who announced C&Ds...

...to Apple and several other companies, claiming that [link|http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070511-company-targets-apple-microsoft-and-others-for-not-using-enough-drm.html|offering media-player software which can play unencumbered tracks is trafficking in circumvention].

\r\n\r\n

And let's not forget that Internet radio royalties in the US are required to be paid to an RIAA-backed royalty-gathering group, regardless of who holds the rights to the music broadcast, and that collecting said royalties from said group requires the actual rightsholder to pay membership fees. Some days it seems like there's no way around these guys...

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?

Post #284,923

by pwhysall

5/19/07 8:33:22 AM

The C&D thing is new to me...

...but the other stuff isn't.

Fact remains that I buy unencumbered music from independents who on the surface appear to not fuck their artists quite as hard as the majors, and that I seem capable of continuing so to do.

However, I don't consider AllOfMP3.com to be legal or pleasant. I'm in the "it's borderline legal even for Russia, so it's definitely illegal here" camp.

Post #284,937

by CRConrad

5/19/07 2:36:52 PM

Your second paragraph proves his point, contradicting the...

...rest of your argument: So, apparently, other channels are prevented, for people who do happen to like mainstream music; which I suppose is, by definition, most people -- otherwise it wouldn't be "mainstream", now would it? (Whether you personally do or don't like that, seems altogether like rather a big fat red herring to me, rendered all the more irrelevantly-anecdotal by the very term you employ three words earlier.) Otherwise Microsoft didn't use to have a monopoly on PC OSes either -- it was all just a "good reason to see if they could escape their computational comfort zone", with your "logic".

[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)

Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]

Post #284,938

by pwhysall

5/19/07 3:36:02 PM

I'm in the future, baby.

Buying unencumbered music like I do is what the industry is slowly, painfully moving towards.

EMI have taken their baby steps on iTunes. The rest will surely, reluctantly, awkwardly follow.

I don't buy the MS analogy. MS obtained and abused their monopoly position by actively excluding competitors from the marketplace. The major labels are completely powerless to stop eMusic from selling me indie music without DRM. MS could indeed stop PC manufacturers selling me OS/2.

Post #284,940

by CRConrad

5/19/07 5:45:46 PM

So why can't ya get any "MAINSTREAM" "indie" music as it is?

Post #284,947

by pwhysall

5/19/07 7:44:26 PM

Eh?

What are you on about?

Can't get music?

Did you not read the grandparent post?

Post #284,953

by CRConrad

5/20/07 2:06:23 AM

Re: "Did you not read the grandparent post?"

Double-Eh?!? What am *I* on about...?

Yeah, "Can't get music", as you yourself said -- or did you not write the great-great(-whatever)-grandparent post: "Mind you, if you like mainstream music (I don't), you're probably screwed."?

THAT is what I am on about, Mr Attention Span.

[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)

Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]

Post #284,954

by pwhysall

5/20/07 2:12:51 AM

Probably isn't "definitely".

I said that because I haven't wandered around ITMS looking for examples of mainstream music that's sold DRM-free (as is the case with EMI artists) because I'm not interested in those artists.

That's all. No need to get all logical-competitive about it.

Post #285,361

by jake123

5/25/07 11:52:39 AM

Don't forget you live in Europe

RIAA is an US thing, not a global thing.

Post #284,962

by static

5/20/07 10:01:42 AM

"Don't like, don't buy."

That sums it up pretty well. It's also called "voting with your feet".

When those Copy-controlled CDs started appearing in stores a few years ago, I decided I wasn't going to truck with it and made a decision to just buy fewer CDs. It wasn't as hard as I thought it would be. I've bought far fewer CD purchases in the last 5 years than before - and of the few I have bought, most have been gifts for other people. Of the remainder, something like 2 in the last 2 years have been popular music for me and they were artists who I knew I'd listen to many many times whilst the rest were non-mainstream. The rest of my popular music, I get from the occasional Saturday morning video clips show. :-)

Wade.

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed

Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

· my ·
· [link|http://staticsan.livejournal.com/|blog] ·
· [link|http://yceran.org/|website] ·

Welcome to IWETHEY!