Carp-Free Independent Music Labels 142
robkill writes "The actions and intentions of the RIAA have been under close scrutiny in the folk music community as well as Slashdot. In addition to Janis Ian's article previously featured here on Slashdot, guitarist Harvey Reid has an article on the importance of internet radio for the independent music community. Besides posting a number of good links, he has started a signup webpage for independent artists and music labels who are interested in circumventing the CARP fee. Right now, it's only a mailing list for Artists and Record Labels who want to see internet radio succeed. So if you own the copyrights on some independent music, why not join the list? For the rest of us, it's a good list of musicians to support."
Hopefully this new trend... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully this new trend... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Glad Somebody's finally doing it.. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really want to help... (Score:3, Insightful)
Our Fight, Not Necessarily the Artists' (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I don't want my favorite artists distracting themselves with this business bullshit, unless being a fighter is part of what they already are, like Ani diFranco [righteousbabe.com] or Courtney Love [holemusic.com]. Life is too short, time too scarce for the few genuinely talented artists we have to go running off on tangents.
This is a battle that we, the consumers, should be fighting. If we decide, en masse, not to play the RIAA's game, what the Hell can they do.
Can I suggest that PeerCast [peercast.org] (as discussed on /. [slashdot.org] earlier) is a very good place to start.
And, remember, if we really want to stop these bastards shagging us, we must always remember that our participation in P2P has to be about growing a new, fairer system, not just getting our hands on free stuff.
Re:Glad Somebody's finally doing it.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully this new trend... (Score:3, Insightful)
For an example of what I'm talking about, see www.radsfans.net [radsfans.net] (and hopefully others soon). I again offer anyone here a small click of e-gold (not much, but enough to test) so you can try it for free. I want programmers to use e-gold, so please take advantage. Thanks.
JMR
(I speak only for Jim Ray [free-market.net], nobody else wants to admit this stuff anyway.)
Re:RIAA Membership List (Score:3, Insightful)
Write to the bands and tell them you are Boycotting RIAA labels and the reasons WHY, and urge them to sign with a non RIAA label. Leave Boycott messages on bands fan site message boards.
Extend the Boycott. If a company has non-music bussiness Boycott that too. Don't buy that Sony monitor, or TV or PS2. Don't go see that AOL/Time Warner movie. Drop AOL in the unlikely event a slashdotter is using the service. Don't watch AOL/TW stations on TV. If a company hires an artist that is signed to an RIAA label as a ad spokesman, write them and let them know you won't be purchasing their products.
Include the MPAA in the Boycott too.
You have a big advantage. The RIAA and the MPAA deal in a non vital product, entertainment. You won't die of music hunger or movie thirst if you boycott their products. Use it.
Don't worry about the artists being hurt in a boycott either. Are they worried that the RIAA's ploys are going to hurt you? Are they speaking out against copyright extensions and attempts to narrow the scope of fair use? If they aren't, why should you give a shit about them?
Re:Glad Somebody's finally doing it.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Glad Somebody's finally doing it.. (Score:2, Insightful)
In my humble opinion a country should not need laws, but rather a principle (i.e. "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness") for the US.
RIAA would be harmless if they tried to compete in real world capitalism as opposed to trying to legislate out of their ass.
Retroactive? What's _that_ all about? (Score:2, Insightful)
>
> now made a serious move that, if successful, will
> hefty fees to broadcasters,
Retroactive to 1998? Yeeeesh. If that's true, it would
represent a serious abuse of power, or I'm missing something.
Lawmakers can't even _think_ about levying fees retroactive
to 1998 (Article I Section 9). But now the courts _can_?
The courts are supposed to interpret the law, not go off
on their own doing things that *can't* be made into law
because the constitution won't allow it. Or is there some
twisted interpretation by which some extant law can be
construed to indicate that these fees should have been paid
all along? Can someone explain this, before I lose my last
shreds of faith in our legal system?