RIAA Calls Settlements Proof that Education is Working 425
MattW writes "AP reports that the RIAA has filed the next 80 lawsuits. The article contains a dumbfounding quote from Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA: 'The fact that the overwhelming majority of those who received the notification letter contacted us and were eager to resolve the claims is another clear signal that the music community's education and enforcement campaign is getting the message out.' Just for clarification, Cary, all it proves is that monopolistic giants can, in fact, afford to pay lawyers more than average people, and so said people are easily bullied. But nice try." It warms my heart to know that artists will be getting all the money that's due to them. Musicians always look so poor when I see them on television. Finally, they can afford the lifestyle they deserve.
South Park (Score:5, Interesting)
If you haven't seen this week's new episode of South Park, you might want to catch it on Comedy Central. Basicaly, there is a stab at the music industry in general. Cartman starts a Christian rock band just to exploit it for the money (calling the music simple and bad), and a "ghost of Christmas present" of sorts shows the kids that because they downloaded a song, certain musicians won't be buying their 3rd gold plated Rolls Royce. Or something to that effect.
Not the best episode they've done, but certainly an open statement to the RIAA.
Absolutely (Score:5, Interesting)
All the same, I wish someone would fight the charge based on the lack of hard evidence. I'm referring to the easily spoofable search results that the RIAA is using as "proof" for its case. All we would need is one positive result and this lawsuit war would be over.
Re:Musicians and Musicians (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ridiculous ... (Score:5, Interesting)
You know there is something wrong.... (Score:2, Interesting)
copyright infringement is still illegal (Score:2, Interesting)
Just because the RIAA are using shitty tactics, dosen't mean you should be allowed to infringe copyright. It's currently illegal and if Musicians *are* getting a raw deal, then they should get the money that is owed to them.
Also remember that all the props you see on MTV are funded by the record company. Why do you think rappers need to start their own clothing company?
My Response (Score:3, Interesting)
Send them a doodle of an octopus giving them the finger 8 times.
I'd suggest that we all break into record stores and destroy the CDs, but insurance would cover it and we gain nothing.
No, it's easier to settle than to fight. If I got the letter, the one condition of my settlement would be that I get an invoice of who gets what ammount of the payment. Then I'd call up all the artists on the list and let them know that I'm glad my 35 cents contributed to their new Ferarri.
Maybe it's time to start selling a dead-man switch for our PCs. Just use an open WAP as your switch and you will be covered. When they sue you, thermite your hard-drives and then claim that someone else used your WAP to download that stuff...
Nice objective piece (Score:4, Interesting)
First, musicians won't get the money they deserve. The minions and scumbags around them will get the lions share. Second, do you like music and enjoy listening to recordings? If so you should pay for that convenience. Artists SHOULD get paid commensurate with the amount of people they make happy. Top 40 stars are listened to by millions of people and thus should make millions of dollars. Alternative underground bands may have 100s or 1000s of followers and should make money that supports that level. Just because Cowboy Neal does not believe that creating something that will make 1000s of people sit and relax and listen for a couple of minutes is a worthwhile endeavour doesn't mean that it isn't. I consider slashdot to be my source of "press" on these issues, it would be nice to see it treated as such. Artists deserve their licensing to be respected just like programmers do wether you agree with the license model or not.
OMFG when will they quit? (Score:2, Interesting)
No Hydra references allowed, These bastards are indeed a contemporary threat that will suffer the fate of the TWX industry. (They used to be the best in the business)
Anybody remember TWX?
Didn't think so.
Re:Nice objective piece (Score:4, Interesting)
If anything, these "artists" deserve a McWage because they're just doing exactly what they're told, and not adding anything to the sum total of human knowledge and culture.
[1] with the honourable exception of the ginger minger in Girls Aloud ;-)
This Musician's Take (Score:5, Interesting)
now, music PUBLISHERS, in my opinion, are at the heart of this problem. this bullying litigation, these big corporations claiming your brain and your ears are their property. well maybe they don't claim that quite yet. just wait.
intellectual property laws need a major overhaul, especially in the arena of artistic works. as far as i know, there is virtually no difference, legally, between say, a microchip schematic and the song "What Do I Get" by the Buzzcocks. complete "ownership" of both can be bought and sold.
this is where artists get screwed.
since the artists, generally, are private individuals, they don't have the means to reach an audience large enough to make a living from their music. this is where the large multinational corporation steps in. they promise the exposure and distribution needed to move units far beyond the artist's capabilities. all they ask in return, of course, is the sole publishing rights to the music.
at this point the musician is a slave. the artist can't even legally burn his own CD, or send MP3s to friends.
even worse, if the corporation decides that the CD isn't selling well enough, they can decline to print another run of CDs. and of course since they own the publishing rights, it's illegal to make copies of that music through anyone else. i've seen lots of bands who go on tour and can't even sell their own CDs at their shows because their label didn't want to spend the money to print them. I've seen an established band with half a dozen full-length albums out unable to sell a single CD to a sold out audience because of a publishing deal gone bad. i've seen a band sell 40,000 CDs and not see one cent from their label.
the way to solve this problem is simple. intellectual property laws are too strong. first, in the case of artistic works, make it illegal for ownership OR exclusive publishing rights to be transferred away from the creator of the art himself. with one simple stroke, the power with which the music "industry" has imprisioned the musicians would dissolve. there would actually be some power in creating something rather than simply buying the rights to that creation. a musician, unhappy with his current label, would actually have some leverage. moving to a new label wouldn't mean abandoning the rights to all his previous work.
in addition, when an artist dies, the intellectual property rights shoud die with him. none of this nonsense with the estate of pablo picasso sueing websites for posting pictures of Guernica a good 70 years after he painted it. "the estate of pablo picasso" didn't paint the damn thing. it's just a team of lawyers trying to get paid.
even my band's mascot, Feseral Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, a republican, made a speech not long ago stating that intellectual propety laws had become too restrictive. they have crossed the line and become a hindrance rather than a tool for the progress of modern society.
of course, it's a self-perpetuating problem. monetarily, and therefore politically, the publishers outweigh the musicians by a wiiiiiide margin precisely BECAUSE of these unjust intellectual property laws.
i wish i could see a brighter future for musicians, but until then i'll continue to operate outside the boundaries of this music industry.
Re:Musicians and Musicians (Score:3, Interesting)
The record industry looks for a marketable product a lot of that is based on image (not just sex appeal), but predictability makes for a safe investment. However, we should be careful not to malign bands just because they've signed to a major label. Most bands are convinced that this will help them be heard and are suckered into believing they can make some money. By and large most RIAA bands are victims as much as the consumer or the sued file sharer.
Steve Albini, producer of The Pixies, Nirvana, and a former member of the band Big Black has some wonderful insights [arancidamoeba.com] into the way the record industry works. Albini gives a very good example of a typical signing (most signed acts do not become famous or wealthy) in which after the first album of a four record deal the record sells 250,000 copies and the music industry made 3 million. Unfortuantely the band is still $14,000 in the hole on royalties and has earned about 1/3 what they would have made working at a convenience store. Albini gives a full breakdown of all income and expenses from this typical scenario (one record and supporting tour in). The bottom line:
The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.
Record company: $710,000
...
Some of your friends are probably already this fucked. [arancidamoeba.com]
Producer: $90,000
Manager: $51,000
Studio: $52,500
Previous label: $50,000
Agent: $7,500
Lawyer: $12,000
Band member net income each: $4,031.25
Don't assume that the artists are making out from high priced CDs and RIAA lawsuit settlements. I'm sure most artists aren't interested in seeing these lawsuits continue, but artists have been so suckered into thinking that a mjor label is the only way to be heard that walking out and signing to an independent label doesn't even seem like an option. But assuming tht the artists are reaping great rewards is just silly. Most RIAA artists are not P. Diddy, just under a mistaken impression that majors are the only way to succeed and as a result find themselves exploited.
Ceci n'est pas une sig
Make up your mind! (Score:4, Interesting)
This point of view has often bothered me. I don't get it. First of all, it takes dozens, maybe even hundreds of people to produce an album. From the talent scouts, to the lyricists, marketers, sound engineers, cover artists, and everyone in between. If it takes 200 people (counting the actual artist) to produce an album, why should the artist get more than 1/200th of the profits? What makes them so deserving of this huge windfall, leaving the other 199 equally hard-working (and probably better educated and less drug-addicted) staff to fight over the remaining scraps?
Would you prefer the type of arrangement we see in the movie industry? Tom Hanks makes a movie and gets paid $20 million. The other 500 people involved in the movie get
So which situation would you prefer? Relatively equal distribution for all, including the artist (a la music), or grossly disproportionate distribution of the profits (a la movies)?
Re:South Park (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.spscriptorium.com/Season6/E609script
Kyle: It's not too late to do what's right. Give us the print. There's still some good in you, Mr. Lucas. We know there is. [Lucas hangs his head in shame and turns away]
George Lucas: It is... too late for me, boys.
Kyle: You yourself led the campaign against the colorization of films. You understand why films shouldn't be changed.
George Lucas: M-that's different. These are my movies. I made them, and I have the right to do whatever I want with them
Stan: [steps forward] You're wrong, Mr. Lucas. They're not your movies. They're ours. All of ours. We paid to go see them, and they're just as much a part of our lives as they are of yours.
Kyle: When an artist creates, whatever they create belongs to society
George Lucas: Have I... become so old that I've forgetten what being an artist is about?