|
|
Posted by Loco Jones on 09/27/48 11:26
"Ted 'the only good Kennedy is a dead' Kennedy" <ausstu@isamoron.com>
wrote in message news:erd7i11em29fc1a6126184tc56uj7khnnn@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:46:43 -0400, "Loco Jones"
> was understood to have stated the following:
>
> >My point being, this "argument" has been going on for *years*, and it
> >still hasn't been satisfactorily resolved - and certainly not by the
Courts
> >to date. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, theft is a criminal
matter,
> >and it's the RIAA/MPAA cartels confusing the two while trying to bully
> >the judicial system into accepting their point of view.
>
> No arguments there.
>
> >Anyone can claim that listening to music without paying to do so is
guilty
> >of "stealing", they can even claim some moral high ground in defending
> >their views, but that doesn't neccessarily mean they are right and
anyone
> >in disagreement is wrong.
>
> The argument isn't about listening to music without paying for it; the
> argument is about possessing music without paying for it, as well as
> distributing music for which you do not have the rights to distribute.
If the argument is about "possessing music" without paying for it, then
anyone who ever taped a song from the radio, or duplicated a library copy,
or made a mix tape/cd for a friend would be guilty of "theft" - that theft
being the *presumed* lost sale of the original product. Prior to the rise
of file-sharing on the internet, the entertainment industry generally
regarded such copying as a benign activity, perhaps even beneficial in
creating a fan base that could be exploited economically.
Actually, I believe the term "unauthorized distribution" was originally
intended to apply to those who would profit from that distribution, not
those who merely shared their love of music with like-minded individuals.
> >I can claim that it's morally wrong for the RIAA to create one-sided
> >contracts which "steal" from the creators of artistic property, or force
> >them to sign away their rights in near-perpetuity, but I doubt they
would
> >see it that way. To them, it's simply a matter of how they have always
> >conducted business and how dare anyone question the status quo.
> Strange, I didn't realize artists were *required* to sign contracts
> with the RIAA. Is the industry holding guns to the artist(s) heads to
> force them into coercion?
Literally, no, but a very good case can be made for that being
metaphorically true. The RIAA member companies have a very complex
infrastructure in place to produce, promote, market, distribute and control
content. An independent artist, even one who deplores the RIAA, understands
a major label deal will result in advertising, media coverage, rack space
at retail, concert promotion, cross-licensing arrangements and radio
airplay - in which case, such a deal becomes infinitely more attractive, at
least on paper.
Of course, reading the fine print on that contract will reveal a new,
unproven artist to be little more than an indentured servant beholden to
the label for a plethora of "costs" which, through creative accounting, may
be never re-paid. More than a few "million-selling artists" have found
themselves in bankruptcy, and not all of them through fault of their own.
For an enlightening insight on how the RIAA makes this possible, have a
read here:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
> Interestingly enough, a few weeks ago I was listening to a radio show
> that featured "up and coming" or "new" artists in the genre I follow.
> The spokesman for one band was featured, ironically enough within a
> few weeks of my purchasing one of their CDs. He made the statement
> that before his band signed a contract with a record label, a friend
> of his with a server set up a site for the band to share up some of
> their music with. An industry exec found the site, liked the content,
> and offered the group a contract. The group obviously signed a
> contract. This group used the 'net as an avenue for discovery, and
> after their discovery, decided to sign with a label. If the 'net is so
> much better for the artist(s), why didn't they stay with a
> distribution medium that was in their favor?
While the 'net distribution model may be better for the artist in terms of
financial compensation, it quite simply doesn't have the penetration into
the public consciousness which a deal with the label can (or promises to)
deliver. Your independent artist has a much more difficult task getting
"known" by the public at large without major label intervention.
Will Clear Channel-style radio stations put them in heavy rotation,
mainstream music publications review their product, brick-and-mortar
operations devote massive display space and POP promotional materials
without that corporate muscle? Not likely. Therefore, it may be less of a
"gun to the head" than a "carrot-and-stick" scenario at work here.
> >The problem is... people *are* questioning an industry that has been
> >found guilty (by the Courts) of price-fixing and payola for radio
airplay
> >(yet again in 2005!), and while copyright infringement for profit
certainly
> >needs to be addressed, downloading music merely to listen to is hardly
> >the felony the **AA member corporations would have the news media
> >and the public believe.
>
> I never said I was a fan of the ??AA; in fact, I dislike them very
> much. However, when it comes to rewarding the artist(s) for their
> work, the ??AA is doing a *MUCH* better job than the sharers are.
> The ??AA is one evil; sharers another. It's just that the latter (IMO)
> is the greater of the two evils.
The fans are the ones who attend the concerts, buy the tee-shirts, posters,
books, DVD's and related merchandise - including the deluxe "box set"
packaging of the CD's, so I would suggest that fans reward the artists on a
level that far exceeds the pittance of a royalty resulting from the sale of
an overpriced compact disc.
It's a matter of perception of value, and a digital download ("legal" or
otherwise) has no cachet amongst collectors, even though it may help
establish and nuture that market. Sadly, the RIAA chooses to ignore or
refute that reality.
Greed and short-sightedness can scuttle even the most profitable of
businesses, and could well be what we're witnessing with this Sue The
Customer campaign currently underway.
- Loco -
(Now Playing: Cover Of The Rolling Stone - Dr. Hook & The Medicine Show)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|