DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: The General Forum: Boycott The RIAA/MPAA

Forums > The General Forum

Boycott The RIAA/MPAA

goldenpi	Date: August 3, 2002 @ 11:08 AM One thing I can confidently predict is the RIAA and possibly MPAA are going to start demanding more police focus on piracy. They dont care about other crimes like burglery, murder, etc because that doesn't impact their profit margin. But for that to happen needs a slight change on public oppinion. Remeber how the exploding planes affected people? One day we are all getting on with life, then one public spectical and suddenly afganistan is being blasted into a crater by the US military, half of america is hordeing food and gasmasks, everyone is scared about a smallpox attack thats not going to happen and Pres Bush is milking it for every vote he can get. If something happened to do for piracy what the WTC did for terrorism, such as a major label going bust or a good-sized bribe to the gutter press, they could assign all the money they want for fighting it." id="14917">Already done. Havn't brought a music CD. Ever. I never downloaded label music either, so it didn't cost them any sales. The RIAA mentioned "consumer education". You really shouldn't underestimate the long-term effects of that. One thing the RIAA is afraid of is the effect of a generation of future consumers growing up in a world with computers and easily copyable information. They know if everyone thinks information cannot be controled they will be in serious trouble. Go the the RIAA website, look under anti-piracy and the soundbyteing campaign. An attempt to perswade people in colledge that downloading music is wrong and evil, combined with a few warnings about lawyers. What if they try adjusting it to explain (brainwash) to younger people? Will be have piracy policemen touring schools to explain how downloading hurts artists like we have policemen visi schools now to explain about drugs? Its very unlikely, but something to worry about. One thing I can confidently predict is the RIAA and possibly MPAA are going to start demanding more police focus on piracy. They dont care about other crimes like burglery, murder, etc because that doesn't impact their profit margin. But for that to happen needs a slight change on public oppinion. Remeber how the exploding planes affected people? One day we are all getting on with life, then one public spectical and suddenly afganistan is being blasted into a crater by the US military, half of america is hordeing food and gasmasks, everyone is scared about a smallpox attack thats not going to happen and Pres Bush is milking it for every vote he can get. If something happened to do for piracy what the WTC did for terrorism, such as a major label going bust or a good-sized bribe to the gutter press, they could assign all the money they want for fighting it.
TylerC	Date: August 13, 2002 @ 2:42 PM Does nobody here argue on behalf of protecting copyrighted material? I'm not saying it's my stance, I'm just curious.
mtbatol	Date: August 13, 2002 @ 7:13 PM Well Tyler, the way I see it there should be a law establishing consumer rights and if that's not established then the RIAA and MPAA will pretty much on the consumer with crappy laws in trying to protect copyrighted material
TylerC	Date: August 13, 2002 @ 8:25 PM I'll agree that copyrighted material is over priced, and the laws are more than a little questionable, but isn't there still something to be said for the protection of intellectual property?
PetulaClark	Date: August 13, 2002 @ 10:05 PM With digital medium, the big players in the recording industry are: 1. Taking control over reproduction rights usually through an unfair agreement with the artist. 2. Taking control of distribution methods, including private communication between individuals over the internet. Please tell your friends. Feel free to copy and paste this posting everywhere you see fit. " id="15709"> First of all: No. And certainly not if said property (right to be paid for reproduction) was taken without the creators knowledge or consent as seems to happen in the music business. I mean, strictly speaking, you still owe some dead person's estate for each time you've sung "Happy Birthday" But nobody is gonna enforce that for an analogue medium. With digital medium, the big players in the recording industry are: 1. Taking control over reproduction rights usually through an unfair agreement with the artist. 2. Taking control of distribution methods, including private communication between individuals over the internet. Please tell your friends. Feel free to copy and paste this posting everywhere you see fit.
TylerC	Date: August 14, 2002 @ 12:07 AM No, you don't have to pay royalties on Happy Birthday. Public performance isn't included in distribution of copyrighted material. That's why bands can do cover songs in concert. As for the reproduction and distribution rights -- of course they want control. It's not smart to be in the business of distributing music if you aren't the one distributing the music. As for unfair agreements with artists, I'm not so sure. a) Just how many artist contracts are you privied to? (I'm not saying they aren't unfair, I just don't think there's any room for sweeping generalizations). b) If an artist signs a contract aren't they obligated to stick to that contract no matter how unfair it might be? It's not like the agreement became even more unfair after it was signed. The fact is labels own the music. That's the way the machine has been designed. Now it's fair to question whether or not this is the best method, but how much of pirated music would have even been made without this machine? I'm sure some would have made it, but I think you'd find fewer quality musicians, and you'd certainly find a lower volume of music available. Imagine the society where all music available is for free. You'd find very few people devoting their lives to producing it.
PetulaClark	Date: August 14, 2002 @ 12:23 AM http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/ http://www.negativland.com/albini.html I don't want these people do have any more of my money. They are laughing at you every time you plunk down money for a new CD. " id="15728"> No, the only people devoting their lives to producing music would be people that really LIKED music. Same with producers, studio engineers, DJs, etc. Image that. Money is an incentive for greedy people, not ethical or even competent ones. There are lots of resources that are distributed on this basis. (ie, not-for-profit - the people involved do not expect to get rich) Academic research - except publishers charge too much, though NIH, NSF (taxpayers) foots that bill. But the content is open and free - Nobody gets bonuses for having their article cited or reproduced. GPL Free clinics Peace Corps Public broadcasting - they don't stop asking for money, but the stations where I have lived have been doing well for as long as I can remember. Religion - the third oldest profession California beach trash pick-up - never seen community service types out there, just us volunteer-combers. Even if it weren't for that http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/ http://www.negativland.com/albini.html I don't want these people do have any more of my money. They are laughing at you every time you plunk down money for a new CD.
PetulaClark	Date: August 14, 2002 @ 1:00 AM http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/08/01/bootlegs/index.html" id="15729"> TylerC: I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to make a living off music. It's just that I think there are too many people out there are sucking money out of our economy for doing basically nothing. Then they hire an army of middle-managers and pay them $100,000 a year in hush money. Somehow lots and lots of crappy entertainment is produced and the rest of us are expected to plunk down our hard-earned cash to enjoy it. I'd rather see more people make a living wage. (Who am I? Bill Clinton? Newt?) I'd rather see people involved in making good content compensated better and them benefit from a better distribution system. Not some business school graduate who hasn't owned a CD since junior high school. If there are forward-thinking labels - ie who don't side with RIAA, I'd like to support them. BTW: some of my favorite music is sampled. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/08/01/bootlegs/index.html
TylerC	Date: August 14, 2002 @ 9:42 AM Sampling is a trickier area. I'm working on a series of heavily sampled tracks now featuring everything from Neil Diamond to Beck to Guns and Roses. Sampling in music is an art form in itself. I definately have some problems with stipulations surrounding sampling -- it's like the guy who makes the paint, or the person who posed, asking for a piece of the action on your painting. Of course both those people probably did get some money up front.
princess-angry	Date: August 14, 2002 @ 11:01 AM now what if you pick up one at a yard sale or get a new one for only a buck!!! liek I did.... I got a sealed and new 12 track cd (cool traxx3) for only a dollar at kmart!!!! I could not pass up that deal.....
PetulaClark	Date: August 14, 2002 @ 2:25 PM Well, like I said, I would like for artists to be able to make a living - without taking too a distasteful a day-job. It is just difficult to implement now because there are middle-men distributors who tend to exploit the work of other people to make money. But if it weren't for them, sampling credits wouldn't be an issue either, for the most part. I am going to send a donation to no-label band. It won't be much $$, but I think they should know they can advertise for such donations on their website - or even on the CD liner notes. It's too bad many of the musicians I like are no longer with us.
HappyPeople84	Date: August 14, 2002 @ 3:19 PM well i think that... most of the artist KNOW they are gettin screwd by the RIAA but yet they still sign the contracts.... why?? when it dont make sense. I mean like why dont they just cut out the middle ppl (riaa etc etc) & do it that way then they would get more $$$ wich they deserve for what they do & the RIAA would get what they deserve NOTHING Coz im pretty sure that wiv the money they have etc etc then they would be able to advertise, distrubute etc etc & for the artist that havent then thats where 'file shareing' & 'p2p' etc comes in coz its a proven fact that this actully INCREASES sales & this way stupid pop artist will disapear coz then they will realize & see that ppl dont want to listen nor do they want to buy their crap. sorry if u dont understand or w/e but u get da jist of it
TylerC	Date: August 15, 2002 @ 9:32 PM I've never heard of p2p increasing sales. That's a new one. I just think some people need to stop deluding themselves. Fighting the RIAA isn't really much in the way of righteous causes. I hate them, but only because if they get their way I'll have to start paying for CDs again. I already invest a retarded amount of money in vinyl, I don't need that hastle too.
PetulaClark	Date: August 16, 2002 @ 12:33 AM Well, how about the way the music business (ok not everyone, just the big record labels) have ruined radio for everybody. I remember when DJ's had (well, they were much more convincing at pretending) more freedom in programming and they amused us all by talking over the commercials. And slightly off topic, how about the way radio ruined radio for everybody. New CDs are just another boycott on a big pile for me.
PetulaClark	Date: August 17, 2002 @ 2:02 AM http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/contracts.html http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/payola.html" id="16065"> Found these at some point, lost them, found them again. http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/contracts.html http://www.recordingartistscoalition.com/payola.html
TylerC	Date: August 17, 2002 @ 5:00 AM I will concede that everyone in the RIAA should be subjected to terrible, awful things for what they're doing to internet radio. The bitch of it is, I was just about to set up a Shoutcast server. I may still do it, but I'll have to make some serious formatting decisions.
Junkman	Date: September 3, 2002 @ 3:13 PM --FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR-- FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FF R--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR- -FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--FFR--

Page: [ 1 2 ]

~~Next 100~~

Post A Reply
From:	Guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post:

© DMusic LLC - Employment | TOS | Subscribe