DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: I Hate The RIAA!: don't hate riaa

Forums > Music Business: I Hate The RIAA!

don't hate riaa

savaboric	Date: July 19, 2005 @ 10:50 AM everybody daserve to be heer!
Alecs	Date: July 19, 2005 @ 3:33 PM You have your right to an opinion, but don't post a topic about not hating the RIAA in a forum about hating the RIAA.
savaboric	Date: July 22, 2005 @ 8:58 PM yeeeah!i like you comment.but that is not my point!!whay hating when we can unite?we- the independentartist of the world.//we must unite.that is my ideal world of music
BlackMage	Date: July 23, 2005 @ 12:11 PM This should be interesting...
sinai	Date: July 23, 2005 @ 1:19 PM yes!!! everybody should form one gigantic band
Alecs	Date: July 25, 2005 @ 11:10 AM kinda like Polyphonic Spree except with the name translated in hundreds of languages.
BOWILLIE	Date: July 25, 2005 @ 6:06 PM nah....there would be too many diana rosses..holding thiere arms in front of the rest..
Svensta	Date: July 25, 2005 @ 10:02 PM I'm glad the Association's evangelist is this sort of speller. It is fitting.
BlackMage	Date: July 26, 2005 @ 5:17 PM Well, they gotta go somewhere, Sven.
savaboric	Date: July 27, 2005 @ 9:02 PM this just got in-news RIAA Continues Enforcement Of Rights With New Lawsuits Against 784 Illegal File Sharers WASHINGTON – As part of its continued efforts to promote legal online services, educate fans about the right and wrong way to enjoy digital music, and enforce its rights through the legal system, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), on behalf of the major record companies, today announced a new wave of copyright infringement lawsuits against 784 illegal file sharers. The “John Doe” suits filed today cite the individuals for illegally distributing copyrighted music on the Internet via unauthorized peer-to-peer services such as KaZaa, LimeWire and Grokster. The litigations were filed in federal district courts across the country, including in: California, Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington, DC. “On Monday, the Supreme Court provided a real shot in the arm to legitimate online music services and unanimously injected moral clarity into this debate,” said Mitch Bainwol, Chairman and CEO of the RIAA. “If there was any doubt left, there should now be none – individuals who download music without permission are breaking the law. Our efforts to defend the rights of record labels, musicians, songwriters and others in the music community from theft will certainly continue and likely be strengthened in the weeks and months ahead.” As a member of Music United – a broad coalition composed of virtually every component of the recording industry and music community – the RIAA also applauds the coalition’s launch of multiple educational initiatives, including a worldwide campaign with Childnet International to help parents understand how to keep their children safe and legal when downloading music on the Internet. A new parental pamphlet, “Young People, Music and the Internet – a guide for parents about P2P, file-sharing and downloading,” will be distributed across the globe in the coming months and on websites including www.musicunited.org. Childnet International is leading the campaign, with various partners in 18 countries. In addition, Music United today launched an advertisement campaign that highlights the harmful effects of illegal downloading on the music industry. The “Feed a Musician, Download Legally” ads will appear on outdoor poster space in 11 major cities, where they can be seen in areas such as metro stops and the sides of buildings undergoing renovations. “Against a clear backdrop of what is right and what is wrong – what is legal and what is illegal – it is as important now as ever to encourage our fans do the right thing,” said Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA. “Ideally, this is a message that will resonate broadly with millions of fans all across the country – and one that parents will take up personally in conversations with their kids.” ##### [The Recording Industry Association of America is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA® members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States. In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conduct consumer industry and technical research; and monitor and review - - state and federal laws, regulations and policies. The RIAA® also certifies Gold®, Platinum®, Multi-Platinum™, and Diamond sales awards, Los Premios De Oro y Platino™, an award celebrating Latin music sales.] Contacts: Jonathan Lamy Jenni Engebretsen Amanda Hunter 202-775-0101 must reads news/views guest columns legal cases photo gallery research and data Press Room - Gold & Platinum - Issues - About Us - Research and Data - En Español Copyright ©2003 Recording Industry Association of America. All Rights Reserved. Contact Webmaster. Site Map. hope you like the news!!!
BlackMage	Date: July 28, 2005 @ 5:28 AM Not really.
savaboric	Date: July 29, 2005 @ 9:23 PM ok-you don't like news.that is just to bad.now let me say this!we need some people to keep track of everything.i truly think that if your music is on top 10 you will think diferent.how about if i sample your song and make the new mix and copyright on my name and send whit fileshare to every person and make million?do you gonna be happy?what sup!
BlackMage	Date: July 30, 2005 @ 6:00 AM That would just be theft in the actual form thieving. Saying that song was made by you when it's not is a little bit more serious than not paying 25$ for an overpriced bullshit cd by a cocky shitass RIAA artist who doesn't deserve it anyway (not that I would even want to download RIAA bullshit and not that the artist gets his/her money from his cd's anyway) Usually those RIAA (con)artists are involved some how in the making of their own songs (no matter how shitty). Thing's would be different if my music was in a top ten? Sorry to burst your bubble, but how the hell would my music go to an any kind of top ten? And why the fuck would I even want to be in a top ten? So that I could boast my already inflated ego about how much my music rules? I don't need top tens to tell me that, bitch. When there is music, everything is equal compared to each other. You should try and understand that. I don't believe in copyright. Music is sacred, not to be exploited. Sure you can earn with record sales, but when you take music and start massproducig it, you won't get anything good. You just get a bunch of cunts trying to copyright everything so they could make money out of it. Greedy as fuck. Music is supposed to be listened and enjoyed. I guess some cockhead RIAA drone can't understand that. You want to copyright my songs? You want to make a million with them? Good luck, pal. Ain't happening. You've just lost your integrity completely. Now please fuck off and die.
2step-4eva	Date: July 30, 2005 @ 11:18 AM now the government are trying to brainwash our children...sorry, give them a "clear backdrop of what is right and wrong"...since when did the RIAA decide what's right and wrong? i'll believe that filesharing damages the music industry when i see it. in fact u can always tell a real artist from a fake one, cos the real one doesn't give a shit about money.
savaboric	Date: July 31, 2005 @ 12:50 AM yeeeeeeahh!!i like this!i got you mad like hell bich mr-lunitari you talk nasty like some crazy motherfucker who don't have no shit clue about music bussines. and i don't need your shit!fucking dick sucker.enjoy this bich!
savaboric	Date: July 31, 2005 @ 1:04 AM united nation of independent artist.whit bigest music catalog. this is real deal.and then give to the people to listen.united we stand all night long!
BlackMage	Date: July 31, 2005 @ 5:46 AM I don't need business attach to my music. Neither should you.
sinai	Date: July 31, 2005 @ 5:50 AM i stand all night long!!! united with everyone else with a 3rd shift job!!!
ChillinBuzz	Date: July 31, 2005 @ 6:13 AM savaboric must've been eating RIAA bullshit for quite some time, i was quite impressed with his case... maybe he should represent OJ the next time he gets in trouble
sinai	Date: July 31, 2005 @ 6:16 AM he just did!!! direct tv is suing for 25000 for pirating cable!!!
savaboric	Date: July 31, 2005 @ 9:52 PM hello!mr sinai,you sound more like security officer who work 3rd shift,butt it's ok. chillinbuzz this is for you-i don't give a dame shit about riaa,i have my music and in the same time i remix for other people.butt working together it's real deal to .i guess you r not that good.
savaboric	Date: July 31, 2005 @ 10:05 PM Artists Everything that the RIAA is active on--fostering a viable music marketplace online, preventing piracy, fighting censorship--is based on one premise: It all starts with the music and the music starts with the artist. The artist creates the music that jolts you back in your chair, whisks you across the dance floor, or freezes you in reverie. Music marks key moments in our lives. Memories of first loves, bitter battles, and sweet triumphs are all brought back by that favorite song. You "own" that anthem now, but it started with the artist. They all create different music, yet with the same passion to connect. Different path, same goal. When the connection is made -- look out. Music moves us. Music unites us. Not many art forms are as expansive, evocative, poignant, or powerful. That’s why, around the globe, the artist is embraced, honored, banned and sometimes feared. Nothing communicates like music does. To do his or her best, the artist needs a supportive environment. That is a goal of RIAA. RIAA fights to preserve freedom of speech, copyright protection, and a positive environment in which to create and distribute music -- on and off the Internet. No one drops from the sky a rock star. It’s hard work. Breaking through is a struggle. You don’t start at #1 on the Billboard chart. No one knows that better than the artist, which is why the artist is often his or her own best advocate in the public policy arena.
Snoogans775	Date: August 1, 2005 @ 1:17 AM okay, I hear what you are saying, and I'm glad you have continued fighting here, because as unbiased as most of us would like to be, we are on DMusic in part because the RIAA and companies that work towards record companies like live365(jerkoff gesture) suck. You have made all of the usual points about good music, but how the fuck do we have all of the beautiful music from the 20's, 30's, 40's and such if there was no rigid bastardizing force such as the RIAA. or in your words, a supportive enivironment catalyst. IT's because music will always be. and that's my thoughts in a fairly distorted bundle, and I know the economic climate was different before the RIAA, but that's another discussion. But more importantly, what facts do you know about the RIAA, or the music business for that matter, NOBODY WITH REAL experience has ever told me what you are saying. if you believe you are so damned fair, why don't you guy to the boycott-RIAA site and observe all of the PROPAGANDA that the community has posted. but please don't shit-talk, your entire first article said nothing but this, "the riaa sued its consumers, because they had found a loophole in the rigid structure the music industry uses to secure themselves."
BlackMage	Date: August 1, 2005 @ 6:38 AM http://www.boycottriaa.com/article/9488 Nice going, Savaboric, copying straight from the RIAA website. I thought that it was a little too coherent for your peasized brains so of course I did a little Google search and bingo. You only left one little sentence from the end. "At RIAA we do all we can to make sure those voices are heard in the nation’s capital and in state capitals across the country." Yes, well... "i don't give a dame shit about riaa" I don't give a shit about RIAA either. You only seem to be quoting them as your own defences without even mentioning it. Guess what, dipshit. Nobody takes RIAA seriously. And why should they? "i have my music and in the same time i remix for other people.butt working together it's real deal to .i guess you r not that good." Chill's not good as working together? I'm sorry to say this... wait, no I'm not. I'm taking every hint of pleasure I get from proving that your shit stinks. Chill is the collaboration beacon of this place who has arranged the biggest of them all. He's made more collabs in 3 years than you will ever hope to make in your whole short life span. You shit-talk him = You attack me. I guess you can't argue with a RIAA drone. You almost had me in that text that "wow, maybe Savaboric isn't such an incompetent dumbass in english after all" WRONG. If you're reading this then you have to ask yourself "What the hell am I doing still here?" . That's the same question I'm asking you now. Take the hint, punk.
ChillinBuzz	Date: August 1, 2005 @ 6:45 AM "collaboration beacon" thank you Mik as for savabollock or whoever... nuff said
ChillinBuzz	Date: August 1, 2005 @ 6:47 AM "collaboration beacon" thank you Mik as for savabollock or whoever... nuff said
ChillinBuzz	Date: August 1, 2005 @ 7:14 AM oops website kinda died as i posted
Zapatique	Date: August 1, 2005 @ 12:48 PM Hm...check this out, I found it interesting and amusing (from another forum). Illegal Music Downloaders Found to be More Valuable Than Legal Ones Research into music downloading habits has revealed that illegal users actually spend four and a half times more on paid-for legitimate music downloads than the average user. The reports authors say that the existing P2P networks need to be built on. The study revealed that the pirates actually spent £5.52 (US$9.61) a month on legal music downloads compared to £1.27 (US$2.21) a month with users who stayed on the right side of the law. The Leading Question, the digital music research firm who carried out the study, says that rather than prosecuting these valuable customers they should be enticed into using legal alternatives. Think about that...and yes, I fucking do download music free of charge. Not because it's convenient, but because it's free. I just love to hear all that legal bullshit written in amazingly crappy english coming from a drone of the RIAA hive...
BlackMage	Date: August 1, 2005 @ 1:08 PM ^^^^ probably because the people who download music are probably just the people who listen to it more and do want to buy some of the stuff while the regular consumer who doesn't really buy much doesn't really give a shit about music that much, so they don't feel the urge to download it. Fuck RIAA for suing their own customers.
savaboric	Date: August 1, 2005 @ 9:01 PM mr-lunitari i post topic about don't hate riaa.ok, now listen motherfucker.who give a dame fuck about your fuckin opinion.you r just one hater who don't have no shit clue.stic whit dick sucking becouse you like that beter.
Snoogans775	Date: August 1, 2005 @ 10:32 PM I don't think Savaboric wants to try anymore, but you keep on coming back, please don't continue posting and fueling this if you have no more to say. I wanna see you enlightened, but I have more important shit to do, like make music
savaboric	Date: August 2, 2005 @ 5:48 AM for you snoogans775-i make music to .i show you how to fight the riaa.join te list,i need more music artist to come toghether .
Zapatique	Date: August 2, 2005 @ 12:42 PM What a great way to "get artists together" savaboric! Insult a fine musician who is a part of this community and who dares to speak out his opinion that (hopefully) resembles most others' opinions. I don't really care abouth is opinion, but I care even less about yours. Shut up.
BlackMage	Date: August 2, 2005 @ 12:47 PM So now he's about fighting the RIAA. Fascinating. I'm all open for apology. Particularly about this : "how about if i sample your song and make the new mix and copyright on my name and send whit fileshare to every person and make million?" I'm not very fond of having my music registered. Even less fond of having registered it under someone else's name than mine. Even if he meant it as an example, I would have busted his kneecaps for even mentioning it. Music's sacred, not something what you use to make money. Sure there's nothing wrong about making a few bucks when throwing a couple of gigs and selling coupla cd's, but when it's all about the money, then something's wrong. RIAA is what comes to mind in that kind of situation. And what fire? There's obviously no fire to fuel since Savaboric hasn't made a single argument about not hating RIAA. What's there not to hate?
Zapatique	Date: August 2, 2005 @ 12:52 PM "I'm not very fond of having my music registered. Even less fond of having registered it under someone else's name than mine. Even if he meant it as an example, I would have busted his kneecaps for even mentioning it. Music's sacred, not something what you use to make money." Good point. Hell, my music is MY music, even if it's just chromatic speed picking, blast beats and growling without lyrics...
Extrememan	Date: August 2, 2005 @ 4:57 PM talk about irony in this topic and where its at
savaboric	Date: August 2, 2005 @ 9:41 PM amazing grace=amazing extrememan wow!that is so hot,cool i just wonder what hapen whith drums.you r the man of the hour lunitari!music is maybe secred but i live this to your god. secred is religious form of so called god.hi or she who give a fuck.god is all in your mind budy, in this world of music expression it's about to make more fucking songs albums and to sell to everybody you like or not.live a god for other time.for now keep making that fucking music.if you have some skils.and who give a dam what riaa doing.it's what you gonna do .stop talking crazy shit
imemine	Date: August 2, 2005 @ 10:01 PM screw the riaa---buy the Pop Dolls disc!
savaboric	Date: August 2, 2005 @ 10:08 PM Hip Metrosexual Dude with Bill Rhynes/imemine cool groove.god work
savaboric	Date: August 2, 2005 @ 10:11 PM welcome back to hell
imemine	Date: August 2, 2005 @ 10:11 PM Interesting place to post that---but thanks! "god work" DAMN!
savaboric	Date: August 2, 2005 @ 10:23 PM Electronic Music Chart on www.artistopia.com Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic 1. House Of Osiris Praline 2. Revelations Praline 3. Perception Orange 4. Sweetness Kyven 5. Feels So Good Kyven Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic 6. Everything Gone Be Ok Sergio Mega 7. CHEMICAL PROCESS Munkie 8. Fabric of Time DNA-Groove 9. nightlife Mario Debuck 10. Here in the Valley 2Ginger Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic 11. Broken dreams Mario Debuck 12. Come Now Marshall 13. the way Sava Boric 14. SHATTER THE CIRCLES Munkie 15. IN MY DARKENED ROOM Munkie Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic Electronic 16. CRY NO MORE TEARS Munkie 17. Ital Attraction Binary Nebula 18. FIRE IN MY HEART Munkie 19. MORE PRECIOUS THAN GOLD Munkie 20. Munkie vote for your fevorites!!!
savaboric	Date: August 2, 2005 @ 10:30 PM hey lunitari vote for my shit song i will got you a dildo
savaboric	Date: August 2, 2005 @ 10:36 PM Chart Based on the last 7 days www.artistserver.com 1. the way(original mix).mp3 By: sava boric Progressive Trance 02:36 - 1.88mb - 128kbps Pts: 30 07/17/2005 Reviews: 2. Force of Mind By: Crane Progressive Trance 04:31 - 4.34mb - 128kbps Pts: 13 02/23/2005 Reviews: 3. Another place By: Wintermute Progressive Trance 06:24 - 9.22mb - 192kbps Pts: 10 11/24/2003 Reviews: 4. Starry Starry Night By: Wintermute Progressive Trance 06:46 - 9.75mb - 192kbps Pts: 10 05/19/2004 Reviews: 5. Elusive By: Nizmo & Drifter Progressive Trance 03:48 - 3.66mb - 128kbps Pts: 8 07/15/2005 Reviews: 6. Synergy (Floor mix) By: Wintermute Progressive Trance 07:25 - 10.69mb - 192kbps Pts: 8 12/30/2003 Reviews: 7. Black Ice( Kuang Eleven Mix) By: Wintermute Progressive Trance 09:00 - 8.64mb - 128kbps Pts: 8 01/28/2004 Reviews: 8. Childhood's End( Homeworld Bound mix) By: Wintermute Progressive Trance 09:53 - 14.22mb - 192kbps Pts: 8 06/22/2004 Reviews: 9. The light of you By: Wintermute Progressive Trance 08:26 - 12.11mb - 192kbps Pts: 8 02/08/2005 Reviews: 10. 'ChE' ( Overture mix ) By: Wintermute Progressive Trance 09:29 - 13.91mb - 192kbps Pts: 8 02/22/2005 Reviews:
BlackMage	Date: August 3, 2005 @ 2:28 AM " amazing grace=amazing extrememan wow!that is so hot,cool i just wonder what hapen whith drums.you r the man of the hour lunitari!music is maybe secred but i live this to your god. secred is religious form of so called god.hi or she who give a fuck.god is all in your mind budy, in this world of music expression it's about to make more fucking songs albums and to sell to everybody you like or not.live a god for other time.for now keep making that fucking music.if you have some skils.and who give a dam what riaa doing.it's what you gonna do .stop talking crazy shit " I thought it wasn't possible, but Savaboric has just made more ridicoulous presumptions than even I had thought about. How does God (or maybe god in this case, you don't even type in capitols.) involve my music? I said music is sacred. No reference to God (god?) whatsoever. And then... charts where you're in? Guess what, buddy. Nobody cares. Except you, but you hardly count. "i will got you a dildo" I'm a banana man myself. You just don't get it.
Zapatique	Date: August 3, 2005 @ 5:25 AM "stop talking crazy shit" Who's talking crazy shit? Most clearly you're talking CRAZY and SHIT , both separately and at the same time. There was no god/God/gods involved in this before you started spilling out that crap... I'd like to ask everybody here (except for savaboric, of course) if they make music to make money or for their own pleasure (and hopefully others'). I'm on the just for fun-side of the deal, but some money never hurt me...
Snoogans775	Date: August 3, 2005 @ 5:26 AM ^^^Good point about the fire, but I still feel guilty for coming back here. Savaboric, would you, in YOUR OWN WORDS, maybe describe a little of the reason why it is so friggin important that your music is listened to by many people, if you posted it in such an outlandish manner!?
Extrememan	Date: August 3, 2005 @ 9:55 AM wtf is savaboric talkin about..
Snoogans775	Date: August 3, 2005 @ 7:00 PM Zapatique-I made 26 dollars in donations at a show once, that's all I've made, but the reason it was so spectacular is that almost 45 minutes of the show was me and my buddy improvising. So I'd rather hang out in a shithole with an f-in music box rather than ever strive to be found and "rewarded".
Snoogans775	Date: August 3, 2005 @ 7:02 PM Lunitari-- "this should be interesting..." I think you were wrong
savaboric	Date: August 3, 2005 @ 8:52 PM ok-lunitari-i don't type in capitols.so what!you say that music is so fucking sacred.and word sacred-Sacred art Sacred art in the news Sacred art is imagery intended to uplift the mind to the spiritual. It can be an object to be venerated not for what it is but for what it represents, though venerated objects are more properly called sacramentals. Idols, which are worshipped in and of themselves, are not considered sacred art. Christian European sacred art Sacred art was common in the European Middle Ages, but many of the greatest masters commissioned by the Roman Catholic Church lived during the Renaissance. It was during this time that Michelangelo Buonarotti painted the Sistine Chapel and carved the Pietá, Gianlorenzo Bernini created the massive columns in St. Peter's Basilica, and Leonardo da Vinci painted the Last Supper. Most Christian sacred art is allusive, or built around themes familiar to the intended observer. One of the most common Christian themes is that of a woman (the Virgin Mary) holding a child (the infant Jesus). Another is that of Jesus on the cross. The genre of sacred art has lost much of its vigor since the Renaissance, but the themes are still popular, a 20th century example being Salvador Dalí's The Crucifixion. Tibetan Buddhist sacred art Tibetan art includes thangkas and mandalas, sometimes including depictions of Buddhas and bodhisattvas. Creation of Buddhist art is usually done as a meditation, an example of which is the creation of a sand mandala by monks. The work is rarely, if ever, signed by the artist. Other Tibetan Buddhist art includes metal ritual objects, such as the vajra and the phurba. Muslim sacred art Because of the strict injunctions against such depictions of humans or animals which might result in idol-worship, Islamic art developed a unique character, utilizing a number of primary forms: geometric, arabesque, floral, and calligraphic, which are often interwoven. From early times, Muslim art has reflected this balanced, harmonious world-view. It focuses on spiritual essence rather than physical form. It offers no pictures of saints or illustrations of stories from the Quran, but rather expresses fundamental concepts such as the infinite nature of God through repetitive geometric designs without beginning or end.do you think music is sacred.
savaboric	Date: August 3, 2005 @ 8:59 PM and-Sacred Sacred in the news In religions, sacred (from Latin, sacrum, "sacrifice"; or simply in English, "holy") items are believed by followers to be intimately connected with the supernatural, or divinity, and are thus greatly revered. For example, pagans consider the Earth sacred, while Roman Catholics consider the transubstantiated host sacred. Analogously, the word "sacred" is also sometimes used in regard to items highly esteemed by secular institutions or individuals. For instance, one might say that the US government considers the Stars and Stripes to be sacred.
savaboric	Date: August 3, 2005 @ 9:22 PM more on sacred music or-A hymn is a song specifically written as a song of praise, adoration or prayer, typically addressed to God. A writer of hymns is known as a hymnist or hymnodist, and the process of singing a hymn is called hymnody; the same word is used for the collectivity of hymns belonging to a particular denomination or period (e.g. "nineteenth century Methodist hymnody" would mean the body of hymns written and/or used by Methodists in the nineteenth century). Books called hymnals are collections of hymns, which may or may not include music. Ancient hymns include the Great Hymn to the Aten, composed by the pharaoh Akhenaten, and the Vedas, a collection of hymns in the tradition of Hinduism. The Western tradition of hymnody begins with Homer, who is given credit for the Homeric Hymns in praise of the gods of Greek mythology. Christian tradition In Christian religions, hymns are usually directed toward God, or, in Catholicism and other denominations, also to Mary and sometimes to other Saints. Most Christian worship services have, since the earliest times, incorporated the singing of hymns, either by the congregation or by a selected choir, often accompanied by an organ. Thomas Aquinas, in the introduction to his commentary on the Psalms, defined the Christian hymn thus: "Hymnus est laus Dei cum cantico; canticum autem exultatio mentis de aeternis habita, prorumpens in vocem." ("A hymn is the praise of God with song; a song is the exultation of the mind dwelling on eternal things, bursting forth in the voice.) Since there is a lack of musical notation in early writings, the actual musical forms in the early church can only be surmised. During the Middle Ages a rich hymnody developed in the form of Gregorian chant or plainsong. This type was sung in unison, usually in a minor key, and most often by monastic choirs. While they were written originally in Latin, many have been translated. A familiar hymn of this type is the 13th century plainsong Of the Father's Love Begotten, (although the words date back to around the 4th century), that is a common part of church Christmas repertoires in the English language. The Protestant Reformation produced a burst of hymn writing and congregational singing. Martin Luther is notable not only as a reformer, but as the author of the hymn A Mighty Fortress Is Our God which is sung today even in Roman Catholicism. The earlier English writers tended to paraphrase bibical text, particularly Psalms; Isaac Watts followed this tradition, but is also credited as having written the first English hymn which was not a direct paraphrase of Scripture. Later writers took even more freedom, some included allegory and metaphor in their texts. Four part harmony also became the norm, rather than unison singing. Charles Wesley's hymns spread Methodist theology, not only within Methodism, but in most Protesant churches. He developed a new focus - expressing one's personal feelings in the relationship with God as well as the simple worship seen in older hymns. Wesley wrote: Where shall my wondering soul begin? How shall I all to heaven aspire? A slave redeemed from death and sin, A brand plucked from eternal fire, How shall I equal triumphs raise, Or sing my great deliverer's praise. Wesley's contribution, along with the Second Great Awakening in America led to a new style called gospel, and a new explosion of sacred music writing with Fanny Crosby, Ira Sankey, and others who produced testamonial music for revivals, camp meetings and evangelistic crusades. African-Americans developed a rich hymnody from spirituals during times of slavery to the modern, lively black gospel style. Some Christians today are using Christian lyrics in the rock music style although this often leads to some controversy between older and younger congregants. This is not new; the Christian pop music style began in the late 1960s and became very popular during the 1970s, as young hymnists sought ways in which to make the music of their religion relevant for their generation. This long tradition has resulted in a rich lode of hymns. Some modern churches include within hymnody, the traditional hymn (usually addressed to God), praise choruses (often sung scripture texts) and gospel (expressions of one's personal experience of God). This distinction is not perfectly clear; and purists remove the second two types from the classification as hymns. It is a matter of debate, even sometimes within a single congregation, often between revivalist and traditionalist movements. Some Christian hymnists and their more well known hymns are: Thomas Aquinas : Pange Lingua Thomas of Celaeno : Dies Iræ William Cowper : There Is a Fountain Filled with Blood Fanny Crosby : To God be the Glory and 8,000 others Johann Gerhardt : O Sacred Head, Sore Wounded Martin Luther : A Mighty Fortress is Our God John Newton : Amazing Grace Isaac Watts : When I Survey the Wondrous Cross Charles Wesley : Love Divine, All Loves Excelling John Greenleaf Whittier : Dear Lord and Father of mankind Joseph M. Scriven : What a Friend We Have in Jesus Christian hymns were traditionally written in four-part vocal harmony. Today, except for choirs and more musically inclined congregations, hymns are typically sung in unison. In some cases complementary full settings for organ are also published, in others, organists and other accompiansts are expected to mentally transcribe the four-part vocal score for their instrument of choice. so fucking much about sacred.wow
savaboric	Date: August 3, 2005 @ 9:30 PM now mr lunitari,zapatique,snoogans775 my litle friends!what sup!riaa or sacred?or you wanna be a hater?
BlackMage	Date: August 4, 2005 @ 6:42 AM - sa·cred·ly adverb - sa·cred·ness noun You're seriously taking the word to a wrong direction. Sacred isn't necessarily always religious. And nobody cares to read about thousands of lines you've copied from some site. Make it short. "i don't type in capitols.so what!" When you talk about God or god, there is a huge difference. The name God is pretty much always a referance to the christian god and the word god is any god. Think about that word inviolable. I think it's the worse kind of violation to use music only for making money. Same goes to a lot of other things. Unfortunately money is the thing that makes the world go around and unfortunately some people have to exploit something to make for money out of it. And yet again unfortunately music is the target of this violation. The violator this time happens to RIAA. "I think you were wrong" Me too. :rofl: But I'm seriously starting to get a kick out of this. :rofl: "riaa or sacred?" Definitely not RIAA. :nod: Oh, and I think I made about 15 dollars from some gig. All the money I got was from donations. So... the profit I've gotten from music is about... -2000 dollars. :rofl:" id="146778">I can play the dictionary game too... (From Merriam-Webster : Synonyms of the word "sacred") 5 a : UNASSAILABLE, INVIOLABLE b : highly valued and important - sa·cred·ly adverb - sa·cred·ness noun You're seriously taking the word to a wrong direction. Sacred isn't necessarily always religious. And nobody cares to read about thousands of lines you've copied from some site. Make it short. "i don't type in capitols.so what!" When you talk about God or god, there is a huge difference. The name God is pretty much always a referance to the christian god and the word god is any god. Think about that word inviolable. I think it's the worse kind of violation to use music only for making money. Same goes to a lot of other things. Unfortunately money is the thing that makes the world go around and unfortunately some people have to exploit something to make for money out of it. And yet again unfortunately music is the target of this violation. The violator this time happens to RIAA. "I think you were wrong" Me too. But I'm seriously starting to get a kick out of this. "riaa or sacred?" Definitely not RIAA. Oh, and I think I made about 15 dollars from some gig. All the money I got was from donations. So... the profit I've gotten from music is about... -2000 dollars.
ChillinBuzz	Date: August 4, 2005 @ 6:54 AM you can tell savaboric isnt writing these words of wisdom, when he speaks the real child comes out... i almost had him down as intelligent... but anyone can copy and paste. and i doubt the RIAA will have a place in heaven... seriously.
BlackMage	Date: August 4, 2005 @ 6:56 AM Somebody want to delete those hyperlink tags from my post? It makes my text go red when highlighted. I didn't mean to.
Snoogans775	Date: August 4, 2005 @ 2:42 PM I'm sure the devil is fashioning a new circle of hell just for the RIAA dogs, and related people, like record companies, and Britney Spears.... ...and Savaboric.
TameasDust	Date: August 4, 2005 @ 7:06 PM Has anyone patented God yet? There is no advertizing like bad advertizing ... The person who swears first looses the argument ... Any good point can be made in one sentence ... more than that and your running for office
savaboric	Date: August 4, 2005 @ 10:00 PM lunitari!music is the target of this violation. The violator this time happens to RIAA.ok this one you say.now i wanna ask you something?why you HATING so much RIAA? 1.becouse you r jealous/anxiously watchful 2.envy at seeing the success of another 3.you have some degree of hatred and a desire to possess equal advantages RIAA is organization!and represent so many artist,and that is good thing.
savaboric	Date: August 4, 2005 @ 10:18 PM chillinbuzz you say-but anyone can copy and paste. maybe by chance.ok i Research everything first!and haven! it's in your mind!
savaboric	Date: August 4, 2005 @ 10:32 PM snoogans775-you say that I'm sure the devil is fashioning a new circle of hell.-All the dead "go" here, not just the wicked
savaboric	Date: August 4, 2005 @ 10:37 PM welcome back to hell !!!
Extrememan	Date: August 5, 2005 @ 10:54 AM " chillinbuzz you say-but anyone can copy and paste. maybe by chance.ok i Research everything first!and haven! it's in your mind! Research grammar please.
BlackMage	Date: August 5, 2005 @ 11:04 AM What an intelligent individual you are Savaboric. I don't like RIAA because they exploit music to get money. Not because I'm jealous for their success in exploiting music, but because they do it in the first place. Why would I be jealous to people whose job is to use music as a tool for making money? Why would I be jealous of people who are clearly just assholes? Money isn't everything even tho' corporate morons seem to think so. Pull your head out of the RIAA ass, Savaboric.
Snoogans775	Date: August 5, 2005 @ 4:54 PM and I'll say right now that when one is rewarded with money, it's nearly as significant as an applause, for me, though there are MANY MANY better forms of feedback. people with record companies make JACK SHIT! they're actually in such bad debt that they are slaves, all the record company would need to do is give the artists 1 or 2% of the mass profit to the company to let the musicians walk free and content, under contract, but the contract isn't enough anymore, the system needs to rape and prostitute the artists. that kind of system is the product of the RIAA. this is not excluding some of the jerkoffs on MTV cRiBs! and to your quote, I don't believe in hell, but I do believe in the consciousness being at peace in death, and you and the three billion caricatures of real people just like you are causing me to lose all my peace! Unless you would just talk with some realistic concepts, and possibly some better communicative rudements, there is no way you could ever understand what I represent, though I have a strong I feeling I'm getting a grip of what you represent, which is mostly hubris, stupidity, ignorance, apathy, and a glazed eye from being programmed so deeply. but you are right, we are back in hell
BlackMage	Date: August 5, 2005 @ 5:44 PM
Snoogans775	Date: August 5, 2005 @ 8:10 PM you're right, this is so good it just MUST be fattening!
savaboric	Date: August 5, 2005 @ 9:17 PM yo!yo!yo!snogans775 a.k.a Kevin your bio -I used to have a thing on how I write, but that's changed quite a bit, so I decided to leave that whole description behind. I am a dirty rat of a person most of my days, and a loving, nurturing Sage in my unoccupied time. I play guitar, piano, and I've grown quite attached to sequencing. I've played guitar for nearly 4? years now and I've been writing the while. I've been singing in a choir for two years now and I've been singing by myself(quite a different thing) for less. I am extremely intrigued by music theory and composition, and it usually cradles the bulk of my thoughts. I hope that I can continually grow, and find new ways to break my innate disposition towards lazy inertness.Kevin Fredericks is a cheap person. Not only has he significantly decreased your listening pleasure by recording through a $3 RadioShack adapter into his factory stock Dell sound card, he has been exponentially decreasing the sound quality of his music in order to save room in his unregistered DMusic account.(of which he feels absolutely dastardly, though he is proud of burning his account all the way down to .027mb). The point of this is that he must be punished, projectiles such as rotten fruits and vegetables are preferred. If any further digital hooligany should be performed by the fore-mentioned individual, a type-3 Lo-Mein-Lashing will be warranted.(The original 1000 lashings with a wet noodle was considered broad and misunderstandable, and it was replaced by the chinese pasta by article 9,000,000 sec. MMVIX) yo kid go back to School. what will you do when you finish school?you have long way to go!
BlackMage	Date: August 6, 2005 @ 5:44 AM Your point is, Savaboric? Oh yeah. There's no point. You're not in any position to ridicule anyone in here. You've already made a fool out of yourself more than thrice. If you've run out of your idiotic insults then I ask you to shut the hell up. And even if you haven't, you can still shut up.
BlackMage	Date: August 6, 2005 @ 6:03 AM "you're right, this is so good it just MUST be fattening!" But it really isn't rewarding when you know that you're arguing with a strokevictim... Like playing chess with a pigeon.
Snoogans775	Date: August 6, 2005 @ 6:23 AM why? why? the music I make now, has every bit of the potential of that which I might possibly create when I'm 80, because I believe in the emotional, and mental power of music to communicate whatever I am enduring, or enjoying, or observing, or inadvertently experiencing at the time. and do not condescend me for my age, it is a low-blow, and you still don't have a point, so it's definetely not the time to get personal. don't call me kid, it is my request. my youth is a gift, whatever ignorance it might entail. and NOW! this has gotten out of hand, Savaboric, you're posts are maintaining a 4.31:1 ratio of cut and pasted material to actual words, that's to say that you have cut and pasted 2,418 words of text, and have originally composed 560. I didn't include the website tags you used or the charts you posted. I did include posts in which you quoted other people in this thread now, don't I sound anal, but I believe I know how to work past a high school level, but I'm gonna figure in one more statistic,, I commend you, you surprised me, you have used 1 profanity per every 35 words of actual Savaboric original comments. I also inlcuded the time you misspelled "but" as "butt" now, you have insulted me, butt I don't care, because you're an idiot, regardless of your music, for which I've finally decided it would be prudent to listen. I will be leaving comments for you. and one question, are you just some supergenius guy using this Savaboric character to manipulate us, are you bored? or did you lose your sense of humor during your education?
BlackMage	Date: August 6, 2005 @ 10:56 AM I think he's an asstard, no question.
savaboric	Date: August 6, 2005 @ 3:29 PM hey yoyo!snoogans775/Kevin music is bussines What is music publishing? Music Publishing is the business of exploiting your music through licensing your songs and collecting the royalties. As discussed in the What are copyrights? section, the owner of copyrighted songs has the exclusive right to perform those songs and to make, sell and distribute copies of the songs. The copyright owner may license others to use any or all of these exclusive rights for a fee. The income generated from granting a license is publishing income, and there are four main types: Performance Income Every time your music is played in public, you are owed a fee for the performance of your music. It is impossible for anyone to track every time a song is played in a club or on the radio, so publishers sign up with, or "affiliate with," one of the performance rights societies: BMI (Broadcast Music Incorporated), ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) and SESAC. These groups issue performance licenses to radio and television stations, nightclubs, restaurants, and so forth, so that these businesses can play a variety of music. The societies then track and collect the revenues and pay the copyright owners. Mechanical Royalties When you issue a license to a record company to manufacture and distribute copies of your songs on tapes and CDs, the record company will owe you a fixed price per song on each copy sold. This fixed fee is the "mechanical royalty rate," and it can be either negotiated and set in your recording contract, or based on the current statutory rate as fixed by the Copyright Act. The mechanical royalty rate is set by the Compulsory License Provision found in Section 115 of the U.S. Copyright Act; for the period January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2003 the statutory mechanical rate is 8.00 Cents for songs 5 minutes or less, or 1.55 Cents per minute or fraction thereof per unit sold — whichever is greater. Synchronization Income A "synch" license is what you grant to film or television productions to allow them to use your song as an accompaniment to film and TV pictures. There is no standard industry fee for synch licenses. The fees are negotiated and depend on the importance of the particular song and how it is used in the production. In a situation where a popular song is used as the basis of a scene, such as the "Old Time Rock and Roll" scene in "Risky Business," the fee can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. For local television commercials and low-budget films, the fees are whatever you can negotiate. Print Income These royalties are generated by any publication of your songs in written sheet music or a "folio", which is a book of songs. This category is not a big earner for many artists, but "Greatest Hits" print anthologies published for artists like Joni Mitchell and Led Zeppelin are examples of popular printed music. For each book or sheet sold, the copyright owner of those songs receives a percentage of the retail price. NOTE: The TMO has compiled brief summaries of some of the Federal laws pertaining to the music business. Please visit our appendix. What do music publishers do? A publisher is responsible for "administering the rights" associated with your copyrights, which involves getting your songs played, issuing the appropriate licenses and collecting the money. In the standard arrangement, a songwriter will sign over her copyrights to the publishing company for administration, and in turn the publishing company agrees to pay 50% of all revenues collected to the writer. The publisher collects mechanical, synchronization, print and foreign release income for the author. The company keeps the "publisher's share" and pays you the "writer's share." The one exception to this arrangement is in the performance income collected by performing rights societies. The societies issue the writer's share directly to you, and issue the publisher its share separately. What are performing rights societies? There are three performing rights societies. ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) and BMI (Broadcast Music Incorporated) are the biggest, and they are both non-profit organizations. SESAC, Inc. is the oldest and smallest society. It is privately owned and handles about 1% of published music. These groups issue performance licenses and track the use of music in clubs, on radio and television, in elevators, and anytime a song is heard in public. Every time one of your songs is played in one of these places, you are owed a fee. Since it is impossible for you to negotiate a license and collect fees from every bar and radio station in the country, you affiliate with one of the societies and authorize them to do it for you. The organizations pay writers and publishers separately, so you should affiliate as a writer to receive the writer's share of your performance royalties. If you plan to do your own publishing, you need to affiliate as both a publisher and a writer with the same society. Businesses that want to play commercially released music benefit in a parallel way from the performing rights societies. A small bar or college radio station cannot negotiate licenses and pay individual artists for every song they play, so they buy a "blanket license" from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. For a flat fee, businesses buy the right to play the entire catalogue of songs handled by each society, which together accounts for almost all commercially released music. The societies collect all the blanket license fees, which add up to the hundreds of millions of dollars each year. The revenue left over after collection expenses are paid for is divided among the members. The societies determine how much airplay songs are getting by tracking radio and television play lists. They pay each member a share based on how many songs he has being played, and how often the songs are played. In effect, a top-ten hit that is played constantly all over the country will get more royalties than songs that are played occasionally on oldies' stations. How do I affiliate with ASCAP, BMI and SESAC? You can affiliate by contacting the societies directly and requesting a writer's packet, a publisher's packet, or both. The packets contain information about the organization, the application kit, a W-9 tax form and the exclusive membership agreement. There are no application fees. You choose one society and affiliate with it exclusively, so research the societies before you commit yourself. All three have extensive websites for browsing, or contact the organizations and request information. Also ask your friends in the business which group they use, how they are getting paid, and whether they are satisfied with the service. The membership office contact information is as follows: ASCAP New York: One Lincoln Plaza, New York, NY 10023, (212) 621-6000 Los Angeles: 7920 West Sunset Boulevard, Third Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90046, (213) 883-1000 Nashville: 2 Music Square West, Nashville, TN 37203 (615) 742-5000 Austin: Jan Mirkin, 906-1/2 Congress Avenue, Austin, TX 78701 (512) 472-1818 http://www.ascap.com/about/howjoin.html BMI New York: 320 West 57th Street, New York, NY 10019, (212) 586-2000 Los Angeles: 8730 Sunset Boulevard, 3rd Floor West, Los Angeles, CA 90069, (310) 659-9109 Nashville: 10 Music Square East, Nashville, TN 37203, (615) 401-2000 Austin: Jill McGuckin, 202 Verdi Place, Austin, TX 78746 (512) 478-0578 http://www.bmi.com/ SESAC, INC. 55 Music Square East, Nashville, TN 37203, (800) 826-9996 http://www.sesac.com Should I create my own publishing company or go with an established publisher? Instead of signing away their copyrights, many artists prefer to create their own publishing entity and either administer the rights themselves or hire someone to do the administration work. This way you keep your copyrights and your publishing monies, but you also have to do much of the work and make the contacts yourself. The toughest part of publishing is tracking and collecting the money, but you can let the industry pros do that for a small percentage of the revenues. You can affiliate your publishing company with ASCAP or BMI for collecting the performance income. For the other major source of publishing income, the mechanical royalties, you can engage the Harry Fox Agency to represent your publishing company. On the other hand, a good publisher can make you a lot of money by exploiting your songs as thoroughly as possible. Publishers don't make money unless you are making money, so they have a financial stake in your success. They have contacts in the industry, and more clout and experience in negotiating the licensing fees. They can increase your performance income by plugging your songs for radio airplay and getting your songs released in other countries. Publishers can also shop your songs to other artists for "cover recordings," which generate more performance and mechanical royalties. In all, a favorable agreement with a good publisher could be a very lucrative path for exploiting your work. The appendix includes several resources for researching publishing companies. What is the Harry Fox Agency? Harry Fox issues mechanical and synchronization licenses for publishers, much like the performing rights societies handle the performance licenses and income. The agency's primary role is issuing mechanical licenses to record companies and collecting the mechanical royalties. It also performs regular audits on the record labels to make sure the copyright owners are getting paid. Harry Fox currently charges 4% of the gross royalties it collects as its fee for mechanical royalties. The agency charges a 5% fee for television synch licenses and a 10% fee for motion pictures, but both of these are capped. The rest is paid to the publisher, who remits your "writer's share" to you. If you have your own publishing company, you can engage the Harry Fox Agency to represent you for your mechanical and synch licenses. Contact the Agency at: The Harry Fox Agency/National Music Publishers Association National Music Publishers Association 475 Park Avenue South, 29th Floor, New York, NY 10016-6901 (646) 742-1651; fax (646) 742-1779 Harry Fox Agency 711 Third Avenue, Eighth Floor, New York, NY 10017 212.370.5330; fax 212.953.2384 If I am not satisfied with the publisher, can I get my copyrights back? Possibly. In your publishing agreement, you can ask for a clause called a "reversion" of the rights in your songs if they are not commercially exploited within a specified period of time, such as two years. A "reversion" is a legal term in property law that means you are reserving the right to take your property back if an agreed condition is not met. In this case, if the publisher just sits on your songs for two years and no one is making any money, you can try to get the copyrights back. If the songs have not been successful, the publisher will probably return the rights to you without argument. Be aware, however, that if the publisher sits on your songs and then you become popular, the publisher may try to keep the songs despite the reversion clause. In this scenario, you'll have to be prepared to sue to get the rights back. The reversion clause in your contract is not an automatic guarantee that you will get your rights back, but it helps prove your case in the event of a dispute. How do I set up my own publishing company? 1. Choose a name for your publishing entity and file a "request for publisher name clearance" with the same performing rights society with which you affiliated as a writer. You have to clear a name first because music publishing is a crowded field and many names are already in use. The societies do not want any confusion when handing out the money, so they insist that you clear the name of your company first. 2. When you get a name clearance from the performing rights society, file a DBA with the County Clerk just as you do for the band's name. The checks for the performance money will come addressed to your publishing company, so you will need a DBA to open a bank account in the company's name and cash the checks. See Do we need to get a business license? for filing information. 3. Get a Tax ID number for the publishing business as well. Follow the instructions for obtaining an Employer Identification Number (EIN) from the section, Do we pay taxes on the band's income?. ASCAP and BMI require that you either include this information when you register with them, or that you are in the process of applying for an EIN because they must keep tax files on all of their members. 4. If you registered the copyrights to your songs in your own name with the Library of Congress, transfer the rights to your new publishing company so that the company will be authorized to administer the rights. The Copyright Office does not take care of the transfer. You transfer your copyrights to the publishing entity by writing out your own contract of transfer and signing it, and then you record the transfer with the Copyright Office. Call the Copyright Office at (202) 707-9100 or check the website at www.loc.gov/copyright/ to request Circular 12, "Recordation of Transfers and Other Documents." Check the appendix for resources that provide sample legal forms, like a transfer of copyright. You can use these forms as a model for your own agreement. How is music licensed for TV and films? When a song is used in a television program or on film, it is not only performed, but is also reproduced in film, video, and/or CD digital copies. Because performance and reproduction of copies are among the exclusive rights that come with copyright ownership, the film or television producers must obtain the proper licensing to use a song in an audio-visual production. The licensing of songs for audio-visual formats involves two separate copyrights: (1) the copyright in the underlying musical composition, which is owned by the publisher; and 2) the copyright in the specific recording of the composition, which is owned by the record company. A synchronization license (synch license) covers the right to use the composition and a master recording license covers the use of the recording. Movies are made to be reproduced (as opposed to performed one time only), so filmmakers must obtain both a synch license and a master recording license to use copyrighted music. Commercials and television shows that will be reproduced in syndication also require both licenses. Certain television programs, such as live sports events and awards shows, may use a song with only a performance license from ASCAP, BMI or SESAC, because these programs are one-time performances that are generally not intended for reproduction. There is no compulsory license (as in mechanical licensing) for synchronization and master recording licensing in audio-visual reproduction. Permission to use the song and the fee are at the discretion of the copyright owners, so an artist/publisher earns whatever he can negotiate for the use of his music on-screen. In television licensing deals, the negotiation issues include the type of media covered by the license (cable TV, network TV, home video, etc), the territory of the license (the U.S., North America, the world) and the term (length) of the license. Because of the greater permanence of movies, film producers will want to buy the rights to use the song in all types of media, throughout the world and in perpetuity, so the price of licensing music for films can be very substantial. Please go to school.and stay in the school kid.
Snoogans775	Date: August 6, 2005 @ 4:48 PM two options- play music for money. play music for art. they don't coincide when you're setting goals for music, so count me out of business is music, do what you want, keep working till your soul crawls out fo your ear, actually I get the feeling you don't even understand what I said in my last post, I sked you a question. I've asked you several, and you haven't answered any, so I'm leaving.
Zapatique	Date: August 7, 2005 @ 5:21 AM I think he didn't find a fitting quotation to answer your questions (or anyone else's for that matter) Snoogans775. Where does the soul of music go if you keep thinking "is this song gonna sell?". And with soul I'm talking about the essence, meaning and individuality of music, nothing to do with anybody's god(s)... DMusic is a fine example of artists who play music just for the hell of it and share their works free of charge because they can, thanks to whoever hosts this site. Hell, once we record our first proper demo with Antihero, I'll surely have it shared over bittorrent even though we'll be selling it, too. Savaboric, if you can't be assed to write anything you make up yourself (in fact, even if you can) then don't bother.
BlackMage	Date: August 7, 2005 @ 6:51 AM Nobody cares, Savaboric.
savaboric	Date: August 7, 2005 @ 9:30 AM helo!my litle friends!! music is the bussines,and if you give for free that is ok. maybe later you will start selling i have my music on diferent web site that i give for free and on some i sell.i spend my time and my money to make my shit going,i have my own company.i think that artist,composers,producers,songwriters need somebody to monitor the music sale,music downloud becouse there is some scumbags who wanna make money of the hard work what one musician put in. now maybe you think that RIAA is bad,but i say maybe some Individual not everybody is bad. So you don't need to hate the whole Music Industry.RIAA doing something good for the musicians.
Zapatique	Date: August 7, 2005 @ 2:35 PM Er...RIAA is the company that makes money off the hard work of the musicians. What good are they doing? Did anyone else notice savaboric writes RIAA in caps, everything else in small letters. Maybe he copy/pasted that from some website, too...
mattbanx	Date: August 7, 2005 @ 2:59 PM I play music for fun because I really have no choice anyway. But who does not dream a little of having people want to buy and love their music? I know of artists that put out releases and gig locally. Even at that small level, their life is not their own. RIAA may rook the odds, but it does take a certain personality to be before people like that all the time. The musician rarely sees most of the profit though. It is good there are Indie labels.
Snoogans775	Date: August 7, 2005 @ 5:08 PM wait, wtf are you guys doing!!!! don't change the subject and inject an opinion now, SAVABORIC MADE A POINT! okay, so the RIAA is overly antagonized, that might be true, but the fact is that the world of music is suppressed creavtively right now because of the effects of people who stand for an ideal of capitalism integrated into the artistic industry which has now become an industry of mass production and advertising in the modern age. we use "RIAA" as our object of disgust because the RIAA isn't like the ASPCA, it is a spiderweb corporation that runs across all levels of music production and distribution. the RIAA is a base word for a conglomerate of different organizations that has grown into the rigid slavemongering empire that is the music industry,
ChillinBuzz	Date: August 8, 2005 @ 6:30 AM they're the self appointed mouthpiece, they stand at the front of the public backlash
BlackMage	Date: August 8, 2005 @ 7:36 AM "SAVABORIC MADE A POINT!" Exactly. There's finally something to argument against. Snoogans just nailed the point right through it's balls. RIAA is just a big conclave of different corporations trying to make profit out of... well, anything. Their newest fad is suing anyone who they think has done something illegal and unbeneficial against them. I guess it's the american way of doing things. With lawyers.
Extrememan	Date: August 8, 2005 @ 10:52 AM well us americans are sue happy apparently
Extrememan	Date: August 8, 2005 @ 10:53 AM us americans are pretty sue happy. at least the whiny people are...
shadowself	Date: August 8, 2005 @ 6:49 PM The RIAA only "protects" the filthy rich corporate acts. They will jump down your throat for downloading Metallica and Britney, but you think they will bat an eyelash when someone downloads anything that has not sold several million copies? Nope.
Snoogans775	Date: August 8, 2005 @ 7:28 PM I think the suing is actually a good sign, or moreso, the reaction to the suing, because musicians have been putting up with shit for a long time, and not unitl now has so much rage become centralized into what might one day be the shape of a bullet.
Alecs	Date: August 17, 2005 @ 8:56 AM am i really going to buy a buddy guy CD? no, I'm not. So downloading it is not going to hurt his sales, only promote his name. Besides, I think there is plenty of reason to hate the RIAA. When bands like Fallout Boy reach the top of the charts and bands like REM and Dream Theater remain unknown, someone's manipulating music and speaking out of their ass to make people like this bullshit. And has anyone noticed that Weezer's sold out now? They used to be a great band, but now they put out Beverly Hills, their worst song ever and, what do you know, everyone like's Weezer now. And U2, ugh....nobody really knew who they were until they were on an iPod commercial. Then EVERYONE liked them. Now, savaboric, I want you to tell me that Fallout Boy can hold a pitiful candle to John Petrucci and the rest of Dream Theater John Petrucci's solo in As I Am: http://johnpetrucci.com/mp3s/John_Petrucci_Dream_Theater_AsIAm.mp3 Go ahead savaboric, prove me wrong and change all my opinions about the RIAA
Zapatique	Date: August 23, 2005 @ 10:00 AM Is he gone? Or maybe dead? We live in hope he is...
kingo	Date: August 23, 2005 @ 10:10 AM Dhoomspic, while I agree with your sentiment (and sediment,) you're making some weird statements there. U2 was a huge-ass piece of massmarketfam ouse something-or-other long before iPods were a spec in the mind of whatshisface. And I don't get how you're saying REM is anything like unknown; and Dream Theater's pretty damned Niche-oriented. They certainly aren't pop-oriented music. Of course I have no idea who the hell Fallout Boy is.
savaboric	Date: August 23, 2005 @ 10:20 AM I'M BACK a was on Vacation nice rift from John Petucci I'M LIVE AGAIN!I RAISED from DEATH YEEEEAAAAHH!!!
Zapatique	Date: August 24, 2005 @ 12:30 AM And you still can't spell. Go decapitate yourself.
Alecs	Date: August 24, 2005 @ 4:55 PM halaka, I'm just saying that few people knew u2 at, like, my high school until they were on the iPod commercial
Snoogans775	Date: August 25, 2005 @ 12:53 AM but th problem there is that U2 wasn't just kind of big in Europe. I do think that there is worse...coqroq
savaboric	Date: August 25, 2005 @ 12:26 PM yo yo yo! java script:go('/image.php?img=http://www.u2.com/gallery/46664Concert/gallery_46664_bono.jpg&img_type=gallery&img_extra=gallery_46664_bono.jpg',473,471) U2
kingo	Date: August 25, 2005 @ 12:47 PM Well your highschool must have... highschoolers in it.
Zapatique	Date: August 25, 2005 @ 2:51 PM Er...savaboric, what's the point with that link? U2.com? We have quite a lot of free music that often is better than U2's commercial audiospam. Coq-Roq, what a joke...and Slipknot's lawsuit against Burger King because of them is another. There's more, right here at DMusic: savaboric.
icisnizz	Date: August 28, 2005 @ 12:20 PM I just read this whole thing and think I must be dreaming. What a moron.
Snoogans775	Date: August 28, 2005 @ 3:45 PM you shoulda' been there.
popdem	Date: August 29, 2005 @ 1:51 AM Quote: "Music United today launched an advertisement campaign that highlights the harmful effects of illegal downloading on the music industry. The “Feed a Musician, Download Legally” those musicians need more gold necklaces and million dollar homes... they might starve with their retarded priorities... the RIAA is a joke just a pawn set in place to ensure the label christs keep their crowns
Travelsonic	Date: September 3, 2005 @ 5:24 PM "Music United today launched an advertisement campaign that highlights the harmful effects of illegal downloading on the music industry. The “Feed a Musician, Download Legally” Given how full of, well, shit musicunited is known to be, I am not at all surprised.
egac	Date: September 3, 2005 @ 8:19 PM so .99999999 = 1 right?
BlackMage	Date: September 5, 2005 @ 10:16 AM ^^^^ Nope.

~~Previous 100~~

Page: [ 1 2 ]

Next 100

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