DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: I Hate The RIAA!: What is RIAA???

Forums > Music Business: I Hate The RIAA!

What is RIAA???

jess1561	Date: January 27, 2004 @ 5:17 PM I have no clue... -Jess
OrryBreaker	Date: January 27, 2004 @ 5:31 PM Riaa is a corparations that hire modles to sing songs that they write or buy, after puting the modles on tv and make that modles famous. They then sell cd to the millions of teens being that don't know what real music is.
jess1561	Date: January 27, 2004 @ 8:52 PM Oh, thanks... That sucks... -Jess
Svensta	Date: January 27, 2004 @ 9:13 PM It is a loose confederation of the major record labels in the world (Sony, BMG, Vivendi Uni, etc) They are the enemy against which the site is rallying against.
TameasDust	Date: January 28, 2004 @ 12:17 AM the RIAA is also the one that is sueing people for downloading music ... that the RIAA says it owns
vozz	Date: January 29, 2004 @ 6:59 PM The RIAA is an evil corparation. They should die...
FuRY1671	Date: February 24, 2004 @ 5:11 PM The RIAA is the Microsoft of the Music world.
PhantomGhost	Date: March 24, 2004 @ 3:10 AM DMUSIC-Boycott RIAA fight the recording industry association of america, or whatever interesting acronym you can think of. EMI, Time Warner Music, Sony, BMG, and Universal make up the RIAA. Eventually all five will just become one major corporation, USBET, and the need for the RIAA will disappear. In a few years, we'll be fighting USBET- Universal Sony-BMG EMI Time Warner Music. :-:~ Phantom
robbydadrummer	Date: March 24, 2004 @ 3:20 AM Sony and BMG are awaiting approval here in the U.S. for their merger now, which I'm sure will happen any day (already approved in Europe). Down to only 4 majors left... and with Warner Music Group seperated from AOL and Time and on it's own with the new owner, I'm betting they get swallowed up before too long... They are already consolidating the Elektra and Asylum sub-labels.
pog	Date: March 25, 2004 @ 1:17 AM Labels schmables...
AxedNeil	Date: April 26, 2004 @ 5:46 PM you cant stop progress...right????
fighterpilot	Date: April 26, 2004 @ 6:02 PM ah....so THEY'RE riaa? fuckers!!!!!!!! DDDIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEE
ronnie71	Date: April 26, 2004 @ 6:59 PM they are lobbying organization in Washington who lobby Congress, Fight so-called piracy, and give out the silver, gold, platinum, diamond plagues for CD sells
HammerofJustice	Date: April 28, 2004 @ 11:01 PM They are a big pile of dog shit and a waste of space an impedement on progress if you will.
robin101	Date: May 3, 2004 @ 7:01 PM This organization is "impotent" and has no relevance in your life. Fighting the organization is a waste of time, especially if you're not even certain of what they really do. They do not affect you at this stage of the game, and most likely, never will. You are guessing, but guessing wrong about this organization. This sounds more like the out cry of the "storm and stress" of adolesense - against a "form of authority" which doesnt even exist. It is a MOOT point.
woodhead	Date: May 3, 2004 @ 8:35 PM This organization is "impotent Tell that to the 1000 ppl who have been sued by the impotent with no revelance in your life.
Gmonk	Date: May 4, 2004 @ 7:33 PM robin101 is right... Look at it this way If you download copyritten works you deserve to get sued... just think for a miniute.... if you get signed... and someone rips your cd, and sticks it onto a p2p network. How are you gonna feel? What action will you want soeone to take? etc etc etc
woodhead	Date: May 4, 2004 @ 8:29 PM hmm sue your fans, that is a great strategy.
leflaw	Date: May 4, 2004 @ 8:56 PM Wait till the RIAA enters an apearance in your law suit and moves for attorneys fees of $985,000. Then tell me how they don't exist and are impotent. Go spend a day lobbying Congress, and then they ask you to "go talk to the RIAA and see if you can't get their agreement". etc etc...
Gmonk	Date: May 5, 2004 @ 2:23 AM No... folks who steal things cannot be considered fans. Besides, they appear to be chasing heavy downloaders and not folks who download a few mp3's. Downloading music and not purchasing a licensed copy has an impact on the artists (and others) revenue streams. Yes, you can argue that they earn such vast sums of money that its not going to hurt them financially, however its about the principal. The more people download illegaly the more steps will be taken to combat this, price hikes, copy protection etc etc This will clearly have an impact on the industry as a whole and as a direct result it will also impact on us the consumers. Its just econmics, plain and simple G
pog	Date: May 5, 2004 @ 3:06 AM You have got to be kidding me !!! There are literally millions of people out there who download, because they can, so they can sift through the bullshit that the riaa calls "in". And it all sucks with the exception of about 5%... just because it's recorded in an expensive studio, doesn't mean it's any good. Why not let some good musicians in ?? Because it's not in the system's best interests.... i.e. the business fatcats can't line their pockets with gullible people's money anymore. We have hundreds, no wait... thousands of artists here that on what these supposid talent scouts call good, just because the people on their bill have promotional money. That's a load of bollocks... when will they realise they have managed to put legitamate artists out of jobs, and shot their very own consumers in the foot in the process??... who knows People who accept their "price hikes" and their 20-40 thousand dollar copy protections that can be defeated by a 14 year old with a black markerpen make me hang my head in disappointment a their naivety. People want it for free because it is crap, and if it isn't crap... why can't they let the consumer decide if it's kickass or not ???? They don't own us !
Gmonk	Date: May 6, 2004 @ 2:38 AM Its not about who's good and who isn't... there's soemthing out there for everyone just because you consider 95% of it to be crap dosen't mean it is.. I'm not defending the RIAA or their practices, nor am I on the side of the downloaders. Both these things are just a fact of life. Thats the way it is. Consumers do decide whether something is good or not, by deciding whether or not to purchase it, that does not mean however downloading it. Look at it another way... I released an album a while ago on my own label, sold it through a number of local record stores.. (it even sold a few copies!) However, I walked into a store that was not selling it, and heard my music playing, so I asked where they got it from... (the answer was copied it from a mate) Now that didn't particularly make me happy... I have spent money creating and releasing this album.. its exactly the same for any other folks out there regardless or their size. G
pog	Date: May 6, 2004 @ 3:26 AM You should be thankful of the free product distribution.... to walk into a store and hear your music played, and you're unhappy ??? if you're in it just for the royalties, then it makes me question where you strayed off the path of making music for the love of it. Look at it this way... if 4 people walk into that shop, and only 2 of them buy the album, and the other 2 download it, the production has gotten the recognition it deserved. Maybe the leechers will pass on copies to people who may wish to buy the whole album for themselves. It's when people live in the middle of the desert, and all they can get is country and western on the radio, and they wish to listen to heavy metal is where I have a problem.. who is anyone to tell them what they can and can't do as far as sifting through the hundreds of thousands of mediocre songs to find the ones that THEY like. It's a form of mind control, and some people simply won't stand fore it. For example... I for one intend to buy the next album by The Streets because I like it, and wish to support the artist NOT the executives that force it down peoples throats.
Gmonk	Date: May 6, 2004 @ 6:13 AM yes and no.... Its not about the money, I'm hardly making vast sums of cash out of it.. well not exactly Sure its nice and fair to be paid for something you have put a lot of effort into.. And its also good to get increased exposure. But what has basically occured is theft.. would you be happy is someone stole from you? your point about the desert or any other media starved part of the world does not really hold water.. There are very few parts of the world where there exists a lack of media and a large demand for media at the same time. G
pog	Date: May 6, 2004 @ 6:41 AM Try central the radio stations suck... though triple j abc.net.au has been getting betterer coverage. I agree with you on so many levels, but it makes me hang my head with shame when a fellow human can turn around and accuse their own consumers of being leeches, when it is them that is stealing the cashola of their own artists that they promote.
Gmonk	Date: May 6, 2004 @ 6:59 AM Fair point. The while RIAA thing is just a knee jerk reatcion to enabling technology. G
kenlinder	Date: May 22, 2004 @ 7:41 AM Copyright is supposed to be about protecting the "right to copy". not the right to get fithy rich off of talented people, or the right to monoipolize the music industry, keeping talented people poor by ignoring them and only cross-marketing a few big names. I would listen to the RIAA more if they respresented the needs of the artists, instead of the greed of a few very rich and disreputable corporations. You folks might not know this but there was a time when the same people tried to force radio stations to sign exclusive contracts with them. They said, wither you only play OUR music, the stuff that we promote, or we will not let you play our music. This did eventually go down in flames in the court system, but they actuall tried it. This is the same crap again. DIsney has been one of the worst offenders on distoring copyright law, and their entire empire is built on taking the works of the Borthers Grimm (free for all to use) and then copyrighting THEIR version of the stories. Snow White does not belong to Disney. It belongs to a couple of dead guys. RCA used the courts to destroy the life of the inventer of FM radio...he eventually won his case, but swimming in debt and living in poverty from court fees he gave up and commited suicide. So a bunch of multi-billion dollar industries, many of which started out by stealing broadcast patents and music from other people, are whining about how they are not rich enough. Maybe I would listen if the artists got more than around 2 cents a CD from these jerks, but they are not good people, they have no ethics and they are (by back room agreemens and the RIAA) are violating competition anti-trust monopoly laws, and using their united monitary clout to sue 16 year old kids, downloading ONE song on the local scool internet connection. Yes stealing is a bad thing...bla bla bla...but the truth is that they would make more money if they dropeed their prices. Lots of independents sell their CDs for less than the big labels do. My music is available for free, and people still constaly ask me for CDs. The availability of MP3s does not cut into CD sales. People buy the CD for the convenience not to need to burn their own, for the better look of the product, etc. Also....people who get CD tracks from online are for the most part, people who have no money to spend on a $20.00 CD, or they would already have done so.
woodhead	Date: May 23, 2004 @ 12:50 AM Copyright is supposed to be about protecting the "right to copy". we are def gonna be buds, My fellings exactly and great post. So many who feel that "sue the downloaders (Not fans? why do they download it? maybe they dont know what they are doing this beats me) for they are stealing" really need to do some research on copy right and the RIAA and bad managment. for example the story of how Willie Nelson had to take his record company to court to get back RED HEADED STRANGER, his lable claimed they owned this record and he had to sue them to get it back so it could be released, (his lable didnt want to release it because he would not give consent to give it the Nashville sound) there fore comes the out law movement, also Billy Joel How much money did he lose, millions for a bad contract sighning that in reality afeter lets say five year time span he should have rec ALL RIGHTS BACK TO HIS TUNES, and still he doesnt, how about Paul McCartney his label sold his tunes to Michael Jackson, HIS LABEL OR WHO EVER HAD CONTROL! So IMHO any one who feels that the RIAA and the current copyright laws needs no reform need to do some research in to this mess. And as for copyright for money, I write tunes simply for the enjoyment of writing tune, not money, if money comes cool but you know what if I wrote a million dollar tune, that ppl loved that would be a legacy, not how much money I made off of it and the fans would be most apreciated, and not int the way Metallica appreciated their fans
ronnie71	Date: May 24, 2004 @ 1:06 AM Look at it this way If you download copyritten works you deserve to get sued... just think for a miniute.... if you get signed... and someone rips your cd, and sticks it onto a p2p network. How are you gonna feel? Man that would great that is a true fan who promotes our music in fact i hope he/she burns it for the thier friends and they have big sharing partys on Saturday nights just like tupperware. I hope everyone brings three friends and those three friends bring three friends. I will givee our CD away on DMusic to anybody who will at least burn ten copies for their friends thats a true friend and fan. YOu say how would you make money? YOu always make money at something you love and spend every moment thinking about.
pancreaspuppet	Date: May 24, 2004 @ 10:20 AM Ok, I agree with freedom to share music, but If you really want to support an artist, you need to spend money on their CDs. The CDs cost money to make, and that money needs to come from somewhere. If your favorite artist makes an awesome album but no-one actually pays for it, you can be pretty sure that they won't be making another album for you to enjoy. They'll more likely be making burgers. Stealing music online is the same as stealing a CD from a music store, and you don't see people rallying saying they should legalise petty theft. I'm not innocent - I steal music too, but if you can't see the negative side of the coin then you are being ignorant.
pancreaspuppet	Date: May 24, 2004 @ 10:29 AM Part 2: On the other hand, when it comes to big labels, its true that the artist gets a real slim cut of the profits anyway, and that the fatcats call the shots, etc. That's fucked. They deserve the damage. In sum, I think steal music if you want to, but when it comes to local & underground acts wh DO need the money, then its ethical to fork out for the enjoyment of their music.
mad-sailor	Date: May 24, 2004 @ 7:31 PM My wife and I used to use Napster and Morpheus (along with some others) to find new music to listen to. Now we don't. My wife has found many bands/DJs she liked thru the P2P programs. Now she can't do that anymore, and we don't even listen to the radio that much anymore, save for "The Studio" show which we download off of the net. For example, she likes this band called Audioslave (or something like that). She never would have found them if she didn't use P2P. Now she has a bunch of their CDs that she bought. So tell me again how P2P doesn't help the artists? Because a few people don't go out and by the album when they only wanted one or two of the songs to begin with? Because P2P is giving other artists a chance and not forcing you to listen to a good band like Metallica constantly turn into shit? Oh that's right, that makes sense. When I want someone to tell me what to listen to or what to like, I'll move to China.
ronnie71	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 7:50 AM well before even record labels were around artist got paid to play... a record is like any promotional advertising maybe not to the labels whose sole income is sellng albums but as an artist. YOu say it takes away from smaller artist. What is cheaper making one million CD's or putting a master on P2P and getting one million downloads. See your problem is you thinking like the old system we are trying to build a new system. I see downloads as advertising of brand and our brand being the band not the music. Music is promotional advertisement. How much do you spend in promotional advertisements to sell your goods and wares? Music Downloads is an invitation to our tupperware party come and join us and tell all your friends about us.
Intergalacti...	Date: May 25, 2004 @ 1:09 PM So its basically a cheap way to make money off of some hot chick? Or guy (if you swing that way)
Azimov	Date: May 26, 2004 @ 4:08 PM I think were all forgetting that capatalism and copyright are our gods and we should all worship them and the people that exploit things that WOULD OTHERWISE WORK IF IT WASN'T FOR PEOPLE LIKE RIAA BA***RDS. Ahhh Hell it makes me to angry to contemplate!
Emoceon	Date: May 26, 2004 @ 6:34 PM the riaa is a club
Emoceon	Date: May 26, 2004 @ 6:34 PM sandwich
pog	Date: May 27, 2004 @ 1:58 AM What the hell ???? Well, that was an informative post
kenlinder	Date: May 30, 2004 @ 11:42 AM How are you gonna feel? 1) popular 2) confused that they are not going to my web site for their free copies 3) like the label is charging 3 times as much for their CDs as they should and deserve the theft, as they are too stupid to realize that lower prices increase their sales and their overall income 4) like an idiot for not going with a small label, who pay better roalties and tend not to screw over the artist as much 5) apathetic, since I would never see a cent from my CD sales anyway. The standard RIAA style contract forces the artist (who gets a couple of cents from each CD sale) to repay every cent of the production costs and promotion of the CD out of their royalties before they see a cent. No other industry acts this way. In the rest of the world, royalties are a percent of the wholesale price, and adversitment and marketing are company overhead and never figure into a persons roayties. It works this way in software and in publishing.
kenlinder	Date: May 30, 2004 @ 12:11 PM Fighting the organization is a waste of time, especially if you're >not even certain of what they really do. They do not affect you >at this stage of the game, and most likely, never will. robin101, you could not be more wrong. As for your "adolescent rebellion guess"...I'm 40. The RIAA does affect us both as consumers of music (the audiance) and as musicians. As the audiance, they effect us in higher prices for CDs, and in the inability to hear the music of countless good musicians (who dont fit the RIAA model of "what will sell"). They (because they are big and have been around a while) have repeatedly tried to blackmail the raidio networks into deal that would keep them from playing any indepentent music....or did you know that? As musicians, recently they tried (and breifly succeeded) in convincing the US congrees to say that a musician with a recording contract is doing "work for hire", which meant that the RIAA was trying to grab the copyrights. Music that is written "for hire" (like most jingles are) are the property of the company. The musican gets paid a one time frr (for jingles it is usually under $200 bucks) and then nothing ever again. As musicians they also keep us out of the big end of music distribution. They, much like the film studios before the big stike in the early 80's, are operating as a cartel. A bit of history here. Back in the 70s actors had the same type of crappy deal that the musicians now have. The studios got all the money and the actors provided the talent and got paid badly (no million dollar contracts in those days). Everyone got fed up with it and the screne actors guild (the union) went on strike for a livable wage. The RIAA does the same thing. All the members offer the same crappy deals, giving musicians (the people who create the product that they sell) have no way to have a real life (family) and a decent income at the same time unless one is a mega star. Because they keep almost all the money from recordings to pay back the cost of production and marketing (often a persons first few gold records will give the artist no money at all), artists are foced to tour endlessly to have any money. Image what your life would be like if you spent most of your life on the road. Your couln't have a devent relationship or a family. Just you, in a motel every night, on the road. They also control the only serious way to get your music distributed....so even if you are good and press a CD on your own (so they can't own it) you still have to get to the radio (and actually played) and to the stores. The fact is that most radio stations play the stuff tht the big boys send them, and ignore the other stuff. Yes you can still get heard (I do) on small stations, college stations, web castingm etc - but it is not the same. THe music will not get heard unless it gets on the radio (they control the promotion methods that get you om the radio) and the CD won't get sold unless the CD gets into the music shops...and they control the distribution chain too. This fact is an odd thing. Most of the time there are antitrust laws that say that you cannot be involved in too many of the elements of an industry. That is why Apple Computer had to fork off a seperate company to write applications, so that the market will be even for other companies writing software. But...in the music business, a music dristubuter here in Australia like "Festival Music" is also "Festival Mushroom Records" and "Festival Recording". This is a small example compared to RCA and Sony. The big boys own everything from the recording studio, to the company the promotes your tunes to the radio, to the distribution chain that gets it into the store...and the get special deals with Ticket Master, so if you want to get heard, chances are that your record company will be in on the concert deal too and take a big piece that that action as well. So...unless you want finance and record your own CD runs, travel the world and go to every radio staion and hand them your bio and a promotion pack in person at a lunch with the stations big wigs, go to every music store in existence by yourself and try and convince them to carry your CD....then you are going to have leran to play one of the handfull of types of music that the big boys will promote....learn to rip off another artists look and sound, move to LA, Nashville or New York and constaly (network) schmooze so that your face will be known to the exeucitives...and it would not hurt if like Miriah Cary you married a vice president." id="101613">at this stage of the game, and most likely, never will. robin101, you could not be more wrong. As for your "adolescent rebellion guess"...I'm 40. The RIAA does affect us both as consumers of music (the audiance) and as musicians. As the audiance, they effect us in higher prices for CDs, and in the inability to hear the music of countless good musicians (who dont fit the RIAA model of "what will sell"). They (because they are big and have been around a while) have repeatedly tried to blackmail the raidio networks into deal that would keep them from playing any indepentent music....or did you know that? As musicians, recently they tried (and breifly succeeded) in convincing the US congrees to say that a musician with a recording contract is doing "work for hire", which meant that the RIAA was trying to grab the copyrights. Music that is written "for hire" (like most jingles are) are the property of the company. The musican gets paid a one time frr (for jingles it is usually under $200 bucks) and then nothing ever again. As musicians they also keep us out of the big end of music distribution. They, much like the film studios before the big stike in the early 80's, are operating as a cartel. A bit of history here. Back in the 70s actors had the same type of crappy deal that the musicians now have. The studios got all the money and the actors provided the talent and got paid badly (no million dollar contracts in those days). Everyone got fed up with it and the screne actors guild (the union) went on strike for a livable wage. The RIAA does the same thing. All the members offer the same crappy deals, giving musicians (the people who create the product that they sell) have no way to have a real life (family) and a decent income at the same time unless one is a mega star. Because they keep almost all the money from recordings to pay back the cost of production and marketing (often a persons first few gold records will give the artist no money at all), artists are foced to tour endlessly to have any money. Image what your life would be like if you spent most of your life on the road. Your couln't have a devent relationship or a family. Just you, in a motel every night, on the road. They also control the only serious way to get your music distributed....so even if you are good and press a CD on your own (so they can't own it) you still have to get to the radio (and actually played) and to the stores. The fact is that most radio stations play the stuff tht the big boys send them, and ignore the other stuff. Yes you can still get heard (I do) on small stations, college stations, web castingm etc - but it is not the same. THe music will not get heard unless it gets on the radio (they control the promotion methods that get you om the radio) and the CD won't get sold unless the CD gets into the music shops...and they control the distribution chain too. This fact is an odd thing. Most of the time there are antitrust laws that say that you cannot be involved in too many of the elements of an industry. That is why Apple Computer had to fork off a seperate company to write applications, so that the market will be even for other companies writing software. But...in the music business, a music dristubuter here in Australia like "Festival Music" is also "Festival Mushroom Records" and "Festival Recording". This is a small example compared to RCA and Sony. The big boys own everything from the recording studio, to the company the promotes your tunes to the radio, to the distribution chain that gets it into the store...and the get special deals with Ticket Master, so if you want to get heard, chances are that your record company will be in on the concert deal too and take a big piece that that action as well. So...unless you want finance and record your own CD runs, travel the world and go to every radio staion and hand them your bio and a promotion pack in person at a lunch with the stations big wigs, go to every music store in existence by yourself and try and convince them to carry your CD....then you are going to have leran to play one of the handfull of types of music that the big boys will promote....learn to rip off another artists look and sound, move to LA, Nashville or New York and constaly (network) schmooze so that your face will be known to the exeucitives...and it would not hurt if like Miriah Cary you married a vice president.
ChillinBuzz	Date: May 30, 2004 @ 2:11 PM never forgetting the indie roots in my musical history. play them at their own game or screw them, either way they're gonna keep "winning" until the bottom falls out their plans, by which point it will be too late for most of them to recover.
dennytate	Date: May 30, 2004 @ 4:05 PM ROCK ON
dmal97531	Date: June 1, 2004 @ 7:37 AM After reading all this i still dont know what the RIAA is..
mad-sailor	Date: June 1, 2004 @ 3:49 PM Well... Technically, it is an association that the major music production companies join. Together, they own (let's just say) most of the radio and record stores, and are able to act as one company. This way, they can make monopolistic policies and over-price on everything they sell. Oh, but they are in it for the artist...
pog	Date: June 19, 2004 @ 9:12 AM Here's a comprehensive list :leopard:" id="103831">It's companies like Sony, EMI, Warner Bros... Here's a comprehensive list
starseven	Date: June 20, 2004 @ 2:04 PM they are the peopel that give you the pretty gold and platnuim records... i think they do other stuff but who cares -=SHINY STUFF!!!!!!!!=-
pog	Date: June 21, 2004 @ 1:22 AM ...which is all good and well, if you're a bowerbird
undefined22	Date: September 9, 2004 @ 10:33 PM What I can't understand is why all you hardcore anti-RIAAers can't listen to the music and shut the hell up. Who cares?! If you really love music, then why can't you just enjoy it without having to make an enormous fuss about what goes on behind the scenes? The last CDs I bought were on Sony, Warner and Columbia (I paid A$50 for all three). I don't care about how someone's getting paid two cents more than they should be. All three albums kick ass and that's all that matters. And for the curious, they were Cradle of Filth - Damnation and a Day, Barenaked Ladies - Maybe You Should Drive and Miles Davis - Birth of the Cool.
wet1	Date: September 16, 2004 @ 4:59 AM What is the RIAA? It is a group that has been put together as a sort of Political Action Committee for the benefit of the major music labels. They basically do their best to influance the laws affecting the music company and have a very persistant lobby effort. while that is one thing they do it is not all. They also go after Joe Blow who is sharing music and violating the majors copy write. The RIAA itself holds no copy writes that I know of. They have been given the authority to chase the violators by each of the majors. The RIAA acts as sort of a lightning rod, drawing the ire to those that don't like them. That keeps the majors hands looking clean. Don't be fooled, they are acting on the behalf of the majors and get their marching orders from them. Undefined22, you didn't feel that 16 bucks for a cd was not a bit expensive? The thing about being vocal against the RIAA is that if you keep silent about the acts and the influances they are trying to pull off, one day you will wake up and find that every time you listen to a song you will have to pay them. That song could just be Happy Birthday. Or maybe you agree that it is cool to buy a cd that only plays that song on your birthday instead of when you would like to listen to it. Sound far fetched? Don't bet on it not coming to a store near you soon.
undefined22	Date: September 16, 2004 @ 9:43 AM "Undefined22, you didn't feel that 16 bucks for a cd was not a bit expensive? " I got DAAD and BOTC for $15 each at Dragonfly Discs in Melbourne. Bargain, I'd say. $20 for MYSD at JB Hifi. Bargain again. $35-40, now that's expensive (which is, unfortunately, what I got Gatecrasher Resident Transmission 2 for). But keep in mind that there's a difference between overcharging and charging a high price. "The thing about being vocal against the RIAA is that if you keep silent about the acts and the influances they are trying to pull off, one day you will wake up and find that every time you listen to a song you will have to pay them." That's going a little far, don't you think? EVERY time you hit play? Besides, I love music enough to do anything to able to access it. Which is why I don't bitch about CD prices. BTW, I have to wonder why people get so mad at labels for doing what they have a right and responsibility to. People who share unauthorised duplicates are violating sound recording copyright. The label, as holder of said sound recording copyright, are more than entitled to see action taken. Why is this concept so hard to grasp? Anyway, I don't really care which group you guys lump me in with. All I know is that every minute spent arguing is a minute that wasn't spent looking for new music.
wet1	Date: September 16, 2004 @ 1:52 PM Hmmm, how do I say this? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. You feel as you do for your own reasons. It doesn't mean I can't say mine in hopes of changing your feelings. That does not mean you belong in some classification or group. It only means you don't agree for your own thoughts. Lordy, if everyone thought that folks all had to think and feel just alike we would be in a world of trouble. It is enough that you like music. Something that speaks to the soul. That your favorites are not my favorites is of no matter. Only that you like music is of importance. (Of course very few don't like music in some form.) Pay to play is not to far fetched if you keep up with what is going on. Seems they are headed in that direction slowly, IMHO.
billrhynes	Date: September 17, 2004 @ 10:09 PM I don't know about all this, but I happen respect Avril Levigne for being a dedicated, uncompromising artiste who would never subject her art to such corporate, pre-fab mass-marketing bubble-gum-like music vending. her music is a testament to the unknown artists and coffehouse songwriters everywhere who slave away, day and night to create music of the purest........
povertystricken	Date: September 20, 2004 @ 7:59 PM Recording Industry Association of America = Pure Evil Music Dictators
popdem	Date: October 5, 2004 @ 7:17 PM The RIAA is the trade group for the world's five big labels, including AOL Time Warner Inc., EMI Group Plc, Bertelsmann AG, Vivendi Universal's Universal Music and Sony Corp.
azhazhellfire	Date: October 15, 2004 @ 8:00 PM undefined22: We basically just don't want a world where corporations own art. Most of the world operates in business. If there is an opportunity to make more money even if the morality of that opportunity is questionable, most corporations would take it. And within certain boundaries (those boundaries being crossed by some corporations such as microsoft) that's fine. it's the way business works. but i (and i hope we) believe that music shouldn't be a shallow business opportunity. because that cheapens the whole idea of music and often puts a cap on factors such as time allowed for composition, where and when the music can be played and so on. music should instead be an expression of emotions through artistic talent.
plungerboy	Date: October 16, 2004 @ 5:48 PM i agree with azhazhellfire. Music should be enjoyed by anyone blessed with hearing
AdilC	Date: January 18, 2005 @ 5:43 AM Orrybreaker "Riaa is a corparations that hire modles to sing songs that they write or buy, after puting the modles on tv and make that modles famous. They then sell cd to the millions of teens being that don't know what real music is." So true..
Hatsy	Date: February 27, 2005 @ 1:03 PM Corporation Giants are squeezing the lifeblood out of creativity & ignoring newcomers with lots of talent. Thank God for dmusic. It is the same in the - mainstream radio is more or less controlled by one massive ugly brain centre, ensuring that the signed artists get plenty of air space, (often as much as 10 plays per day on some programmes) whilst the little people, equally, if not more talented have to wait on the sidelines for the break bus that never comes. It stinks I say twice, thank God for this site and mp3 generally.
Hatsy	Date: February 27, 2005 @ 2:28 PM I will tinker with my first line there - they are squeezing the lifeblood only in that they prefer not to release new material, instead they re-release tired compilations of music we have heard a million times and re-hash 'celebrity' material that has had its day over many times. So boring and unfair.
Nutjob	Date: February 27, 2005 @ 3:35 PM The RIAA is my father and the Catholic Church is my mother.
BOWILLIE	Date: February 27, 2005 @ 11:13 PM hmmm...the riaa considers indi.artists illigit....so..i guess were all bastards...in the eyes of the riaa.the problem with those swelled headed idiots have been brewing for decades and unsigned indi. artists like myself have just recently found a tool to defy those assholes.what gives them the right to dictate what is allowed to be offered to listeners around the world. ive pissed myself off! ill never buy a major label recording again..
Hatsy	Date: February 28, 2005 @ 4:42 AM There is better music here at Dmusic
GreatGooglyM...	Date: March 1, 2005 @ 11:04 AM About the downloading discussion above... I agree that true fans will buy the cd's not download the tracks. I'm personally against the whole downloading thing and I'm glad that someone chases those people who download copyrighted music. Eventhough artists are not in this business for money, they have to make their living from somewhere.
Hatsy	Date: March 1, 2005 @ 11:53 AM I totally agree with downloading songs that are offered as free downloads, how else are any of us without record deals ever going to attract listeners? Without mp3 we are invisible/voiceless. And I can't say I am exactly crying into my boots over the downloads that escape from corporation strangleholds either, if they woke up to the here & now they would realize they have to give a little back to the people who buy their artists music,(and make them rich.) Most people will buy an album if they have sampled it and like it, even if you have downloaded the whole album it is never the same as having the packaged product with sleeve notes on your shelf. Most albums today are over priced in shops, free samples are the way ahead & I am afraid the giants of the business are burying their heads in the sand to the new way music is being distributed because of their insatiable greed. The exploitation of music pitched to youth buyers is as overpriced as it is for AOR, this is mainly to pay the many, many middle men along the way who have a hand in the overfilling money pot. There is a world swell of new original music being created with the use of home studios & pc's, I am sure they would like this to stop tomorrow too, they do not want more opportunity for all, they want every part of the music business to remain under their control, & every door open for the elite, whilst the rest of us have to use every free tool available. I personally would rather give our work away or sell some of it for a reasonable price if there was a market waiting, and as for being part of the greed machine no thank you. They will try every trick in the book to tell us that downloading is an evil pastime. Wrong. It is fair to share. I also think a few million (in a lot of cases) is quite enough for one human being to earn in a lifetime. If the business was shaken up & some of the profits were spent on support projects in schools & live venues there would be new life breathed into a long dead behemoth that divides music creators in all their glory into two halves.
Pablo453	Date: March 16, 2005 @ 11:23 AM Well said. I hate greed!
Pablo453	Date: March 16, 2005 @ 11:43 AM I haven't heard of too many major money making artists forced to live on my level of poverty just because someone stole their stuff. Sure stealing is wrong, but who's stealing from w