Author Topic: Recording Industry Developments  (Read 5494 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline FrChris

  • The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
  • Site Supporter
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,253
Recording Industry Developments
« on: December 31, 2007, 02:43:32 PM »
Wow! The music industry is preparing to argue that a copy of a CD cannot be made on a PC for your own private use.

I wonder how they would enforce this concept?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

Despite more than 20,000 lawsuits filed against music fans in the years since they started finding free tunes online rather than buying CDs from record companies, the recording industry has utterly failed to halt the decline of the record album or the rise of digital music sharing.

Still, hardly a month goes by without a news release from the industry's lobby, the Recording Industry Association of America, touting a new wave of letters to college students and others demanding a settlement payment and threatening a legal battle.

Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

RIAA's hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."

They're not kidding. In October, after a trial in Minnesota -- the first time the industry has made its case before a federal jury -- Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $220,000 to the big record companies. That's $9,250 for each of 24 songs she was accused of sharing online.

Whether customers may copy their CDs onto their computers -- an act at the very heart of the digital revolution -- has a murky legal foundation, the RIAA argues. The industry's own Web site says that making a personal copy of a CD that you bought legitimately may not be a legal right, but it "won't usually raise concerns," as long as you don't give away the music or lend it to anyone.

Of course, that's exactly what millions of people do every day. In a Los Angeles Times poll, 69 percent of teenagers surveyed said they thought it was legal to copy a CD they own and give it to a friend. The RIAA cites a study that found that more than half of current college students download music and movies illegally.

The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal. At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said.

But lawyers for consumers point to a series of court rulings over the last few decades that found no violation of copyright law in the use of VCRs and other devices to time-shift TV programs; that is, to make personal copies for the purpose of making portable a legally obtained recording.

As technologies evolve, old media companies tend not to be the source of the innovation that allows them to survive. Even so, new technologies don't usually kill off old media: That's the good news for the recording industry, as for the TV, movie, newspaper and magazine businesses. But for those old media to survive, they must adapt, finding new business models and new, compelling content to offer.

The RIAA's legal crusade against its customers is a classic example of an old media company clinging to a business model that has collapsed. Four years of a failed strategy has only "created a whole market of people who specifically look to buy independent goods so as not to deal with the big record companies," Beckerman says. "Every problem they're trying to solve is worse now than when they started."

The industry "will continue to bring lawsuits" against those who "ignore years of warnings," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said in a statement. "It's not our first choice, but it's a necessary part of the equation. There are consequences for breaking the law." And, perhaps, for firing up your computer.

« Last Edit: December 31, 2007, 02:44:18 PM by FrChris »
"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,262
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2007, 03:07:35 PM »
Well, I'm in violation, right now, burning another 50 CDs to my hard drive.  Come after me, Record Companies!  I dare you!
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline Entscheidungsproblem

  • Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,492
    • Amsterdam Declaration 2002
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2007, 03:13:19 PM »
Unbelievable.   ::)  So does that mean if you legally download a CD and then make a backup copy of the files, you are doing something illegal as well?  I would love to see the RIAA try and curve ripping CDs, LoL!   :laugh:
As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

Offline GreekChef

  • Prez
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 884
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2007, 03:40:35 PM »
How do they apply this to the millions of people who rip cd's to play on their ipods?  What's the point of having an ipod if you have to buy all the music you already have again???!!!!  These things are for convenience's sake, not to intentionally break the law!  I play most of my cd's by ripping them into itunes and playing them on my computer.  I do this so that my cd drive is then free for other things, like burning a data disk, etc.  You can't tell me that I have to pay TWICE for every song that I have, so that I can play it in different places! 

I would argue that if they are going to play this game, then every cd should only be played in one player, every cassette in one boom box, every 8 track in one player, and so on.  That will never fly.  Their technology is not keeping up with computers, and now their ticked off.  Too bad.  I'm not paying twice for everything.  That's just ridiculous and greedy.
Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,262
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2007, 04:00:09 PM »
I would argue that if they are going to play this game, then every cd should only be played in one player, every cassette in one boom box, every 8 track in one player, and so on.  That will never fly.  Their technology is not keeping up with computers, and now their ticked off.  Too bad.  I'm not paying twice for everything.  That's just ridiculous and greedy.

And a desperate attempt to control what's left of their monopoly.  They can't face it that record labels are now a thing of the past and so many more artists and new artists are putting their stuff for free or for less directly on the internet through youtube and myspace.  If anything, I think more people will put more on the internet and distribute their own CDs than ever before and the record labels will go broke trying to put a stop to it through fancy legal maneuvering.  The crap will really hit the fan when the feds decide to intervene...on the record labels' side!  I hope that won't happen.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,204
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2007, 04:35:19 PM »
It really is a sham, but it is logical - greed seeking to protect it's potential income. 
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline ytterbiumanalyst

  • Professor Emeritus, CSA
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,785
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2007, 10:50:21 PM »
You can't tell me that I have to pay TWICE for every song that I have, so that I can play it in different places!
Sure I can. A CD player and a record player. Again, they're clinging to an old business model, just like the movie industry is when they told us that we had to pay $20 more to play the movies we already have because now they're digital (the "d" part of DVD)--and now are expanding to tell us that we must pay another $30 because now they're in high-definition. Why should I buy the same movie three times just because Big Film tells me this is the super-duper-whoopdie-do edition?

Quote
I would argue that if they are going to play this game, then every cd should only be played in one player, every cassette in one boom box, every 8 track in one player, and so on.  That will never fly.  Their technology is not keeping up with computers, and now their ticked off.  Too bad.  I'm not paying twice for everything.  That's just ridiculous and greedy.
Sounds like the computer game industry. Restrictions on how many times you can install a game before your product key goes null (BioShock most recently added this "feature"), ridiculous requirements to have the disc in the drive at all times (even if you've loaded every file to your hard drive, as is commonplace these days), and even spyware that must be in place for your game to work (SecuROM anyone?).
 
Maybe I should just play my own instruments and write my own programs. I'll have to get out my old Video Basic manual....
"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Offline EofK

  • Mrs. Y
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,976
  • lolcat addict
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2008, 11:30:06 AM »
Maybe I should just play my own instruments and write my own programs. I'll have to get out my old Video Basic manual....

There's an idea for you.  Back to the days of Pa Ingalls and the fiddle!  Yay.  Seriously, though, the they're just pounding the last nail in the coffin of the record industry.  I agree with Presbytera here:  This is incredibly greedy.  I would just as soon buy music online than have to jump through all the hoops just to get a cd to play.  Ridiculous.
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. -- Douglas Adams

Offline Bono Vox

  • The Orthodox Bagpiper
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,620
Another Outlandish Move By The Music Industry
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2008, 12:12:20 PM »
The Record Companies are at it again. They now want to sue people who download music they purchased legally from CDs on to their computer. Check it out.








By Marc Fisher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 30, 2007; Page M05

Despite more than 20,000 lawsuits filed against music fans in the years since they started finding free tunes online rather than buying CDs from record companies, the recording industry has utterly failed to halt the decline of the record album or the rise of digital music sharing.

Still, hardly a month goes by without a news release from the industry's lobby, the Recording Industry Association of America, touting a new wave of letters to college students and others demanding a settlement payment and threatening a legal battle.

Now, in an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.

"I couldn't believe it when I read that," says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. "The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation."

RIAA's hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages."

They're not kidding. In October, after a trial in Minnesota -- the first time the industry has made its case before a federal jury -- Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $220,000 to the big record companies. That's $9,250 for each of 24 songs she was accused of sharing online.
ad_icon

Whether customers may copy their CDs onto their computers -- an act at the very heart of the digital revolution -- has a murky legal foundation, the RIAA argues. The industry's own Web site says that making a personal copy of a CD that you bought legitimately may not be a legal right, but it "won't usually raise concerns," as long as you don't give away the music or lend it to anyone.

Of course, that's exactly what millions of people do every day. In a Los Angeles Times poll, 69 percent of teenagers surveyed said they thought it was legal to copy a CD they own and give it to a friend. The RIAA cites a study that found that more than half of current college students download music and movies illegally.

The Howell case was not the first time the industry has argued that making a personal copy from a legally purchased CD is illegal. At the Thomas trial in Minnesota, Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said.

But lawyers for consumers point to a series of court rulings over the last few decades that found no violation of copyright law in the use of VCRs and other devices to time-shift TV programs; that is, to make personal copies for the purpose of making portable a legally obtained recording.

As technologies evolve, old media companies tend not to be the source of the innovation that allows them to survive. Even so, new technologies don't usually kill off old media: That's the good news for the recording industry, as for the TV, movie, newspaper and magazine businesses. But for those old media to survive, they must adapt, finding new business models and new, compelling content to offer.

The RIAA's legal crusade against its customers is a classic example of an old media company clinging to a business model that has collapsed. Four years of a failed strategy has only "created a whole market of people who specifically look to buy independent goods so as not to deal with the big record companies," Beckerman says. "Every problem they're trying to solve is worse now than when they started."

The industry "will continue to bring lawsuits" against those who "ignore years of warnings," RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy said in a statement. "It's not our first choice, but it's a necessary part of the equation. There are consequences for breaking the law." And, perhaps, for firing up your computer.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

Merged OB's post with the already existing topic on the same article.
Veniamin
« Last Edit: January 01, 2008, 12:22:54 PM by Veniamin »
Troparion - Tone 1:
O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,204
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2008, 12:24:11 PM »
Sure I can. A CD player and a record player. Again, they're clinging to an old business model, just like the movie industry is when they told us that we had to pay $20 more to play the movies we already have because now they're digital (the "d" part of DVD)--and now are expanding to tell us that we must pay another $30 because now they're in high-definition. Why should I buy the same movie three times just because Big Film tells me this is the super-duper-whoopdie-do edition? 

Well, while you're right that they're clinging to an old business model, I don't know if your example is exactly the same.  mp3 and CD are different formats, but essentially what we're doing is copying the DVD movie to our computer so we can carry all 50 of our collection with us on vacation and see them whenever we want.  Or it's like burning all my old VHS movies to DVD so they take up less space.  Would the film industry make the same claim, that it shouldn't be done?
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline GreekChef

  • Prez
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 884
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2008, 12:37:03 PM »
Well, while you're right that they're clinging to an old business model, I don't know if your example is exactly the same.  mp3 and CD are different formats, but essentially what we're doing is copying the DVD movie to our computer so we can carry all 50 of our collection with us on vacation and see them whenever we want.  Or it's like burning all my old VHS movies to DVD so they take up less space.  Would the film industry make the same claim, that it shouldn't be done?

An excellent point, my friend!
Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.
Matthew 18:5

Offline livefreeordie

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #11 on: January 02, 2008, 11:36:43 PM »
Being a musician myself, I get very frustrated when people herald the fall of record companies and the rise of free downloads.  The result is only that fewer and fewer people are able to make a living in music, and I don't mean rock stars.  I mean engineers, session musicians, record label staff, and everyone from the top down.  People thinking music should be free in the end only hurts musicians, makes labels less likely to invest in quality acts and more likely to invest in easily marketable teen music, and brings the whole industry down from the biggest rock star to a musician in a club playing for free and unable to sell any CDs because people want to download them for free on myspace.  While record companies have treated artists very unfairly, the idea that music should be downloaded and shared for free is nothing but pure greed on the part of the consumer.  Any other motives just obscure the fact that most people engage in this practice for one reason, greed. They could care less that while FREE music potentially gives artists exposure, in reality the artist makes no money, gets out of the business, and the quality of music suffers.  You can buy almost any CD now for $10, you can download the song from itunes for .99.  DO IT!  The next time you rip a song for free remember, you hurt the artist  just as bad as the record company. 

Offline scamandrius

  • A man of many, many turns
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,262
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: DOWAMA of AANA
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #12 on: January 02, 2008, 11:46:06 PM »
Being a musician myself, I get very frustrated when people herald the fall of record companies and the rise of free downloads.   The next time you rip a song for free remember, you hurt the artist  just as bad as the record company. 

LFOD,

I'm a musician, too.  I was in several bands years ago and now I just play around when I can with whomever I can find.  THe bands I was in never cut an album, though we did record some of our stuff and marketed it at gigs we had and with some success.  We never expected to make it big or rich. But we did have some success with our little operation without the need for a label. At the same time, we were always trying to find new sources for inspiration.  All of us had different specific musical interests and we created some weird fusion, but, for the most part, it was straight up hard rock/heavy metal.  The interesting thing is that the people who are labeled by the record labels as pirates feeding off of the income of these musicians are the very same people who are actually buying these CDs in the first place.  So, no one is really going out of business with this.

But with record labels going after private individuals who rip songs onto their computers from their own CDs or ones that their friends bought and loaned out to them is simply going way too far in the name of protecting "Musicians' rights."  I think that was the main point of the article originally posted. Just mho.
Da quod iubes et iube quod vis.

Offline livefreeordie

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2008, 12:59:06 AM »
But with record labels going after private individuals who rip songs onto their computers from their own CDs or ones that their friends bought and loaned out to them is simply going way too far in the name of protecting "Musicians' rights."  I think that was the main point of the article originally posted. Just mho.

It's extreme and won't work.  But they are desperate and aren't really left with any options unless they put authentication codes in all music. Why, because people are buying less and less CDs because they don't need to, why, because they choose to steal the music.  The root of downloading etc, is simply, "this is so easy to do and everyone does it, don't bother me with the legalities and just let me do it.  I won't worry about the musicians because it's the record companies fault for all of this anyway."

Great albums like A Night at the Opera, Born to Run, Sgt. Peppers, could not be made today.  It's not because there are less talented people, it's because bands don't have time to develop their skills and they aren't given the time in the studio surrounded by talented individuals.  Everything is done very quickly and very processed because budgets have gotten so tight.  I went to school in Nashville and have lots of friends in the record business.  They are all music lovers.  They all want to make great albums.  But they can't. Why, because people steal music.  We can argue whether music should be free or not, but unless the artist gives you permission to have it for free, it's stealing.

I'm not a fan of the record labels, they have brought this ill will upon themselves.  But nobody ever seems to think through the consequences of illegal downloading and file sharing.  There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a few months back where Wal-Mart was discussing severely cutting back on the floor space for CDs to the point of getting rid of the shelf space altogether.  The square footage just didn't generate enough revenue. The article speculated that if this happened, most record labels would go away, there would be no model where they could make money.  If this happens, no money will be put into musicians any longer and popular music will be dead.  All because people wanted music for free. And that's not a good thing.

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2008, 03:30:10 AM »
Being a musician myself, I get very frustrated when people herald the fall of record companies and the rise of free downloads.  The result is only that fewer and fewer people are able to make a living in music, and I don't mean rock stars.  I mean engineers, session musicians, record label staff, and everyone from the top down.  People thinking music should be free in the end only hurts musicians, makes labels less likely to invest in quality acts and more likely to invest in easily marketable teen music, and brings the whole industry down from the biggest rock star to a musician in a club playing for free and unable to sell any CDs because people want to download them for free on myspace.  While record companies have treated artists very unfairly, the idea that music should be downloaded and shared for free is nothing but pure greed on the part of the consumer.  Any other motives just obscure the fact that most people engage in this practice for one reason, greed. They could care less that while FREE music potentially gives artists exposure, in reality the artist makes no money, gets out of the business, and the quality of music suffers.  You can buy almost any CD now for $10, you can download the song from itunes for .99.  DO IT!  The next time you rip a song for free remember, you hurt the artist  just as bad as the record company. 

I hosted encrypted servers for a while (especially in undergrad school) dealing out free copies of various types of crap music. I hated almost all of it and deleted it as soon as soon as enough other seeds took over. There are about three Country Music artists today that I like, and I only like about 10% of their songs, every other artist I know of can go bankrupt and I couldn't care less; and, quite frankly, if they're going to ally theselves with the RIAA, they deserve it. Until another Johnny Cash comes around, I won't be shedding any tears.

The free flow of information is far more important than the future of music; let people produce music because they love it, not because they want to make a dollar off of it, and we'll probably have better quality stuff. Heck, it's not possible that we'd have any worse crap out there.

Offline Psalti Boy

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 842
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2008, 06:10:03 AM »
So I guess I can't "loan" any CD I buy at Wal Mart to my kids.  It may look like I'm "sharing".   :-\

Uh oh!  What if I let someone listen to the radio in my car/  Is that "sharing".   :-\

Maybe someone should tell them "everything" belongs to God.  I don't think He would mind "sharing".

PB

Offline livefreeordie

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2008, 07:32:45 PM »
So help me understand your position.  Are you saying that if something can be turned into electronic information it should be free to whomever wants it?  Books are being digitized, internet speeds are allowing movie file sharing and software sharing.  If this is your logic, are you saying that eventually all media/information should be free?  Is that a good thing?


The free flow of information is far more important than the future of music; let people produce music because they love it, not because they want to make a dollar off of it, and we'll probably have better quality stuff. Heck, it's not possible that we'd have any worse crap out there.

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2008, 03:00:23 AM »
So help me understand your position.  Are you saying that if something can be turned into electronic information it should be free to whomever wants it?  Books are being digitized, internet speeds are allowing movie file sharing and software sharing.  If this is your logic, are you saying that eventually all media/information should be free?  Is that a good thing?

Essentially, yes; if it can be recorded as a sytem of 1's and 0's, the free transfer of the information is tantamount to the freedom of speech. You cannot 'own' the ordering of binary digits, or of any number. If you can, I think I'm going to file a copyright claim to the numbers from 1 to 100, anytime you use them you have to pay me a royality. It's nonsense and it's time for the recording artists and record companies to come up with a different business model than copyrighting numbers.

Offline Νεκτάριος

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,437
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2008, 03:24:16 AM »
Essentially, yes; if it can be recorded as a sytem of 1's and 0's, the free transfer of the information is tantamount to the freedom of speech. You cannot 'own' the ordering of binary digits, or of any number. If you can, I think I'm going to file a copyright claim to the numbers from 1 to 100, anytime you use them you have to pay me a royality. It's nonsense and it's time for the recording artists and record companies to come up with a different business model than copyrighting numbers.

I definitely agree that the recording industry and other related industries need to change their business model  or risk becoming irrelevant due to market forces.  Still, a look at societies that have either no intellectual property rights or simply don't enforce them might cause one to pause.  While there is certainly some problems in the way in which intellectual property rights are handled in the developed world, I'm not sure the complete eradication of such wouldn't simply create more problems.           

Offline livefreeordie

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #19 on: January 04, 2008, 02:29:00 PM »
I take it you abhor a free market and all capitalism.  And how is "Freedom of Speech" tantamount to "I should be able to have you creative speech and works for free"?

Essentially, yes; if it can be recorded as a sytem of 1's and 0's, the free transfer of the information is tantamount to the freedom of speech. You cannot 'own' the ordering of binary digits, or of any number. If you can, I think I'm going to file a copyright claim to the numbers from 1 to 100, anytime you use them you have to pay me a royality. It's nonsense and it's time for the recording artists and record companies to come up with a different business model than copyrighting numbers.

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #20 on: January 04, 2008, 02:36:49 PM »
I take it you abhor a free market and all capitalism.

Actually I strongly support it, a market so free that there is no or minimal government intervention even on matters of copyright. You seem to want the government to use force to grant you a monopoly, that is not capitalism. In a capitalist system if someone figures out how to sell or a distribute a product, even one you developed, for less money than you can, they are the ones who should be favoured by the market. Government mandated monopolies are an element of socialist economics.

Quote
And how is "Freedom of Speech" tantamount to "I should be able to have you creative speech and works for free"?

All it is is a number, a series of 1's and 0's, the freedom to use and freely distribute any number you desire without having the government restrict the use of them should be rather fundamental to free speech.

Offline username!

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,090
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #21 on: January 04, 2008, 04:59:29 PM »
Remember, the Other topics forum isn't for debate. 

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #22 on: January 04, 2008, 05:23:31 PM »
Remember, the Other topics forum isn't for debate. 

There are discussions on OC.net which arn't debate?

Offline username!

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,090
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2008, 05:50:00 PM »
Just a note that the Other topics forum
 is a spot for light debate.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2008, 05:52:23 PM by username! »

Offline livefreeordie

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2008, 07:15:33 PM »
Yes, but a free market also means people can price their goods however they want.  They shouldn't be forced to give it away for free.  You seem to be advocating anything other than a free market, you seem to want to force all music, movies, software, and other media that can be digitized and turned into a series of 1's and 0's as you put it to be free to whomever wants it.  There is nothing free about forcing musicians or anyone else to give away their product for free. And when people download copywrited material that the creator expected to be paid for, that is what they do, they take the freedom of the creator of that work.  All in the name of freedom, all in reality because of individual greed.  I want what I want for free.

Actually I strongly support it, a market so free that there is no or minimal government intervention even on matters of copyright. You seem to want the government to use force to grant you a monopoly, that is not capitalism. In a capitalist system if someone figures out how to sell or a distribute a product, even one you developed, for less money than you can, they are the ones who should be favoured by the market. Government mandated monopolies are an element of socialist economics.

All it is is a number, a series of 1's and 0's, the freedom to use and freely distribute any number you desire without having the government restrict the use of them should be rather fundamental to free speech.

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2008, 08:57:57 PM »
Yes, but a free market also means people can price their goods however they want.  They shouldn't be forced to give it away for free.  You seem to be advocating anything other than a free market, you seem to want to force all music, movies, software, and other media that can be digitized and turned into a series of 1's and 0's as you put it to be free to whomever wants it.

I'm doing no such thing, they can sell copies of this music/movie/software/etc. at whatever price they want from one cent to a million dollars and beyond. What I'm saying is that they cannot have a government enforced monopoly making them the ONLY person who can sale this information, this number. Anyone who wants to can sell this number for any price they so choose. In the end, THEY don't get to set the price, no INDIVIDUAL sets the price, the price is set by the supply and demand forces of the market. SOME consumers may want to pay $20 for a CD, others may not want to do as much and may decide to acquire the information for the price of their bandwidth (it's never completely free because some medium has to be used to transfer the data and the use of any media is the use of a resource, generally paid for in currency by one party or another).

So, I have no intention of telling these people they cannot sell these products at the price they choose, I only intend to break their claim to monopoly, their claim that they can circumvent the restraints of a free market and dictate to said market the price of the goods.

Quote
There is nothing free about forcing musicians or anyone else to give away their product for free. And when people download copywrited material that the creator expected to be paid for, that is what they do, they take the freedom of the creator of that work.

I'm not forcing them to do anything, but if they digitialize information and distribute this it becomes freely available. They are free not to distribute their product at all or to not distribute it in a digitalized format and only present it in closed concerts where recording devices are not allowed. What I will not allow them to do is use monopolistic practices and undermine my freedom to distribute any information I wish. In the end, these people need to find a different business model that does not conflict with the free flow of information, because the latter is far more important than their personal greed and economic interests.

Quote
All in the name of freedom, all in reality because of individual greed.  I want what I want for free.

Greed? 99% of the information I have freely distributed is stuff I wouldn't have listened to or used if it were given to me by the artist themself. It was crap, granted it highly sought after by many, but I couldn't stand it. I wouldn't even listen to it, only scan through it to ensure the digital quality of the information so I knew I wasn't distributing a poor quality product (audio quality that is, I knew that there were no redeeming qualities to the music itself). The only motivation I have ever had for this is the freedom of information and the undermining of the RIAA government-instituted monopoly on information.

Most Music I listen to I purchased; mind you, since the people I tend to listen to are not associated with RIAA in anyway I don't really have any ethical problems with purchasing their product and I'm generally more than happy to support them, their stuff is often hard to find for free online (it's often hard to find CD's to buy) and I personally choose not to distribute most this online even though I personally know that many would not object to it (or are long dead) and do not even attempt to encrypt their music.

Offline livefreeordie

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2008, 02:56:26 AM »
Considering the joy you seem to take in exhibiting your superior knowledge, debate skills, and overall intellectual superiority.  I would wager to guess Henry Rollins must be in your collection!   ;)

And I don't know if the long dead musicians you listen to are blues musicians, but if so, one of the best trips I ever took was to Clarksdale Mississippi and the blues museum there.  They have original blues recordings on vinyl you can listen to in sound rooms for free, or at least they were free when I was there.

In spite of your cynicism, you are a funny guy.  You say, "So, I have not intention of telling people they cannot sell these products at the price they choose," no you just intend to encourage people to steal there product and work!   ;)

I couldn't end the thread without using your favored smiley face at least twice.


Most Music I listen to I purchased; mind you, since the people I tend to listen to are not associated with RIAA in anyway I don't really have any ethical problems with purchasing their product and I'm generally more than happy to support them, their stuff is often hard to find for free online (it's often hard to find CD's to buy) and I personally choose not to distribute most this online even though I personally know that many would not object to it (or are long dead) and do not even attempt to encrypt their music.

Offline FrChris

  • The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
  • Site Supporter
  • Taxiarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,253
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2008, 01:12:10 PM »

In spite of your cynicism, you are a funny guy. 


You've hit the nail on the head there, Livefreeordie!

(great name, btw!)
"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

Offline username!

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,090
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2008, 08:49:10 PM »
Since I moved this here, I'm going to say my piece.

I'm a musician.  I've played drums since I was in pre-kindergarten, had lessons for 10 years.  I play guitar and bass as well.  When my brother and I were in Jazz band in middle school I could play the music we played on his trumpet.  I have taken piano lessons as well.   I've played in bands as well, and often miss it.

I obviously don't know the ins and outs like some people do in regards to the record business and the economy of the record business. 

When the steel mill shuts down, the coal, limestone, and iron ore mines suffer.  Then they shut down.
The railroaders loose jobs because they don't have that ore/coal to haul/nor the finished product.
The barge operators who float the raw material to the mills also loose out.
When the steel mill shuts down, then the employees can't go to say and buy a washing machine.
Then the store loses, and that guy loses his job.  See, it's all a part of each other.

Maybe the answer rests in having the engineers, the producers, etc.. in the music industry re-invent themselves.  They still can be in the business of music, but in a re-structure industry.

There are A LOT of pop stars out there that are put on display for their "looks."  It costs a lot of money to record them, tour them and clean up their law-suits.  Maybe one good thing that will come out of this is the record companies will start selling music and not an image.
Because really, when they are selling the image, they are throwing massive amounts of money into that pop star, and of course they have to get that money back every way possible.  This includes record sales and taking drastic measures to hold on to that. 
If they were selling music, it might be a different situation. 
I think back to the late 1990's with the Dave Matthew's Band.
These guys are musicians.  They sold their records but also allowed free distribution.  They toured.
They made and make LOTS of money touring.  I really like Dave Matthews Band, but I don't know much about the band's personal life.  They don't need that "hoop-la" because they have substance, they are selling music.   
But if you are promoting a pop star because of his/her looks and image, and the music is second rate and so produced their voices sound like they're singing through a keyboard, of course you are going to run into a problem.  It is a high risks game. Controversy, scandals, etc.. their private life on public display, this all has to be a part of it because they lack substance.  Almost as if they're selling tires in a pizza shop.   It would be interesting to see how much money a record company spends on one of these pop stars versus a band that carries their own weight?
I hope I'm making sense. 

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2008, 09:42:24 PM »
I think you made a great poing username!, a point I've been trying to get across. With modern developments in technology the RIAA 1970's business model is no longer viable, many industries have had to deal with this (just look at the film producing companies such as Kodak, for one example) it's now the music industry's turn to change their business paradigm. Until the 90's it was never even illegal to distribute copyrighted material FOR FREE, it was only illegal if you made a profit off of it, then when people realized the implications of the internet everyone paniced and laws were passed not just to restrict business but the private actions of individuals without economic incentive. This attempt has failed and will continue to fail. Money can still be made on tour, money can still be made by selling rights to radio stations (though I have issues with FCC regulation there as well, that's an entirely different issue), and even in selling CD's, DVD's, etc., just not as much money in the latter and other extras might need to be included as well to make these things attractive.

But this shouldn't be too bad, from the dawn of culture to just 100 years ago musicians got along just fine without selling albums. Some argue that this change will destroy the music industry and while it may cause problems for the industry music will get along just fine; as I implied in a previous post, the best music out there (in my opinion) isn't even produced my the major lables and arn't even part of the entire industry apparatus, there is virtually no one to enforce their copyrights and yet these people get along just fine. The person I believe to be the greatest musician of the 80's and 90's, Chris Ledoux, started selling his music out of the back of his truck and under the grandstands at the rodeos he performed in, he spent the majority of his careet as a muscian without any involvement with the Labels, he only reluctantly recorded for Liberty Records after his friend Garth Brooks convinced him to, then a decade later he abandoned them again since he thought they did his music more harm than good.

Offline livefreeordie

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #30 on: January 11, 2008, 11:04:40 PM »
The music industry does have legitimate changes it needed to make with the dawn of digitization that it should have made years ago and is only now making.  The changes you mentioned have always happened in the music industry.  A label gets big because it breaks a big act, they hire people, then the act gets unpopular, the label loses money, people down the food chain lose jobs and then go somewhere else when another label or act takes off. Its the cycle of any industry.

But, the difference between the change in the music industry now and the natural competitive change in industries historically, those industries might have changed because somebody else produced the product (steel in this case) cheaper and better (the japanese were the first getting market share), and then you had the role down effect.  Or sometimes no one wants the product anymore, such as hula hoops. In music, the primary "change" is the fact that people are STEALING the product. I personally know tons of people in the music industry.  They complain about the music chiefs and all the mistakes that have been made, but when you talk about downloading they get fear in their eyes and call it what it is, stealing that is jeopardizing their way of life.  What other industry has had to "change" when the product was in demand but people found a way to easily steal it and so they quit paying.  I can't think of one. 

As far as making money off of live performance, etc.  As the industry has lost money, it has promoted less acts, and those it does it promotes less aggresively.  As it's promoted less, touring except for a very few groups, has become harder, more competitive, and less lucrative for the average band.  In my town of Indianapolis their are few live venues, bands that used to play stadiums around the country now play clubs around the country, and local bands have very few if any places to play. And the pay is horrendous.  If you aren't paying to play, you're band is splitting a few hundred dollars.  And drunk people at a club don't buy a lot of merchandise.

It's easy to romanticize the starving musician, unless you are the starving musician playing gigs for $150.

And as far as Chris Ledoux.  Just a clarification, he didn't get big as an indie until he won the rodeo championship.  So he needed promotion even on a regional level, he just got it through being a rodeo champion, not through a record label.  Without his own "rodeo star" self-promotion no one would have heard of him except for a few odd fans who crowded around the back of his car when he was a struggling rodeo performer.

And since GreekIsChristian is such a huge fan of Chris, I'll pass this along.  Tomorrow morning in Nashville, Larry Franklin, the premier Nashville fiddle player, is cutting a track on my record.  He tracked with Chris Ledoux.  Small world.

When the steel mill shuts down, the coal, limestone, and iron ore mines suffer.  Then they shut down.
The railroaders loose jobs because they don't have that ore/coal to haul/nor the finished product.
The barge operators who float the raw material to the mills also loose out.
When the steel mill shuts down, then the employees can't go to say and buy a washing machine.
Then the store loses, and that guy loses his job.  See, it's all a part of each other.

Maybe the answer rests in having the engineers, the producers, etc.. in the music industry re-invent themselves.  They still can be in the business of music, but in a re-structure industry.

There are A LOT of pop stars out there that are put on display for their "looks."  It costs a lot of money to record them, tour them and clean up their law-suits.  Maybe one good thing that will come out of this is the record companies will start selling music and not an image.
Because really, when they are selling the image, they are throwing massive amounts of money into that pop star, and of course they have to get that money back every way possible.  This includes record sales and taking drastic measures to hold on to that. 
If they were selling music, it might be a different situation. 
I think back to the late 1990's with the Dave Matthew's Band.
These guys are musicians.  They sold their records but also allowed free distribution.  They toured.
They made and make LOTS of money touring.  I really like Dave Matthews Band, but I don't know much about the band's personal life.  They don't need that "hoop-la" because they have substance, they are selling music.   
But if you are promoting a pop star because of his/her looks and image, and the music is second rate and so produced their voices sound like they're singing through a keyboard, of course you are going to run into a problem.  It is a high risks game. Controversy, scandals, etc.. their private life on public display, this all has to be a part of it because they lack substance.  Almost as if they're selling tires in a pizza shop.   It would be interesting to see how much money a record company spends on one of these pop stars versus a band that carries their own weight?
I hope I'm making sense. 
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 11:09:55 PM by livefreeordie »

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #31 on: January 11, 2008, 11:20:22 PM »
And as far as Chris Ledoux.  Just a clarification, he didn't get big as an indie until he won the rodeo championship.  So he needed promotion even on a regional level, he just got it through being a rodeo champion, not through a record label.  Without his own "rodeo star" self-promotion no one would have heard of him except for a few odd fans who crowded around the back of his car when he was a struggling rodeo performer.

And since GreekIsChristian is such a huge fan of Chris, I'll pass this along.  Tomorrow morning in Nashville, Larry Franklin, the premier Nashville fiddle player, is cutting a track on my record.  He tracked with Chris Ledoux.  Small world.

So go win a rodeo championship. How about the PBR? ;)
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 11:25:00 PM by greekischristian »

Offline livefreeordie

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #32 on: January 12, 2008, 12:05:56 AM »
I'm too big a wimp, and I have a spine that was crushed in 3 places.  My music career is doomed!   :'(

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2008, 04:17:22 AM »
I'm too big a wimp, and I have a spine that was crushed in 3 places.  My music career is doomed!   :'(

I, unfortunately, just have poor balance and not even a fraction of the upper body strength needed for such endeavours; oh well, we can't all be a good as Chris Ledoux -- not many are. ;)

So a fiddle player in Nashville is cutting a track on your record; I must say you have my attention, so exactly what kind of music do you play?

Offline livefreeordie

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2008, 11:57:14 AM »
Dylan meets Led Zep with a little Johnny Cash thrown in.

Offline livefreeordie

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
Re: Recording Industry Developments
« Reply #35 on: January 21, 2008, 08:50:50 PM »
GIC, driving down to Nashville tomorrow to finish up some recordings.  Just found out the keyboard/organ player did a lot of work with the man himself, Johnny Cash!

Until another Johnny Cash comes around, I won't be shedding any tears.