1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

YEAH for the RIAA

Discussion in 'Studio Lounge' started by RecorderMan, Jul 29, 2003.

  1. RecorderMan

    RecorderMan Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2001
    Well YOU may not like it.
    But I make my living solely from recording. I'm raising a family doing it. So ANYTHING that might help curb illegal downloading (at this point) is fine by me.
    Stealing is wrong. Rationaliztion has become way too prevalent.
     
  2. It is the theft of intellectual property as well- hurts artists. RM, are you reacting to a specific piece of info that has just come out, some new news? If so, post a link so I can check it out. Thanks, David
     
  3. RD

    RD Guest

    RM is commenting on my remarks on the previous page...and I mean no disrespect to his role as a musician/producer...

    However, my thoughts are meant to suggest a growth process to artists and the RIAA...we have to attack the problem of piracy (which I do NOT support by the way) on common ground...i.e., we all have a common interest...attacking our customers is not the high ground...we should instead educate them...and with the right social proscription against taking free copies of artists work, the public who is made up of decent people will respond by supporting us.

    If bands like the Greatful Dead and others can build an empire on allowing informal trading of recordings of their shows, there might be a lesson in this for the rest of the industry...I am certain that, in the end, the legal efforts will fail to curb the file sharing. So, I suggest we consider winning the fight for our intellectual property by instead welcoming certain types of sharing...

    My suggestion? Allow trading of files between consumers...just like we borrowed albums, copied cassettes, etc. in years gone by. People, who are for the most part wanting to support artists, will ultimately want to own the graphics, have the entire work...artists should exhort consumers to enjoy the trading process AND to buy their work, with our blessings. Treating file sharing as "stealing" is going up a slippery slope...musicians aren't corporate retail stores, we sell a musical service..what's good for us is ultimately good for engineers, producers, and the entire industry...we need to adapt to the changing nature of our customers...I believe we will and the industry will be stronger...but not until we recognize that serving the customer, not arresting him, is in our best interest...RD
     
  4. RD,
    File sharing, or stealing, will slow when it is looked upon as a nasty habit by society (like littering or, increasingly, smoking and 2nd hand smoke). When it becomes uncool to download copyright protected files, people will stop doing it. Since the RIAA can't dictate societal norms, it is acting to protect the interests of both the companies and artists by suing people who are downloading illegally. The civil suit is the chief instrument in resolving disputes in our society.
    I won't say that all of the ills the big record companies are suffering are due to downloading, but that is another discussion. I also believe that pay-for-use downloading services will be an important pert of the future. I also believe that downloads can help small artists and labels with exposure.
    I like this comparison to littering and 2nd hand smoke. At one time, people thought nothing of littering, or of smoking in a theater or packed elevators. After years of suits and public awareness campaigns these activities are now much less accepted, to the benefit of everyone. Hopefully ILLEGAL downloading will find the same fate.
    No point in having a carrot without a stick. David
     
  5. RD

    RD Guest

    David, you make a good point about litigation changing public perception of an issue...valid...

    I think that's the point anyway...if society percieves it as wrong things will change...but suing college kids who trade files (and threatening by extension to sue ANYBODY who does so) is likely to backfire...its too corporate and simplistic as an entire approach...I'd like to see way more in the way of public education...the courts do often determine public policy as you point out, but sometimes public policy turns in directions that are not popular...we won't sell cd's if we're viewed as greedy corporate interests...my way would be to perhaps seek injunctions against the worst offenders, abandon the silly damage claimes against students, and use the available resources to win back our audience's admiration...

    The record industry has suffered more ills from its profit mongering (i.e. launching flavor of the month acts for years) than file sharing...which can still be hotly debated as to whether it ultimately hurts or helps the industry financially....

    JMHO. RD
     
  6. HiString

    HiString Guest

    Whenever this subject is debated, there is an almost immediate reference or comparison to the days when we recorded an album to cassette, either for our own use or for a friend etc., but for some reason I personally find this difficult to equate to someone,(college kid or whoever), who has a substantial catalogue of songs available for an almost infinite number of downloads over the internet.

    The "one off" copying of songs has been going on since the very first tape recorders became available, and realistically probably didn't do too much damage to the income of artists, etc..........file sharing these sometime enormous "libraries" of copyrighted material is a totally different matter.

    :cool:
     
  7. RD

    RD Guest

    Point well taken...but RIAA could concentrate on the "libraries"...i.e. Napster, for example..as they did...

    The days of cassettes and one offs are gone..we'll never snatch back the digital duplication technology...what I am saying is that we need to find a way to market product in this environment...offer extras, artist contacts, preferred concert seats, whatever it takes to make the hard copy superior to the digital file...and trust our consumers...I would NEVER accuse any college student of stealing my work...I'd build on the familiarity instead...If I were RIAA I'd be stratagizing how to thrive on this situation...offer incentives, put some music online for free, offer contests, or license the music at a discount fee for students...something besides just suing...RIAA and by extension the artists and producers of work, will only win when they embrace this technology and stop viewing it as negative...the jury is still out as to what, if any, damage it is doing to the industry anyway...RD
     
  8. sserendipity

    sserendipity Guest

    A bootleg tape of a grateful dead show is not the same as an mp3 duplicate of the corresponding studio cd.

    The issue is more than just the quality of the audio - the studio version is a definitive version of a peice of material, where the live show exhibits a completly different side of the band. A deadhead is going to have both. The less than diehard deadhead is going to want the cd first - they'll be able to hear what's going on, there won't be mistakes and fumbles, the solos won't go on forever, etc. It's been edited for repeated consumption.

    There's more going on that simply the 'live' versus 'studio' issue here too. The idea that bands should give away their music, and live off their touring proceeds ignores how a lot of music is made. Many bands don't create the kind of music that lends itself to never-ending jams, touring, or fifty versions of the same song, all different and of value to the listener. Much music written today can only be created in the studio - because it is composition-based rather than performance based, or requires equipment that doesn't fit in the back of a van. Many musicians aren't performers as much as creators or composers.

    Since their music is pirated and their live shows will suck, should we abandon these avenues of musical adventure - simply because it 'doesn't pay'? This sounds a lot like the excuse for top 40 music.

    Furthermore, not every band has a rabid following and the financial success that comes from their years on the road, and can afford to give away live recordings, knowing that they will make it up in volume and, don't really need the money, anyway.
     
  9. RD

    RD Guest

    I guess to me the genie is out of the bottle...don't you think the RIAA has already lost the battle? They've issued 900 investigation subpoenas to internet providers (some of whom have countersued over constitutionality issues) and are closing in on an outright invasion of privacy, some bad press today on NPR, the list goes on...

    It's like suing somebody for absence of affection...many consumers are growing increasingly angry and apathetic about those "poor" record companies; some of those companies just literally screwed professional musicians for decades...the companies are, through their heavy handed corporate tactics, only opening themselves up to further criticizm and dislike.

    Public education, a kinder attitude about changing technology, focusing on other demographics like the 40+ audience (who has money and little time for file swapping)...develop some artists and stop playing me flavor-of-the-month-designed-for-profit music...that's what will save the industry...hard work and the big picture view.

    I guess if I thought we could put the genie back into the bottle I'd agree entirely with those who think we should. We can't...so to survive we'll need to find a future together WITH this technology...

    The industry needs to change...I for one am just loving the rocky road...it WILL produce a better, more focused, industry...I don't have much sympathy for the status quo I guess...

    Thanks for the interchange by the way...Best, RD ;)
     
  10. sagreene

    sagreene Guest

    Also no one (certainly not the riaa) has taken into account that music is somewhat of a luxury item and with the economy having taken a downturn* during the past few years, people have less money to spend on overpriced CD's - and yes they are overpriced!

    Anyone read that the RIAA has a new president
    ARTICLE

    Things will get even more interesting in the next few years.

    *really rich people making a bit less money therfore laying off everyone they can and freezing most raises. ;)
     
  11. RecorderMan

    RecorderMan Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2001
    Naw RD...that's cool. I was jsut commenting on the recent articles about the RIAA suing users of downloads on the net. I'm jsut frustrated. The biz sucks now...and downloads are part of the problem. Multinationals are one of the others.
    Were all cool though (not "hip" any more, but cool...) :p:
     
  12. RD

    RD Guest

    RM, thanks for your comments...I, in all my glory as a smart guy, was meaning to write in one thread, but was actually answering and contributing to TWO threads at once!! Sheesh!! Anyway, glad that's cleared up! Love this site by the way! Thanks to all who make it happen... :) RD
     
  13. RecorderMan

    RecorderMan Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2001
    ]
    Back at ya RD.
    Remeber, with me , please don't EVER take anything personal. I may have an opinion, a bias and a passion...but i wouldn't be worth a nickle if I didn't.
    " I wanna RocK!!!!"
    RM
     
  14. Bob Olhsson

    Bob Olhsson Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2001
    Location:
    Nashville TN
    Home Page:
    I hate to burst the bubble on this popular urban myth but the Dead DID NOT build their empire by allowing recordings of their shows. The taper section was started because they had a problem with tapers beating up patrons who happened to purchase tickets in prime taping locations and weren't willing to move. The band was already selling out most, if not all of their shows and recordings had never been a significant source of income or promotion for them.
     
  15. RandomGuest

    RandomGuest Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2001
    I've long been on the RIAA's side on this one, but I no longer am. Their tactics are insane, wrong, and are making the poor poorer.

    When I heard that they were going after 14 year old kids with $150,000 lawsuits for downloading 150 songs, I soon lost my taste for their SS style tactics. The only way out was for their parents (who didn't steal, mind you) to cough up $1500 to settle the lawsuit out of court. This is taking money from poor people and lining the pockets of the rich. I'm sorry, but the RIAA needs to find more reasonable ways of going about this. Suing children for hundreds of thousands of dollars for petty theft, is not something I thought I'd see in this country.

    How about the RIAA take it down about 15 notches and ease into this thing. Most people until very recently didn't even know that they were breaking any laws. I mean, come on, let's shut down the Kazaa's of the world first, and then let's start going after the little kids.

    Until the RIAA gets off of its WMD and stops throwing children in jail, I'm going to oppose them at every corner.

    File swapping is wrong, it should be punished from the top to the bottom, not from the bottom to the top. People need a chance to understand that there are laws against this, and they should be formally warned first, before being sued and black mailed into paying $1500 settlements. It's totally ridiculous. DOWN WITH THE RIAA!

    Again, I am 100% against stealing music, and I'm not minimizing the impact of those that do. I'm just saying, that punishing the parents of kids who steal is wrong, and not giving a formal warning is also wrong. If people continue to steal music, after being warned, then sue them for a billion dollars, I don't care. This new punishment just needs to be eased into, and done with reason.

    I realize that most here, myself included, feel personal loss from music being stolen online, but let's not throw reason out the window here.
     
  16. NolanVenhola

    NolanVenhola Guest

    Just read over everything and thought I would put in my opinion as a recently graduated "college" (university actually, canadian thing) student, and an aspiring musician, recording engineer, occasional kazaa user, cd buyer, and software developer (piracy issues).

    Lets face it: $20 for a cd... that's bs. Cassettes are under $10. They were once $20. Cd's haven't changed in price much at all in 10 years. That's crap.

    I will hear about a band from a friend, I download a few songs. If I like the songs, I will download as much as I can to make sure the band isn't a "couple hit wonder". If I like what I hear I will buy the cd's. I support the little guys in the industry. I refuse to support the manfactured/popized bands record companies push.

    If record companies pushed bands that actually made music instead of... uh crap... the industry would be stronger for it. They've cornered themselves into the "10-15 year old female" market. Stupid fools. The money is in the baby-boomers.

    As a musician, I will probably never give my music to a record company for any reason.

    1. 99% chance it will not make me money
    2. They will hold the rights to MYYYYYY music??

    Two words... They start with F and U.

    Piracy = bad. But if things aren't affordable, it will continue. The problem is: companies price their merchandise to maximize profits. If they thought less about profits are more about promoting their product to more people, they would gain the trust of the consumer and strengthen their customer base. Making it easier to make new, accepted products. Companies think with their proverbial "penis" and not their heads.

    There, I have said my two cents. Thanks, and no offense to anyone, love you all here.
     
  17. RD

    RD Guest

    That's kind of my point...we play in the college market and students are forever struggling to make ends meet...the last thing I want any part of is an industry who targets students with lawsuits because they file share...because, and this is important, I believe it is TOTALLY unproven that this practice (for college students) hurts the industry. What IS happening is that students, who are training for careers, are being given an opportunity to develope musical tastes and likes etc., and those same students go out into the market and purchase CD's. It's kind of like doing a teaser show at a college campus. I used to resist these 'cause who wants to play for 15 minutes in the cafeteria to advertise an evening show...but you know, it works! When we do classroom appearances, or teaser shows, or radio performances (when we can get them) the evening shows go better...so, our experience suggests to us that students respond to being "lured" in by sampling music or entertainment. As I mentioned earlier, the genie is out of the bottle...lets stop beating up young people, and start selling them music that matters...the record industry is embarrasing all of us with their heavy handed tactics...and in the end, they are certain to lose if they don't adapt with something better than suing kids...it's just plain silly...JMHO, RD
     
  18. RandomGuest

    RandomGuest Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2001
    Maybe what the music industry needs to realize is that marketing to teenage girls isn't the right market to be going after. Teenage girls have computers, are smart enough to use a mp3 player/CD Burner, and don't care about the laws. Duh. How about the leaders at the record labels start marketing music to the 25 and up crowd. Holy crap...WE HAVE MONEY!!! Most of us won't steel if good music is being produced to our benefit. I feel totally starved for good music. I think the record industry totally ignores the 24 to 35 year old crowd. You're either making bubble gum, or old people music.

    Lastly...the record industry would be well served to look at the 70's when they were creating super groups by totally supporting them through 3-4 bad albums until these bands came out with 5 really excellent albums. Support the music, and the money will follow. Giving a band one record to create a following is crazy. Of course you're only going to sell to 13 year old girls, looking for hot guys. Of course they're going to download it, rather than buy it.
     
  19. BUZAIN

    BUZAIN Guest

    I may seem controversial (which I am happy to be) but I do not think that file sharing is completely a bad thing. I know many people even on this board have been calling that stealing and all that, but I disagree with the phylosophy behind. It is the phylosophy of greed and selfishness coming from the record companies which have affected us. "What is mine is mine only to keep."

    File sharing is not stealing, pirating is. Pirating is taking someone else's idea or product and make money out of it. File sharing is someone sharing the files they have got with some other friend or family. To make that illegal is a bad law which is based on greed in the name of copyright. Do we all have to buy a single CD that comes out because it has 3 songs I like? Cannot not with a friend who neebd to hear as well?

    Someday we will end up being sued for sharing recording ideas ad tips on with others on this borad
     
  20. NolanVenhola

    NolanVenhola Guest

    The music industry will learn quick enough when profit margins start hitting rock bottom due to the crap music that the aging market will not tolerate.
     

Share This Page