Riaa Gets Dissed!
DarkATi
Revelation 22:17 Join Date: 2003-06-20 Member: 17532Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Revelation 22:17 Join Date: 2003-06-20 Member: 17532Members, Reinforced - Shadow
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">By a Recording Artist No Less!</div> Not all artists are bad as demostrated by Vince Neil Motley Crue:
Motley Crue frontman Vince Neil has taken the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to task for launching — and later quietly settling — a lawsuit against 12-year-old Brianna Lahara for illegally downloading more than 1,000 songs off the Internet.
"I just think it's terrible that these big companies will go after a 12-year-old," Neil told The Edmonton Sun in an interview last week. "They're the ones who shove Britney Spears and these people down your throat, and then when it's on the Internet and you can download it, why wouldn't you? It just boggles my mind that these companies would be so petty as to do something like this. It's pretty shameful."
Neil said he doesn't believe artists are losing a significant amount of revenue from online file-swapping. "If you look at it in the real perspective, it's pennies. It doesn't add up to that much money to sue your fans, because finally your fans are going to go, 'You know what? **** you.' You make your money at the concert tours, you're selling your merchandise, they're still going to buy your records too if they're fans.
You go Vince, that's why Motley Crue kicks ****!!!!
(Points to Crucifix Avatar <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
~ DarkATi
Motley Crue frontman Vince Neil has taken the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to task for launching — and later quietly settling — a lawsuit against 12-year-old Brianna Lahara for illegally downloading more than 1,000 songs off the Internet.
"I just think it's terrible that these big companies will go after a 12-year-old," Neil told The Edmonton Sun in an interview last week. "They're the ones who shove Britney Spears and these people down your throat, and then when it's on the Internet and you can download it, why wouldn't you? It just boggles my mind that these companies would be so petty as to do something like this. It's pretty shameful."
Neil said he doesn't believe artists are losing a significant amount of revenue from online file-swapping. "If you look at it in the real perspective, it's pennies. It doesn't add up to that much money to sue your fans, because finally your fans are going to go, 'You know what? **** you.' You make your money at the concert tours, you're selling your merchandise, they're still going to buy your records too if they're fans.
You go Vince, that's why Motley Crue kicks ****!!!!
(Points to Crucifix Avatar <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
~ DarkATi
Comments
The point he's missing is that it does not matter if it's a 12 year old, a 5 year old, or a 75 year old. They still know it's wrong, and the conciously downloaded 1000 songs.
That's like me downloading all the popular pc games and then saying, hey, I'm just 16. Pc games cost too much, they should be free !
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Killing the Music
by Don Henley
When I started in the music business, music was important and vital to our culture. Artists connected with their fans. Record labels signed cutting-edge artists, and FM radio offered an incredible variety of music. Music touched fans in a unique and personal way. Our culture was enriched and the music business was healthy and strong.
That's all changed.
Today the music business is in crisis. Sales have decreased between 20 and 30 percent over the past three years. Record labels are suing children for using unauthorized peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing systems. Only a few artists ever hear their music on the radio, yet radio networks are battling Congress over ownership restrictions. Independent music stores are closing at an unprecedented pace. And the artists seem to be at odds with just about everyone -- even the fans.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the root problem is not the artists, the fans or even new Internet technology. The problem is the music industry itself. It's systemic. The industry, which was once composed of hundreds of big and small record labels, is now controlled by just a handful of unregulated, multinational corporations determined to continue their mad rush toward further consolidation and merger. Sony and BMG announced their agreement to merge in November, and EMI and Time Warner may not be far behind. The industry may soon be dominated by only three multinational corporations.
The executives who run these corporations believe that music is solely a commodity. Unlike their predecessors, they fail to recognize that music is as much a vital art form and social barometer as it is a way to make a profit. At one time artists actually developed meaningful, even if strained, relationships with their record labels. This was possible because labels were relatively small and accessible, and they had an incentive to join with the artists in marketing their music. Today such a relationship is practically impossible for most artists.
Labels no longer take risks by signing unique and important new artists, nor do they become partners with artists in the creation and promotion of the music. After the music is created, the artist's connection with it is minimized and in some instances is nonexistent. In their world, music is generic. A major record label president confirmed this recently when he referred to artists as "content providers." Would a major label sign Johnny Cash today? I doubt it.
Radio stations used to be local and diverse. Deejays programmed their own shows and developed close relationships with artists. Today radio stations are centrally programmed by their corporate owners, and airplay is essentially bought rather than earned. The floodgates have opened for corporations to buy an almost unlimited number of radio stations, as well as concert venues and agencies. The delicate balance between artists and radio networks has been dramatically altered; networks can now, and often do, exert unprecedented pressure on artists. Whatever connection the artists had with their music on the airwaves is almost totally gone.
Music stores used to be magical places offering wide variety. Today the three largest music retailers are Best Buy, Wal-Mart and Target. In those stores shelf space is limited, making it harder for new artists to emerge. Even established artists are troubled by stores using music as a loss leader. Smaller, more personalized record stores are closing all over the country -- some because of rampant P2P piracy but many others because of competition from department stores that traditionally have no connection whatsoever with artists.
Piracy is perhaps the most emotionally gut-wrenching problem facing artists. Artists like the idea of a new and better business model for the industry, but they cannot accept a business model that uses their music without authority or compensation. Suing kids is not what artists want, but many of them feel betrayed by fans who claim to love artists but still want their music free.
The music industry must also take a large amount of blame for this piracy. Not only did the industry not address the issue sooner, it provided the P2P users with a convenient scapegoat. Many kids rationalize their P2P habit by pointing out that only record labels are hurt -- that the labels don't pay the artists anyway. This is clearly wrong, because artists are at the bottom of the food chain. They are the ones hit hardest when sales take a nosedive and when the labels cut back on promotion, on signing new artists and on keeping artists with potential. Artists are clearly affected, yet because many perceive the music business as being dominated by rich multinational corporations, the pain felt by the artist has no public face.
Artists are finally realizing their predicament is no different from that of any other group with common economic and political interests. They can no longer just hope for change; they must fight for it. Washington is where artists must go to plead their case and find answers.
So whether they are fighting against media and radio consolidation, fighting for fair recording contracts and corporate responsibility, or demanding that labels treat artists as partners and not as employees, the core message is the same: The artist must be allowed to join with the labels and must be treated in a fair and respectful manner. If the labels are not willing to voluntarily implement these changes, then the artists have no choice but to seek legislative and judicial solutions. Simply put, artists must regain control, as much as possible, over their music.
The writer is a singer and drummer with the Eagles and a founding member of the Recording Artists' Coalition.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are equivalents of the RIAA in other countries. They just have the most power in the US, and a government willing to pass a few unconstitutional laws to make suing people easier.
So, unless you live in a place that has a government policy of **** the US, you're still a target.
The point he's missing is that it does not matter if it's a 12 year old, a 5 year old, or a 75 year old. They still know it's wrong, and the conciously downloaded 1000 songs.
That's like me downloading all the popular pc games and then saying, hey, I'm just 16. Pc games cost too much, they should be free ! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
His point was that bands still make enough money to "survive" (LOL) selling their concert ticks and band merch alone. (Although he did say that he was appauled that they sued a 12 year old, yes.)
I agree that it is wrong but I download music all the time. (No one tell my ISP, heya!) The way I justify it is I delete songs I don't like, I listen to a bunch of songs and see if I like them, THEN I either go buy the CD or delete the music. If I like the tracks I'll drop the cash and buy it legit but if I don't then I didn't have to spend any time buying an album I didn't like and returning it.
I have discovered all kinds of new music, from classical to Heavy Metal, that's why I like File-Sharing and Music. I like getting to hear lots of stuff for free and then deciding what I want to do with my money come pay day. Buy the album or not. It's like... *warning: analogy ahead* picking up a bunch of clothes at a store and not looking at any sizes, then taking them all in the dressing room, some won't fit and some will. I'll gladly put back those that don't and I will go to the check-out counter with those that do.
Furthermore I do see his point with the age because I believe if you're under 18 then you should be given a cease & decist(sp?) before you're sued. Give these kids a chance to stop before you break their parents. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi
One cannot justify piracy under the current system according to any stretch. It's stealing no matter which way you put it. One can, however, say that the current system is immoral and unworthy of being followed. The current system is one that says information, ideas and art are things to be hoarded and made profit from, but this is not the case. All art should belong to society, as that art is merely a reflection of (or in any case is influenced by) that society. As for Software piracy, all that is is merely information and therefore all people should be given equal access to it. Information is a very precious thing, and allowing a select few to hold a monopoly on it simply because of copyright laws is frankly irresponsible, because it allows onyl those few to decide how information is used, and they will most likely choose to use it for their own gain, instead of for the benefit of the society that they belong to.
This is what Piracy is all about. It is about the free and opwn exchange of information, it is about not being a slave to copyrights, it is about the people taking back what is theirs.
(Hehe, well ain't I a little revolutionary.)
Distributers has created similiar organisations in other countries but you're right, RIAA only targets America
I could be downloading a song to show to my friends that it's extremely retarded. Or it might just be a song that's so-so, and I'll listen to it, but I'd never buy a CD of the band (maybe it's the only good song they have, or it's the only good song on a specific CD).
This is even more applicable with games. You can download a game, and fairly enoy it, that doesn't mean the person would have paid the $50 to get it in the first place.
...take...Painkiller for example. If it were free, sure I'd take it, it's an okay game...but there's now way I'm going to pay $50 for it...it's just not good enough to warrant my money. However, if Halo 2 or Half-Life 2, or Stalker were free (unless it's a contest) I'm going to pay for them anyway, because they're games I actually would buy if they weren't available online.
[actually, if I could get a beta or leaked copy a month before it released, I'd still take it, and I'd still buy it when it did come out...although, I'm at my Uni...so basically we can't even download demos, let alone games]
That's not to say that the people who make Painkiller aren't worthy of my money, or their time developing the game was fruitless (...okay it was to me, what's the fun in shooting stakes at people? Who wants to buy that?). The point is, when people download things, it's generally things they wouldn't pay for (or they do eventually buy)...unless they're just [censored] who are cheap (but it's better to have a tangible asset with your information, than to just download things...which is why I don't see a point with that iTunes crap).
There's also the blatant overcharging on CDs that exists. Artists get money from the aforementioned concerts and merchandising...so why do they need to charge me $15 for a CD? A $3 piece of plastic with some paper shouldn't be inflated 500% for profit (although, CDs might cost a little more to make now, but they still make a huge profit).
There are new sites that let you DL songs and try them out for a few days before paying for the songs you want.... those are great, not to mention that an artist can put their songs up and get MUCH MORE money then going through traditional ways of CDs, i read 50% of the cost of the songs (some sites are as low as 50 cents per song) goes to the artist. RIAA is suing to get the money while they can, their end is coming and i think they smell the stench of death creeping around them.