How to kill the record industry...

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: GUEST,Reverse Flow
Date: 20 May 09 - 03:27 AM

The answer is not to stop piracy, it is to make a new service that is so unique and superior that it is the only thing that people want to use. I tunes is a service like that but it only accounts for a small percentage of all music sales. If something truly better and more captivating emerges then the industry will become stronger. Also, now there are more opportunities for independent labels and artists due to the declining influence of major record labels.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: GUEST,Rich
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 06:12 PM

Wow this thread has been going for ages. I haven't read it all but I have to say I'm still with Big Mick; stealing is stealing.

Big music companies may eventually die, and I'm sure they are ruthless and everything that goes with it, but I don't think this gives us the right to steal something that isn't ours.

If I think drinking in the local boozer is too expensive I don't order the pint. I don't drink it and then say I'm not going to pay for it. You can say its different, but it isn't. Copyright law is just as valid as any other form of ownership.

The best modern day example is probably Tesco's, 12.5% of the TOTAL UK high street market, and I'm sure they are as cutthroat as any music company. But because all of their products are tangible and you can hold them in your hand, I bet nobody here would admit to walking out of a store without paying for any of it, even if the suppliers of the products have been screwed over along the way.

By the way, I think this is what Gillian Welch's song 'Everything is Free' is about.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: GUEST,HOUSE
Date: 25 Jan 08 - 05:41 PM

Below is a link to the most accurate, well thought out, and brilliant blog about the future of the music industry that I have ever read.

http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 08:52 PM

Mick--and others--

I'm curious. What were your motives in making a CD? For a performer, I believe that the main values of a CD are as a supplement to gig income, and as a promotional tool. It's very difficult for me to see how the vast majority of folks that make CDs will make enough money from them to justify the labor and cash outlay involved.

I know why I deal in CDs--but then there are many who question my sanity.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Slag
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 07:27 PM

Surely we with early onset senile dementia or Alzheimer's are naturally exempt from, a, from whatever you were going on about. Surely, uh, Shirley, what did you say I was doing here....?

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: harpmolly
Date: 24 Jan 08 - 07:05 PM

ROFL!! :D Brilliant!

OK, I really did log onto Mudcat for work-related purposes (if anyone's reading over my shoulder).

P.S. Mick...the fact that I found the above article hilarious certainly doesn't diminish my respect for, and agreement with, your position. I certainly don't condone the indiscriminate copying and/or distribution of anyone's copyrighted material. :)

Molly

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 09:29 PM

RIAA Declares Using Brain to Remember Songs is Criminal Copyright Infringement
by Mike Adams December 31, 2007

On the heels of the RIAA's recent decision to criminalize consumers who rip songs from albums they've purchased to their computers
(or iPods), the association has now gone one step further and declared that "remembering songs" using your brain is criminal
copyright infringement. "The brain is a recording device," explained RIAA president Cary Sherman. "The act of listening is an
unauthorized act of copying music to that recording device, and the act of recalling or remembering a song is unauthorized
playback."

The RIAA also said it would begin sending letters to tens of millions of consumers thought to be illegally remembering songs,
threatening them with lawsuits if they don't settle with the RIAA by paying monetary damages. "We will aggressively pursue all
copyright infringement in order to protect our industry," said Sherman.

In order to avoid engaging in unauthorized copyright infringement, consumers will now be required to immediately forget everything
they've just heard -- a skill already mastered by U.S. President George Bush. To aid in these memory wiping efforts, the RIAA is
teaming up with Big Pharma to include free psychotropic prescription drugs with the purchase of new music albums. Consumers are
advised to swallow the pills before listening to the music. The pills -- similar to the amphetamines now prescribed for ADHD --
block normal cognitive function, allowing consumers to enjoy the music in a more detached state without the risk of accidentally
remembering any songs (and thereby violating copyright law).

Consumers caught humming their favorite songs will be charged with a more serious crime: The public performance of a copyrighted
song, for which the fines can reach over $250,000 per incident. "Humming, singing and whistling songs will not be tolerated," said
Sherman. "Only listening and forgetting songs is allowed."

Consumers attempting to circumvent the RIAA's new memory-wiping technology by actually remembering songs will be charged with
felony crimes under provisions of the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). The Act, passed in 1998, makes it a felony crime to
circumvent copyright protection technologies. The RIAA's position is that consumers who actually use their brains while listening
to music are violating the DMCA. "We would prefer that consumers stop using their brains altogether," said Sherman.

With this decision, the RIAA now considers approximately 72% of the adult U.S. population to be criminals. Putting them all in
prison for copyright infringement would cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $683 billion per year -- an amount that would have to be
shouldered by the remaining 28% who are not imprisoned. The RIAA believes it could cover the $683 billion tab through royalties on
music sales. The problem with that? The 28% remaining adults not in prison don't buy music albums. That means album sales would
plummet to nearly zero, and the U.S. government (which is already deep in debt) would have to borrow money to pay for all the
prisons. And where would the borrowed money come from? China, of course: The country where music albums are openly pirated and sold
for monetary gain.

When asked whether he really wants 72% of the U.S. population to be imprisoned for ripping music CDs to their own brains, RIAA
president Sherman shot back, "You don't support criminal behavior do you? Every person who illegally remembers a song is a
criminal. We can't have criminal running free on the streets of America. It's an issue of national security."
_______________
NOTE: This is a satire report on the RIAA. That means it's written as fictional humor. It does not yet represent the actual
position of the RIAA, although from the way things are going, the association may soon adopt it. Permission is granted to make
copies of this story, redistribute it, post it and e-mail it (please provide proper credit and URL) as long as you do not actually
remember it because copying to your brain is now strictly prohibited. Any attempts to circumvent the memory-based copyright
restrictions on this article will result in your brain imploding, causing such an extreme loss of cognitive function that your only
hope for any future career will be running for public office.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Jan 08 - 05:19 PM

Fair enough, Nick. But one thing I would point out is that I continually here about what it costs the big operators to make a CD, but I have yet to see a credible cite on that info. Second, the cost of production is but one part of what it takes them to bring it to market, distribution and promotion being another. Also, here in the States, the "price it at what the market will bear" principle is alive and well. It is, after all, a capitalist economy. Lest anyone should misunderstand, I am not defending the "big boys" (how come we never call them "the big girls" .... chuckle), but I would like to know from a credible source what the real number is.

And having said all that, where does that leave smaller artists such as inhabit The Mudcat? I know that my first CD cost me a little over $10,000 to produce. The first run was 1000 CD's. By the time you factor in promo copies to promoters, radio shows, etc., you have to get $11.00 +, and that doesn't compensate the artist for the time they spend in the studio. We figured that we really weren't going to make any money on the CD until we got in the second run, and that pretty well was the case. So when we sell a CD for $15.00, we pretty well have to, in order to put food on the table. I know that the low volume dealers like Folk Legacy and Camsco are in the same kind of boat. They operate based on love of the music more than profit motive even though they are paying the bills (barely) at $15.00 a copy. This is why it is so important, in my mind, to get a handle on controlling downloading now. And it is doubly important to make sure everyone understands that this is theft, and it is NOT harmless. I think the attitude really bothers me most. Technology can fix the ability to control the downloading, but getting folks to understand that they don't have the right to steal my intellectual property, and that there is a cost to me when you do, is the real battle.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Slag
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 08:08 PM

It's yours for a song!

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Nickhere
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 07:42 PM

I know that doesn't really answer your question Mick, as you seem to be indie produced or self-produced

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Nickhere
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 07:40 PM

"I wish that folks would contribute to the solutions instead of defending the indefensible. Tell us how you would protect folks like myself, and others, who would like to cover the production costs and make a fair compensation for the sale of the music we spend dollars and time producting"
Mick

From what I've been reading here about some of the bigger record companies, it seems the best way to protect artists is by putting some of the energy currently being employed in chasing copyright infringers, into getting the big record companies to cough up their fair dues and pay the artists a fair cut. I remember reading elsewhere about how artists like Son House and Robert Wilkins might get paid a once-off 20 dollar fee for a recording while the record company would go on to make hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then again when you think how much it costs the big companies to make a CD (about a dollar, including the royalties paid to the artist) and what they sell them to the public for (about 15 times that or more) you begin to feel the only ones who've been ripping everyone off are the big companies. I know that's over simplifying it a bit, but....

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: reggie miles
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 06:33 PM

There are certainly lots of fans of the music that we play that wouldn't dream of taking advantage of us. They know that we make our livelihoods via our music. I've tried to encourage some who have had an interest in my music to simply download some of it for free via the web because I've had some of it available online for that purpose. I've been surprised to have some instead insist on purchasing a recording, even going so far as to offer me more than I was asking for it. Thank you rabid fanage!

I'm also certain that there are those that represent the opposite opinion regarding this subject but my focus has been to actively spend much of my time finding those that might support what I do. My particular musical niche seems small and obscure. I've had no real concern about anyone's interest in reaping rewards that might be due via my efforts, but perhaps I'm simply ignorant of the dangers out there.

I've not been encouraged by some of the stories that I've heard on this subject. Is there any solution? I suspect that unless you've got a good lawyer, or team of them, and deep pockets, for now, we may have to chalk this up as the price of doing business.

As a minor player in this game I suspect that the damages that I might suffer are too small to be worth the effort of trying to recoup them. So, it simply becomes a matter of choosing your fights. Even if the rewards are worthy of the effort to fight for them you still have to have the means to do so.

I've had my art stolen from me on several occasions. I could take the experience as a backhanded compliment given that someone desired something that I created so much, but it's never really a nice feeling to have that happen, especially, as in this discussion, when the thieves profit from the the theft.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 03:19 PM

I hear that, Neil.

I'd like to say that songs just 'appear' and that I can write one in a few hours. (I have once or twice, but they were the exception, not the rule.) The last song I wrote that I am completely happy with from start to finish took me three weeks of about five hours per day with the guitar. Probably took me about 100 hours (I'm a slow writer). It had a new kinda rhyme scheme and I wanted the melody to be just so because it was at the time the best thing I'd ever done, etc. It ain't all just fun and games. But then I know you know what I mean. There are times it just flows, but then there are other times it is harder work than putting in a house foundation.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 03:04 PM

Peace: I'm a writer and I get that one all the time. and people try to stiff you on the cost of a job too. I will say most of my clients are very good about paying but i had one who stiffed me the cost of the work I did for him adn You are absolutely right about the perception. Neil

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 02:32 PM

I checked with some pretty good computer people about the idea of encryption for CDs, thus making downloads inpossible without the key. The thought was to give people who purchased a download the ability to download once and that's that. But, what happens after? Someone could burn it and make copies, etc, and it's back to square one.

I recall bak in the day being asked what I did for a living. (I was then paid a salary to create songs). So, I'd say, "I'm a songwriter." Most folks would then ask, "Oh. But do you work for a living?"

The same people who would not think of getting a plumber, electrician or doctor to work for free sometimes DO ecpect songwriters to work for free. Perceptions . . . .

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 02:25 PM

Actually Mick, I wasn't thinking of you when I made my point.Your language is usually pretty polite. There were some others who bandied the word about pretty freely and as I stated in my last post you're right in what you said about my post. In my defense, I should have stayed out of the post while working on being ill.
We are of a mind here on the issue It has implications for everyone in the creative arts and it is something that needs to be addressed. Thank you for the apology though it wasn't needed. It is appreciated. Kindest regards, Neil

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 02:09 PM

OK, Neil. I accept the criticism for the language I used. But not the sentiment. It was a bad day, and I didn't like the dismissive "high horse" comment, which indicated a complete lack of comprehension as to the arguments I put forth. I stand duly and correctly chastised for my use of foul language and apologize for it. As to the intent of my comment, minus the offending language, I stand by it for the reasons stated subsequently.

Back to the issue. I don't agree that ripping CD's for one's personal use, CD's that one has paid for, constitutes any sort of illegal or immoral use. I think I pointed out that I disagree with the industry and folks who think it is. That is a perfectly legitimate use. I also think that the way of the future is downloading, often a tune at a time, and that CD's are going to wane in popularity. I am OK with all of that. As long as the creators of the music can legitimately control their product, this technology may finally resolve one of the longstanding evils of the business of producing music for sale. But if steps are not taken to make sure that there is a clear line between theft and legitimate use, artists will simply have swapped one set of thieves (labels) for another set (folks that rip without paying for it).

Mick

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 11:03 AM

Mick: You're right my post was shallow and stated the obvious I believe artist should be protected but I don't have a solution for the problem and I'm not certain anyone else does after reading this thread. Perhaps there isn't a solution that will work for everyone. So maybe my post didn't add to the conversation but what did the posts add to the conversation where people are telling each other to fuck off?
Is it possible to make CDs where they can't be ripped on to computers? How do you keep people from downloading tunes gratis. (By the way, I take no umbrage at your comment as I state above you're absolutely right.) Do we start covert surveilence on computers to see if people are illegally down loading music? Mary in the post above makes a point. My Dell does the same thing If I put a CD in , It begins ripping it to the computer Thuis issue doesn't only affect musicians If you can "Rip" Music this easy, you can printout online books etc. Neil

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Maryrrf
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 09:24 AM

Given the technology, the speed with which it is developing, and the sheer ease of copying and sending music files, I don't know what the solution could be. I like to listen to CDs on my computer, and for some reason the program immediately starts 'ripping' them to my hard drive, whether I want the songs there or not! But I will say that I think that being able to download single songs for a reasonable fee, usually around $1.00, is a wonderful thing and may encourage people to 'take the high road'. Lots of times I'm only interested in one or two songs on a CD, I really balked at spending $15.00 for the entire album. Now I can pay $.99 per song and make up my own compilation albums - and I love it! The ability to buy individual songs at a reasonable price may at least remove some of the temptation to 'bootleg' music. I am assuming, of course, that if I pay the $.99, and then download the song and burn it to a CD so I can listen to it in the car - it is legal.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 09:02 AM

In quoting the point made by Southern Celt originating this thread,
"When all is said and done, the lawyers are the only ones that'll come out ahead and happy with this", this still rings true!
I and am sure most here do not want to see the artist or songwriter being ripped off. The unfortunate truth is that it is inherent in a corrupt system and the most powerful players can afford to play the legal game to their advantage. The little guy simply can not!
In quoting Pat Sky: "I want you to know that the recording industry are a bunch a of criminals and have been stealing from the artists for a hundred years. This record is a fine example and is the rule and not the exception. This is why I support "Free" download music because, regardless of how much the recording industry complains, they get 99.9% of the money and the artist never gets a fair shake." I guess an inside viewpoint has merit. His Green Linnet was a label that I would purchase with a feeling that it was an exception to the rule, although from posts that I read on Mudcat I wonder about its later life? Borealis is also an exception and I am sure that there are many others that treat the little guy fairly. Stompin Tom started the Boot label to prevent rip offs as well but I am unsure of it's status now. That being said the quest for a solution is not easy. One that I strongly advocate is that copyright ownership remain with the author/artist and only usage rights be conveyed to others with a sunset of about 5 years. Of course that will never happen because it is not in the interest of the industry and they have the lawyers.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Slag
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 01:19 AM

A rip off is never right. Can we learn anything from the print industry? Strict rules against plagiarism (pirating). Limited use within academia (op. cit., etc.). Vigorous prosecution and a nasty taste of shame upon the violators. More, much more control by the author. It's not perfect but it does seem to me that the printed word has a much better time of it.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: reggie miles
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 12:13 AM

Yes, of course. I agree. And because so many sites and software companies fear being liable they have some very elaborate lawyerly stuff that one must agree with before getting involved with their particular offerings. Even so, the sheer numbers of those joining such sites and using various software products make it nearly impossible at this time to be able to police it all. It sounds bad because it is. The solution sounds like a software fix that limits such unauthorized usage but I'm not a software engineer. Nor am I a lawyer. So, I'm in the same boat your are.

Getting ripped off in the way you describe isn't pleasant and for the record, I do not agree with those that feel that just because they can do it and get away with it, that they have the green light to go ahead and do it. It just isn't right.

In my brief looking about in this big cyber world I've seen many sites that actively do not support the kind of thievery you are concerned about but they also have no means to actively enforce that stand. It is largely an honor system. Just one look at the number and variety of nasty bugs that are being blocked by my spam filter alone and I know that I'm outnumbered and surrounded. We do need help, all the help we can get.

When I've encountered those who steal in the real world, when I've looked them in the face while removing my possesions from their pockets, after they've stared straight into my eyes and told me that they did not take them, I realize that I am looking at someone who is totally foreign to me and everything I believe. It's as though they are from another planet altogether. I don't have the capacity to understand why they do what they do.

One recent expose points out that one reason that people continue to steal via the web is because the web is such that it makes it easy for them to do so and then easily cover their tracks. I couldn't easily count how many times that I've been notified via some spam that I've won the International Lottery. The word has been out for some time now and the scams are abundant. It's a lot like the depictions of the wild west frontiers of old but multiplied on a much more massive scale.

It's hard to calculate the individual acts of shenanigans. Even if collectively they add up to huge numbers lost, who has the resources to talley them and then counter such an enslaught? The laws of the land are just beginning to realize that they hold little weight in the cyber world and are only now waking up to the fact all new restrictions are needed to combat and prevent cyber crime.

Having such a small footprint in this whole experience, I'm not sure that I can offer solutions to make right the many wrongs out there in the mess we're discussing. Like so many others on the web I grope blindly for direction with the many questions that I face each time I get involved with offering my music online and find few answers.

Mick, are you concerned because you've already had someone steal your work? I hope you don't feel that I was making light of that by my comments.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 05:15 PM

Friggin' A, Mick. Friggin' A.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 05:11 PM

At least my buddy Bruce makes a cogent point. I don't have a problem with the new technologies and their potential to put the control of the product back where it belongs, which is in the hands of the artists. I don't have a problem with the idea of new technologies putting the control of what is marketable back in the hands of the consumers. My ability to sell my product should be based on putting out a product that speaks to folks and causes them to want to buy it. This P2P stuff can be very valuable for that, and for selling tracks one by one. But I strongly object to the type of free, unrestricted stuff that allows folks to rip me off. And I am appalled at the attempts by folks to justify their theft. If I allow the download of free tracks as a sales tool, that is my business. If you take my product and make copies for others, or make it available for unauthorized download on a public site, then you and the site owners should be liable to me for any unauthorized downloads that occur.

Mick

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 04:57 PM

A problem the recording industry has had to face and they have no solution for is that of 'song theft'. Problem is that there have been no big cases (lawsuits) wherein people have been nailed to the wall for the misappropriation of material. The writers who write miss their cut, the singers who sing miss theirs. So do the companies. That said, ever since the 1970s I have had no love for the BIG guys in the business. Outrageous prices and the profits did NOT filter down to the artists or writers. The only people who have been honest in the business have been radio stations (which pay their share of royalties for songs they air. And guess what? Yep, even the lowly songwriters receive their share (provided they have registered the material with a performing rights agency).

Big companies tried to 'manage' the direction of music, and really they did. Public opinion isn't really. It is manufactured and guided. The companies that gave us some garbage music as hits created their own destiny. And if they fall as a result I have no sympathy for them. My one worry is the state of music itself. If what is needed is an 'underground' record industry then that's what is needed. A day when the directors of record companies can no longer destroy careers by 'suggesting' songs be banned or artists toe the line or disappear on their recording studio floors.

Music belongs to people, not companies. It's time people took their music back.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Big Mick
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 04:46 PM

The last three posts show how silly an argument can get with folks. So Pat, with great respect for you and your accomplishments, you support giving away our music even though we have between $2,000 and $10,000 into its production? And you support this because someone else is ripping you off so we should all allow ourselves to be ripped off?

Reggie, yours is a perfect example of demagoguery. For every story you tell of the "thugs", I can probably come up with another that shows where they caused someone to be paid. I don't seriously think they are angels, but how about coming up with facts instead of this junk? How would you resolve the issue of artists being paid? Do you think it is just fine to cheat the artists out of the just compensation they deserve by ripping something that you legally should be paying for? Do you think you have the moral rights to the fruits of my labor? Or are you just defending the right to copy my property and give it away to as many people as you want?

Irish Sergeant, yours is the most shallow of the three posts. It adds nothing to the conversation. I really don't mean that to be as nasty as it sounds, but what did that add to all this? It is stating the obvious.

I wish that folks would contribute to the solutions instead of defending the indefensible. Tell us how you would protect folks like myself, and others, who would like to cover the production costs and make a fair compensation for the sale of the music we spend dollars and time producting.

Mick

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 04:26 PM

IN the end suits or no, music will be passed orally and technologically because that has been the nature of music and musicians since time immemorial, Neil

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: reggie miles
Date: 14 Jan 08 - 05:12 PM

I have a friend who operated a small restaurant and was featuring live music, including my talents. Back in the 70s he had performed with some very well known big name rock bands. One day the performer's rights thugs came by to ask him to pay up or get sued. My friend had a great lawyer. So, he knew he could counter sue and win big because he had received nothing, zero, zip, from those organizations in the way of royalties. He barked back at the thug, "You're gonna sue me for thousands of dollars?! I'm gonna sue you for thousands of dollars! I've never received a single royalty check." We continued to play music there without a problem. Perhaps more cafe owners should stand up to these threats as he did instead of being bullied.

This is just another example of the way the big time industry has taken advantage their artists, even big time industry artists, and not compensated them. Yes, it could have been contracted that way and therefore legal for them to do so. I wasn't there when the papers were signed. Perhaps my friend signed away his rights and didn't realize it. But given that he threatened to counter sue for not having received anything makes me think that he knew that he had a case.

They never came back. Perhaps they felt as though they had met someone who was more than their match. A lot of lawyerly posturing is about who can make the biggest threats and have the evidence to back them up.

Regarding the topic of bootlegging, the Grateful Dead allowed their fans to share their music in this way. This was one of the ways that they were able to gain such attention to their music. It worked for them.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jan 08 - 10:11 PM

Patrick Sky's opinion of the music biz from Amazon:

Patrick Sky speaks, Sep 12 2002
For those of you interested I want you to know that I recorded this album (Songs That Made America Famous) over 30 years ago and in spite of selling thousands, I have never received a penny in royalties. I wish to thank all of my fans that have enjoyed the record over the years. If you decide to purchase it I want you to enjoy it.

However I want you to know that the recording industry are a bunch a of criminals and have been stealing from the artists for a hundred years. This record is a fine example and is the rule and not the exception. This is why I support "Free" download music because, regardless of how much the recording industry complains, they get 99.9% of the money and the artist never gets a fair shake.

All the best,
Patrick Sky
[e-mail]

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: harpmolly
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 11:12 PM

Ian,

Which brought me to this article...which seems just about the most ridiculous thing ever. Now, I don't live in the UK, but the US can't be far behind...and this does seem to echo the RIAA debate.

So if it IS technically illegal to rip your own legally purchased CDs to your computer and transfer them to mp3 players, and/or make compilations for *personal use only* (which again seems almost hallucinatory in its idiocy), how is it that iPods and Zunes are even allowed to proliferate? Is the loophole that you should really only be using/transferring music you've bought/downloaded from the iTunes store, etc.? In what bloody universe does this make sense? *rolling eyes* And why isn't iTunes held responsible for their flagrant encouragement of illegal conduct? They are advertising the fact that you can rip CDs to your computer, burn playlists to disc, etc. I'm confused that they haven't been held responsible for that, if indeed it is even technically illegal.

I know, I know, it's piracy and file sharing that are the big concern here, but if they're going to state that the above "fair use" practices are actually illegal, I'd be curious as to the answer to these questions.

Molly

P.S. Sigh. Ah, innocence. I've always enjoyed the experience of making a mixed CD for a friend, knowing that I was actually helping the artist by introducing my friends to their music (my personal rule of thumb is never to put more than two songs by the same artist on one CD). I myself have bought dozens of CDs after being introduced to the music by a friend's mix. Before the iTunes era this made sense, but now that every song is individually available for sale, I suppose I've lost my warm fuzzy high moral ground. Hmph...

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Ian Burdon
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 01:09 PM

Here's and interesting potential development in UK law -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7176538.stm

Ian

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Midchuck
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 11:18 AM

I think there is a difference between simply making a copy to other formats for your own convenience, and "upgrading" from an obsolete format to a better version eg LP or cassette to CD.

I don't think there really is. When you digitalize a vinyl or cassette recording, you get it exactly - complete with scratches on the vinyl, etc. The recording doesn't become "CD-quality" by magic.

Granted, there are all kinds of editing software to remove defects in old recordings, but they can't insert quality that wasn't there in the first place.

I tend to buy CDs of my favorite old vinyl recordings when they become available, not for ethical reasons so much as because you get a better product, more cheaply in the long run (factoring in the value of your own time), by doing so, than by copying to a WAV file and editing the result. Unless you're an expert audio engineer. I ain't.

Peter.

(I do question whether anyone has an ethical leg to stand on, who says "We aren't going to reissue this particular album on CD, but we're going to sue you if you copy your old vinyl to CD." If it isn't available, who's being deprived of a profit?)

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 10:54 AM

Celtaddict,

I think there is a difference between simply making a copy to other formats for your own convenience, and "upgrading" from an obsolete format to a better version eg LP or cassette to CD. But I accept the difference is a fine one, and I guess it is a matter for your own conscience. Legally, I don't think you have a leg to stand on!

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: GUEST,Question Mark
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:16 PM

Regarding, Disney stars not being upset about fans copying their stuff because YouTube pays them royalties...exactly.

The fan/consumer is happy. The record company is happy. YouTube is happy (as they sell their ad space probably based on consumer visits to YouTube.

But, that's only a piece of the total entertainment-media which also combines that the video clips are from Disney TV shows, the music is from Disney labels, the albums/DVD's are from Disney, they music is played on Radio Disney, the concerts are promoted by Disney, Ticketmaster sells tons of tickets and makes money, the Disney artists are well paid, the songs are published by Disney, Disney is involved in merchandising, the stars appear on Disney's ABC shows, etc. etc. etc. Billboard's number one selling albums.

Tons of money in this industry in this multi-media marketing format model for all. The music industry is flourishing with this new model. While ironically we sit and talk about how the music industry is being killed...because of all this new fangled stuff, thinking with blinder on in terms of the former music industry not the current multi-media entertainment industry who has already figured out how it can work well with the actual music/entertainment/computer/video/downloads/advertising/artist/songwriting/publishing/magazine/even theme park components.   It has created fan frenzy the size of Elvis/Beatle/Jackson mania with a fan base in it for the long run as well as a renewable fan base.

So yep, the fact YouTube pays Disney so they in turn get paid by advertisers. That's part of the new marketing model in the business. Fans downloading music and videos and sharing them with other friends in countless new interpretations = fan frenzy for more product. That's exactly the point I was making. All are happy...great product, great money, great fans. The new model works. The former music industry we're talking about is a sideshow.

QM

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:16 PM

This link is for Capt'n Bob--Audio Home Recording Act

It explains, in protracted detail, the law that enabled the royalties, the reasons that it was implemented and its implications, the formula for the distribution of the royalties, and the peculiar fact that, given all of this, not that much money has either been collected or distributed--

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Celtaddict
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:36 PM

Howard Jones: I do not understand why it is unfair to an artist (or 'morally dubious') if I have purchased their recording in LP or cassette format, and later make a CD of it for my own use? This does not seem any more unfair than making a copy for use in my car, to prevent harm to the original which lives in my house. If I have purchased an item of clothing, and lose weight, I do not find any fault in altering it to fit rather than buying a new one. I do understand that the artist may have incurred additional expense in re-mastering and re-releasing, but my choosing not to invest in this new version does not seem to me different from choosing not to invest in the original recording in the first place, a personal decision and not a moral issue.
I was fascinated by the consideration of the library, in purchasing a single book for many in a community to read; we are active library users and I had never thought about the copyright manifestations.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:24 PM

Guest, you refer to Disney stars being relaxed about being posted on Youtube, but it's obvious why from your own post - Youtube pays them royalties.

There can be no issue with copying, downloading etc if the proper permissions have been obtained and royalties have been paid. The problems arise where these are ignored.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:21 PM

Jim Lad, you replied to my comment with:

"What artist would ever object to one of his/her customers upgrading their album to CD?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Other than that, I pretty well agree with you."

No doubt many artists would be relaxed about this - others wouldn't, and in particular I suspect their record labels wouldn't.

I see a difference between this and copying a CD you've bought onto another CD to listen to in the car, or onto an MP3 player. With the latter, the artist isn't losing out, because you wouldn't buy additional CDs or pay to download tracks (at least I wouldn't) if you couldn't copy them - it's just a matter of putting music you've paid for into a convenient format.

Where the artist has made a new release on CD, I think it's a different matter, and the artist is entitled to be pissed off if you copy the LP rather than pay to upgrade. Perhaps "unacceptable" was a bit strong - "morally dubious" at least. Of course, everyone does it (I don't claim to be a saint!) but I think we're on dodgy ground.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:42 AM

The fact remains, though, that the record industry was built upon people not being able to duplicate a record. No one owned equipment that could do that. When cassette recorders and players came into vogue, suddenly they were made with near identical copy capabilities, often incorporated into them. Strangely, the record industry in order to fight this, converted to issuing cassettes because people preferred their format out of convenience and their ability to duplicate. It seems to me, the record industry grappled with this and then the mindset of their industry seemed to become that was okay provided the copies were for personal use, only.

Then, with duplicating scaring the record industry, they changed their format to a higher quality CD and quit issuing cassettes. They also seemed to tolerate making cassettes of CD's because the quality was not the same, and we all know...annihilated the cassette format in terms of any new issues. No one owned equipment to duplicate CD's and the industry thought they had the problem solved. Which they did for quite awhile. But, then came easily obtainable CD replicating programs and then built in computer programs to burn and rip CD's. Then, digital home recording capability, lower prices, etc. etc. And, reasonably good quality to boot. And, easily obtainable, tradeable, downloadable, etc. And, now, MP3 or Wave files where a CD isn't even needed.

Perhaps, we should address what SHOULD the record industry be doing in view of all this to save itself. Or, how does one predict the industry will reformulate itself to once again turn it all into a business. I suspect, someone will figure out how. I suspect they are already putting it into action. Just look at the cash cow that Hollywood Records and Disney have at hand with their new stable of young performers using television, movies, concerts and You Tube and Google paying them royalties galore as they further make their music product more available (as they too profit from the ads they sell.) Oh, did I forget ringtones and accompanying related merchandising (books, fashion, souvenier keepsakes, special deluxe editions of DVD's, CD's.)

It is not really about the music industry being left behind. The music industry is now the entertainment and cultural industry. The ones left behind may very well be the ones who are thinking in terms of the old ways...ie. "hey, I can download a song for free that a record company already sold to me three times over in a record, cassette, and CD format. Has the world gone mad?" Fact is, we're no longer their target audience and while we're busy debating the music industry as we knew it as the record industry throws intellectual property ethics nonsense at us, it already knows that enough to keep us occupied and out of their hair as they market to their true target buying audience (which is not us), but the new multi-media consumer. Will all the archive music survive, yes? Will folk music survive? Sure. Will we occasionally buy CD's at a Starbucks...sure. Will the marketing model that Disney (aka: Disney/ABC), Hollywood Records, concert promoters, YouTube, and Google have struck gold upon become the music industry's wave of the future. Gotta think so. We're old hat to 'em, just like Mitch Miller and Lawrence Welk went out of vogue with the Beatles and the record industry didn't care. If you're not aware of the music phenomena that is going on with Disney, Hollywood Records, concerts, etc. right now then you should look into it. At this point, the biggest mania craze since Elvis, John, Paul, George, Ringo, and Michael Jackson is going on...and it isn't hip hop rap or Britney. The only question is, as it was back then, is will it last?

BTW, the new Disney stars that my 13 year old daughter has introduced me to are quite good. And, their record companies don't care if their fans take their music and television clips and make their own videos with their own storylines on Windows Movie Maker and post 'em on YouTube. Those things only further build their fan base as YouTube pays them royalties.

Its a new day in the multi-media entertainment industry. And, we're yesterday.

QM

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Jim Lad
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:04 AM

Socan collects royalties from all blank music CDs & Cassettes in Canada. Don't know where you're at though, Bob

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 05:05 PM

You know, there's more than one "Record Industry". And it's pointless to lump, say, SONY with Folk-Legacy or Musical Traditions. Different orders of magnitude; different concerns. And different motives.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Cap't Bob
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 02:22 PM

The older cd recorders require a "MUSIC CD". I understand that as far as recording quality they are the the same as any blank cd.   The "music cd's" are more expensive than the regular blank cds.

Anyone know where the extra money goes?   I was informed that it went to the recording industry. (that's what I was told by the salesman and have no idea if he knew what he was talking about.)

Cap't Bob

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Jim Lad
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 11:47 AM

"Copying an LP instead of buying the CD re-release? Not acceptable"

What artist would ever object to one of his/her customers upgrading their album to CD?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Other than that, I pretty well agree with you.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Howard Jones
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 09:09 AM

This thread seems to have drifted into a discussion on copyright, and the usual confusion this brings.

Almost any copy, whether as a backup, transfer from LP/cassette, ripped onto an MP3 player or whatever, is likely to be illegal. Will you get sued? Highly unlikely - what is the financial loss to the copyright owner? Only the cost of another CD or download which you should have bought instead, not worth picking up the phone to the lawyer over. But if you're going to start selling bootlegs, or making the files available to download, then they'll go for you.

The copyright on a songbook covers the printed arrangements. If you want to photocopy the sheet music, you need the publisher's permission. If you perform or record those songs, then you owe a separate royalty to the songwriter (or copyright owner), usually collected by one of the copyright agencies (PRS-MCPS in the UK) from fees paid by the venue, or prior to the album being issued.

If you like someone's music and want to put it on your blog or website to spread the word, that's still unlawful - you're giving away something that's not yours to give, even if your motives are good. You should link to their website instead. If you're determined to play their music on your site, you need their (or their record label's) permission, again usually handled by one of the copyright agencies who will gladly sell you a licence to do so.

Whether copying is morally wrong in all these circumstances is another matter. Copying a CD you've purchased onto your MP3 player? Not in my opinion. Copying an LP which isn't available on CD? Again, OK in my opinion. Copying an LP instead of buying the CD re-release? Not acceptable, the copyright owner is losing out. But these are my personal views, and don't alter the fact that all of these actions are breaches of copyright.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: harpmolly
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 11:55 PM

Whew...that NPR clip is like a tennis match!

I have to admit the RIAA guy comes off as a bit more rational and levelheaded (though admittedly a little cheesed off), IMHO.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Joe_F
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 11:31 PM

What a disappointment! I was hoping for actual advice.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Greg B
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 09:42 PM

But Arnie--- at least some of us have been saying to you that
your efforts to make yourself a microcosm of the recording
industry in the face of much better marketing and distribution
technology is a recipe for failure.

So why not develop a better business model?

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: GUEST,Arnie Naiman
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 09:37 PM

I just made a new cd. I put quite a bit of money into quality of recording, mastering and artwork for the project. It's a project I've wanted to do for many years, and I'm happy to have completed it. I paid royalties to publishing companies of long gone dead musicians because I was legally obligated to do so. I know I'll make make the money back eventually, but I also know it'll take much more time than ever before. CD Sales pretty much suck a little worse every day. It must be getting pretty discouraging for some artists to continue investing in more recording projects or thinking that their recording profits might actually somehow substantially add to their livelihood. Times have changed.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Cap't Bob
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 09:20 PM

A few years back I bought a Philips cd recorder. It would only record using "music cd's". I asked the fellow at the store about the music cd's and he told me it had something to do with the recording companies getting a certain amount of money everytime a music cd was sold. The premise was that they (the companies) figured you would be using the device to copy cd's and wanted to get their fingers into the pot. At least that was my take on what he was saying.

My main purpose in buying the recorder was to make cd's from my old lp's and cassette tapes. After having a few purchased cd's go belly up I started making back-up copies. I also did some recording of my band, etc. Seems all of that recording is illegal these days?

Cap't Bob

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Greg B
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 06:45 PM

Good bit on NPR Talk of the Nation today pitting the author
of the story, who's standing behind it, against the president
of the RIAA, who's disputing it. Hear it here .