How to kill the record industry...

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 04:58 PM

Just a question and this is a bit of thread creep but what about music in teh public domain for example the Kinston trio did a version of SAnty Anno. If I redistribute that sone (Their arrangement) I would be in violation but would I be if I did my own arrangement? Neil

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: freightdawg
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 05:45 PM

Thanks, Bill D for a thoughtful post.

I've been thinking lately about how fair a library is. I mean, a book is purchased once, yet literally thousands can take it, read it, make notes from it, maybe even memorize it. Poor sucker that wrote the book only got royalties once. Loser.

It seems to me that if John Denver authorized Cherry Lane Music to produce a book of his songs, with music and guitar chords, that he and they would EXPECT people to buy it, and then actually USE it for its intended purpose: to learn how to play John Denver songs. What are we supposed to do? Sing it to ourselves in a sound proofed bathroom? Even inviting a few friends over for dinner and a sing around is, technically, in violation of copyright laws if we are not supposed to sing copyrighted materials.

Where does the law end? I appreciate Bill's discussion of laws that can be, but are not frequently, enforced. But the fact that they can be enforced makes it illegal, and to many people therefore immoral, to violate.

If the recording industry, and related industries, are on their death bed then hurrah and no tears from me. But the murkiness of the laws still confound the average schmuck like me that just wants to sing some songs and see a few smiles on some faces.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: The Borchester Echo
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 05:53 PM


"That must have taken a while to type."

cut and pasted from Here

Fuck off "Guest: Molecatcher's Apprentice" (or to be more accurate, Stupid Sam.
The entire point of copy/pasting from the Musical Traditions discography is that it is not possible to bookmark individual pages.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:19 PM

Sorry Freigtdawg, your example of the John Denver book bears little relationship to the problem.   Buying the book does not give you permission to make a career as a John Denver impersonator.   Read the copyright and other restrictions in the beginning of most songbooks. Public performance is not implied in cases like that.

Of course, it is highly doubtful that the John Denver estate would go after Freightdawg for the $1.38 they would be owed from the 3 CD's that you managed to sell of the unauthorized use of the work.

There is a huge "sky is falling" mentality that is taking hold. The record companies have enough trouble on their hands - they aren't going after the little guy, no matter what the media tries to spin. The case in point (anyone remember the beginning of this thread - th reason for this season??) was about a person who was DISTRIBUTING the songs to a much larger group. THOSE are the people they need to stop.

If you simply wish to make a copy and give to your friend, it is sense of right and wrong at work.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Midchuck
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 07:29 PM

You aren't going to kill the record industry.

The Suits Always Win.

The Suits can afford to buy the campaign contributions, meals, booze, drugs, whores, and catamites, to get Congress to pass whatever laws they need to keep the money coming in.

Please refer to the first line of the chorus of "Barret's Privateers."

Peter

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Jim Lad
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 08:00 PM

If we had more songs like "Barret's Privateers" the record industry would have gone under, years ago.




Sorry. I just hate that chorus.
Grin!
Jim

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 09:53 PM

The chorus in this thread seems to be "Fuck Off." I wonder why some people don't have seem to be able to carry on a discussion without resorting to phrases like that.
The level of animosity at Mudcat seems to be rising. I've had complaints abut this thread and others. Might it be possible to carry on a friendly discussion? I don't want to sound prudish, but if you use terms like "fuck off," it's really hard for people to feel like responding to you in a friendly way.

Sorry. I just hate that chorus.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: freightdawg
Date: 02 Jan 08 - 11:07 PM

My apologies Ron, I don't think I was accurate in what I was trying to say.

I am fully aware, and agree with, the idea that if I was to personally profit from my singing of a published work that I would owe the one who created and published the work. This is only fair and right. Personally I would be honored to be good enough to write a royalty check. It won't happen to me in this lifetime. If I was to write a book I would expect the same from those who might profit from quoting or using my book in a beneficial manner.

I am only wondering why, if the books are created to be useful in learning and performing the songs, is it therefore wrong to do so in a public (or even in a not so public) arena? There seems to be a legal double bind here - its okay to buy the book and learn from it, but wrong to perform what you've learned? I'm just speaking of charity events and sing arounds. If it is illegal to publically perform a piece of music in one setting, what suddenly makes it legal and acceptable in another?

I was never accused of being too smart, and I wouldn't be convicted even if I was.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 12:26 AM

Jeez, I perform other people's songs on stage all the time, and don't pay royalties. Some I learned from recordings, others I learned from songbooks.

However, when I RECORD those songs and sell them on a CD, that's a horse of a different kettle of fish.

Midchuck - catamite?

Good one - I haven't heard that word in years.

Seamus

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Jim Lad
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 01:41 AM

Jeepers Joe:
            Just to clarify. I didn't, don't, won't use that language.
            It wouldn't be lady like. Joe was referring to one of our   
            regular CUSStomers. Not me!

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Jim Lad
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 01:43 AM

As a matter of fact.. I don't like the chorus of "Barret's Privateers" because of the language in it.
Ironical, eh?

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: GUEST,Question Mark
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 01:57 AM

A musician doesn't pay royalties to a songwriter for performing a song live at a venue. The venue (in theory) pays the royalties by joining BMI, ASCAP, or the other similar organization, which in turn distributes the organization's fees to registered songwriters using a formula that no one knows. This in theory is how a songwriter, if he/she joins BMI, ASCAP, or the other receives royalties for public performances of his/her composition. The problem with this is: 1) BMI, ASCAP, etc. pay out very little 2) Keep a amount for themselves to run the organizations 3) Pay sales people commissions to sign up venues to join (and the sales people scare the bewilders out of small venues with live music with legal threats if they don't join, so they can get their commissions...causing venues to opt to not have live music and thus not join. 4) These organizations only really help superstar songwriters as anyone else ends up with pennies for their music being played. 5) There is no real way to track what songwriters' songs are really being played in these
venues.

QM

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 08:59 AM

I thought a bit about the idea of libraries and the way they let people read books they purchased and how that compares to music file sharing/copying. The two can't really be compared. Libraries are funded by taxpayers, therefore libraries purchase books on behalf of the local taxpayers and then share the books to read with the local taxpayers who collectively purchased the books. Plus, there are so many local libraries, the number of local libraries themselves become a significant major market for a bookselling publisher representing an author to target.

These situations do not seem comparable to the situations of file sharing music that is under discussion.

QM

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 09:31 AM

Save your "Father Joebro" platitudes, Joe. I used the term on someone who immediately dismissed my whole argument with his/her "high horse" comment, when in fact that person was guilty of the same thing i.e. not reading my comment. I answered that smartass comment with another. It is not important to me whether you liked the tone, as I didn't like the tone of the flip response.

But back to the discussion. I don't have a lick of a problem with the "Brave New World" way the prospect of the internet and file sharing present. In fact I love the fact that the artists are in charge of their product. What I do have a problem with is the idea that using that same "Brave New World" idea to justify getting something for nothing that you should have to compensate me for, unless of course I decide to give it to you (read that allow a free download) for my own reasons. It is not the concept of me controlling my own fate that is frightening, it is the concept that others feel they have the right to wrest from me the reward for my own work. That is simply swapping the tyranny of some faceless big business bureaucrat for the tyranny of the faceless folks that aren't driven by some higher purpose, rather their own greed at getting something for nothing.

If I choose to give it, fine. If I choose to sell it a track at a time, fine. But that is my choice, not yours.

Mick

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Kim C
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 09:56 AM

I said many years ago that the record industry was going to kick itself in the ass with the help of digital technology.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 10:07 AM

It is not only the record companies, look at the movies. Everyone grumbles about paying $9 or more to go see a film, but piracy has cost dearly.

I know many people have the Robin Hood mentality and root for the pirates, but the reality is we all pay for it in the end. Sure the record companies were greedy, sure artists got screwed, but both sides seem to dig their feet in the sand and get ready for a battle instead of figuring out ways to help stop the bleeding.

I'm not sure why people think that a ride on the information highway is free - the Internet provides another way of commerce, and another way of piracy.

About the books, I was under the impression that if you perform a copyrighted arrangement, you pay for the rights to do so. If I borrowed the script for a Broadway play that has been published, would that give me the right to put it on stage at a local venue without paying for the rights to do so? I don't think so. What is the difference?

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: GUEST,Black Hawk on works PC
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 10:09 AM

Going back to the library question - forget books, they now loan out CDs. (UK)
I have used this facility twice.
Once to see/listen to Garth Brooks to find out what the fuss was about. (still can't stand him & only listened once to each of 3 CDs).

Once to listen to Alan Jackson (very impressed & went & bought 3 Cds of his).

Nonetheless, the opportunity is there to borrow CDs, copy them & return at no cost to the borrower & no renumeration to the artist.(apart from the royalty fee on the original CD)

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: GUEST,Question Mark
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 11:52 AM

Again, in theory the library is funded and owned by taxpayers. Therefore, CD's like books are collectively owned and paid for by the taxpayers and the artist has benefited from their collective purchase from the library. This is just cooperative economics. The question only becomes then is the copying aspect for personal use.

QM

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 12:08 PM

"Going back to the library question - forget books..."

I'd rather not forget books if that's alright...after all that's what librairies are all about. Quite frankly I'd rather not borrow CD's from a library given the handling habits of many folk

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 04:36 PM

Copyright is what it says. "The right to copy." A library does not violate copyright with either books or recordings as long as they are lending a legal publishing and not a copy. Beyond copyright what you buy is usually yours to do with as you please, but some publishing companies may try to impose license agreements between them and the buyer. This has been tried by the industry with very limited success. If you take anything home and copy it you are probably in violation of copyright.
That being said the publishing and music industries have pressured governments (with some success) to change the common law definition to their favor in some jurisdictions.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Jim Lad
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 04:44 PM

I gave my CDs to the library in Margaree.
I really thought the big name record companies would follow suit but so far, no luck.

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 05:28 PM

The record industry is killing itself. Most of the product for public consumption today
is less than good. It's generally overproduced, slapped together for commerical reasons,
touted by music business people who should be selling shoes, pandering to sex and violence that titilates the market, and here's the hard truth, the artist is not making as
much money as the business people who are exploiting his/her talent. The radio media (surprise! surprise!) is in collusion with these business sharks with their restricted playlists and censorship (Dixie Chicks come to mind).

The reason people don't want to pay the companies for their product is because generally,
their product sucks.

Only the high rollers in the music biz are making the money anyhow.

Who are the real thieves here?

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: How to kill the record industry...
From: Slag
Date: 03 Jan 08 - 05:33 PM

Hi all. Back home and not "Guest" Slag anymore, thank you! I see potential for several directions offered here. And speaking of "offering", Joe, I couldn't agree with you more. Foul language accomplishes nothing but demonstrating a paucity of vocabulary or an inability to mount a sound argument or answer. Having said that I have to admit that that phrase and other equally blunt conversation-terminators come to my mind every now and then. I just choose to not use them for decorum's sake. We can all do better in the civility department.

And what about copyright? If I put "Copyright 2008" at the bottom of this post then it becomes copyrighted material??? Or does Mudcat claim the rights to all original material posted here? Maybe I should look at the rules again! Hmmmm?! And if my phraseology, wit and wisdom or foolishness and buffoonery are my own what right does Mudcat have to "delete" the same? If it is unacceptable to the 'Cat, then it should be returned to the member for revision, editing or sui-deletion (to coin a phrase). We almost all compose our posts on the cuff and Mudcat is kind enough to give us a listing of all our posts, thank you.

Well that is quite a drift and I apologize but it is tangential. I think I'll get a tiny little tattoo of a circled "C" and a, say, 2008, on my jaw line. Backoff pappa-ratsies! This mug is copyrighted! Paris Hilton could get one on some other body part then they'd have to pay her when she climbs out of the car!

What I was hinting at in my earlier post is that a true union of recording artist, FOR recording artists would place control where it belonged and where said artists could really take care of one another. Keep greed and power-lust out of the equation (somehow???) how sweet if the artists themselves could effect distribution, etc. Of course you'd have to resolve all your bickering disputes and general unhappiness among yourselves, but it can be done. Just an idea. But if someone should happen to pick it up and run with it, it would turn off the debate and put a positive direction on the question.

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 .

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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