Comments on: JK wedding dance a Sony fake

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:30:24 +0000

” (As far as I know shes still fighting, defending her right to fair use) ”

She won.

By: Maroan

Maroan — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:55:01 +0000

Tons of videos are taken down from YouTube, because the labels refuse to accept the fair use act. Isnt time to give back?
I think Jill and Kevin should send a take down request to YouTube, until Chris Brown and Sony cough up… Seriously why not?
I still remember this funny video with this little baby dancing while we could vaguely hear a Prince song in the background…
The mom was chocked to see that a take down request had been sendt, and YouTube complied. (As far as I know shes still fighting, defending her right to fair use) In this case Sony and Chris Brown in fact misuse a funny video for their own benefits… So I do really believe, its payback time!

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:16:41 +0000

” Actually, whilst I think that the obvious Sony/BMG promotional tactics wonât work quite so non-transparently a second and third time, I consider that this manouver in fact supports the P2P argument quite strongly. ”

Yes it does indeed.

” This represents a major paradigm shift in at the Big Music end of towns thinking. ”

Not attacking you at all Tom, but this isn’t shift in thinking at all.

It may seem that way, but do you honestly believe that the bean counters have been unaware
of just how valuable this exposure is, for all of this time ?

They have ALWAYS done this.

Their problem is that other non-signed artists can ALSO use those same venues for self promotion.

I’ve pointed out the pattern before …
Sue … win at any cost .. make offer the owner can’t refuse .. profit , well .. maybe not
so much that last one.But, they have the benefit of controlling an outlet that EVERYONE
used to be able to use, and keeping it only for their own sla. … ummm artists.

There is a growing list of services that USED to be good for unsigned artists that were destroyed
in this fashion, and are only good for Major label owned properties.

” then judges will be forced to re-evalute the position of P2P as being damaging to the Content Industries. ”

So far I haven’t seen a judge actually do anything against the content industry in those cases against
individuals. They seem pretty firmly in the labels ‘pocket’ .. so to speak.

Common sense, the labels OWN actions, and evidence in front of us for many years have shown that P2P is
the greatest thing to happen to musicians, including the RIAA stable of servants, and THEY KNOW IT.

That’s why they want it all for themselves.

” Viola[sic] – P2P is therefore no longer illegal. ”

Come on Tom, I know you are smarter than that.
P2P has never been illegal.
Some uses of P2P have been thought of as a civil offense,
But P2P has never been Illegal in itself. Spouting the company
line for them is directly counter to the truth of the matter.

P2P has SUBSTANTIAL LEGAL USES, .. sound familiar ?

One technology was allowed to live some years ago on that basis.

The Judges were actually smart back then.

Now they just seem like … different somehow

By: SteelWolf

SteelWolf — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:49:07 +0000

Great comment Tom. I’d love to see this example come up in the next court case where dozens of moguls whine about how their business is being destroyed.

By: Thomas Koltai

Thomas Koltai — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 20:12:37 +0000

Actually, whilst I think that the obvious Sony/BMG promotional tactics won’t work quite so non-transparently a second and third time, I consider that this manouver in fact supports the P2P argument quite strongly.

Think about it – A major record label saying “Gee, it’s cheaper and easier to use the internet to drive up sales than it is to do all that other promotional stuff.”

This represents a major paradigm shift in at the Big Music end of towns thinking.

If they continue to do this type of fake marketing – and I don’t see how they have any other choice, then judges will be forced to re-evalute the position of P2P as being damaging to the Content Industries. After all – if one type of “Free” digital distribution is a valid and employed method for increasing record sales – then how can the other (P2P) be an illegal form of distribution.

Both methods use the Internet. Both methods are distributing the content for free.

OK OK – P2P doesnt have the pop-up advert saying “Buy this track from iTunes”.
On that basis – all we have to do is include an MP3 url Tag into the song pointing at Amazon (forget iTunes…. some people just don’t want the software on their computers….).

Viola – P2P is therefore no longer illegal.

Embrace it. Enjoy it – and watch the world change.

By: normal1515

normal1515 — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 01:11:32 +0000

It’s time we do something about this. This goes out to all my fellow DIY artists – folks with no record label, making music on their own, embracing the digital age. We’ve known for along time that the real music is underground, beyond the scope of the music industry. We can’t stand by while the industry pushes its garbage down our throats and pretend it’s viral. Let’s harness the power of viral content to promote good music and thwart the record industry. If you are an independent artist upset about the way the big 4 and the riaa have behaved in the last few years, you owe it to yourself to study public relations, and learn how content becomes viral. There’s plenty of good label-free music online but nobody’s listening.

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 18:17:23 +0000

Rihanna, Artic Monkeys etc ….

These fakes have been around for a while.
The Labels have been using the valuable promotion of ‘Free’ while at the same
time screaming that they can’t compete with free. Not a surprise.

Once they control all of the free outlets only THEIR stuff will ever be seen or heard.

Kind of like what they did to terestrial radio.

No surprises here.

By: arti

arti — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:53:10 +0000

*shudders*
I feel violated