RIAA innovation control: II
p2pnet.net News View:- A comment post to our recent piece based on a Reader’s Write touched several nerves.
It fantasizes on a `Government` project under which you`d have to have some kind of Government issued permit, like a ham radio license to develop software.
Then, no one can ever come up with one of these annoying applications that actually allow people to listen to music they’ve already paid for in some fashion under terms and conditions other than those imposed by the RIAA and their patrons, unless of course, they feel like spending a couple of years at Club Fed.
In answer to a new post, Having been a professional songwriter for the last 27 years, most of which I’ve spent as a staff writer for major music publishing companies, and I have also been involved in major lawsuits and audits AGAINST music publishers,” said an anonymous response, “I can tell you for a FACT that your figures are full of crap,
Read on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Most music publishers pay most of the money they owe to writers. Yes there are exceptions, but they are just that; exceptions.
Most music publisher audits catch music publishers NOT COLLECTING money that is owed them due to incompetence or lack of staffing. This hurts writers, but it is more a symptom of the low pay that the current copyright law provides writers AND Music publishers. We only get 8.5 cents a copy of the CD. That is controlled by Congress so we are essentially working under state Socialism.
If you want to help songwriters get paid, then help us get that number raised by writing your congressman! And stop stealing the music!
I’ve also been an artist on three major labels and I can tell you they don’t pay unless you make a LOT of money. But that is because they recoup your recording and promotion costs (nowadays upwards of two million dollars an album).
This is agreed on by contract BEFORE the artist records. If you don’t agree with the contract then DON’T SIGN IT. Go independent and make your own record and promote it yourself. Don’t take their money and then bitch about it when they recoup it from your earnings.
As to whether Copyright actually promotes creation, here’s the only fact you need to know. Before 1895 there was a US copyright law for songwriters but it didn’t cover British and Irish songwriter’s work so US publishers simply stole British and Irish music and the United States only produced one major songwriter the entire century (Stephen Foster) who died at 37 years old with 38 cents to his name! After 1907, the US songwriters got a copyright law that gave them 2 cents per 10 cent copy of sheet music and protected ALL music.
Then for the next thirty years we had the ‘Golden Age’ of American composers producing the Gershwins, Cole Porter, Harold Arlen, Yip Harburg, Oscar Hammerstein and Richard Rodgers (the list goes on and on)
After the French revolution, they did away with copyright laws and in a few years there were no more novels being written in French so they reinstated the copyright laws and Voila, new novels in French began reappearing!!!!
Why do you P2P guys not understand that when you don’t pay people, they don’t work?
What is so hard about that concept? Could it be that it runs against your rationailzation that you aren’t hurting anybody by stealing the music instead of paying for it?
Dude, when you steal there’s always a victim!
You are talking to one …
==============
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
Reader’s Write – RIAA innovation control, p2pnet, May 29, 2005
May 30th, 2005 at 7:01 pm
Did the following writers of music have copyright?
Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Schuman, Brahms, Schubert, Bach, Berlioz
What music has continental Europe produced since the advent of copyright?
The Scorpions, Norwegian Death Metal, Italian Disco, the duets of Bridgette Bardot
Dude — therefore, copyright has had a disastrous effect on the music of Europe.
That’s about the level of argument of this guys comment.
May 30th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Sir, did it ever occur to you that this may be the so called “back-slash” from big music sueing their own customers. In case you didn’t notice, it’s been going on for a couple of years now. Maybe you should stop listening to big music propaganda and start paying attention to the customers who helped to get your career started in the first place.
May 30th, 2005 at 7:50 pm
I have no trouble lobbying to raise royalty rates for the actual artists, and no problem paying the actual artists, but I definitely have problems with artist’s guilds lobbying congress to further the cause of digital lockdown and overly broad regulation of what should be general purpose devices.
consumer leakage and commercial piracy were always there, they will continue to exist, and there is no way to permanently erradicate them, but the guilds who represent you are angering techies like me who want the right to format shift, compress, manipulate, and play MY music/movies on whatever device, software, and with whatever codec/container format i choose.
Also, publishing companies should be excluded by law from obtaining copyright priveledges from the true creators. Their “part” of the consumer checkbook is not necessary anymore, as anyone anywhere in the world is capable of mass scale distribution without their help. They are an inefficient and arguably utterly wasteful link in a chain which is too long.
Start campaigning for fair use rights.. not FAKE and DRM infested fair use rights as hypothetically spoken of by riaa reps, but REAL fair use rights, and start campaigning against what are now completely irrelevant, inefficient, and unnecessary publishing companies. I’ll start campaigning for your higher royalties.
-Anonymous econ and cs major.
May 30th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
If you want to gain ground force support for higher royalties, you should write as an artist and support proper DMCA reform to free the general public from the shackles of DRM which fails to prevent internet redistribution.
May 30th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
look, I’ve got a real problem with you calling every netizen a theif because they refuse to back cartels which take 90% of your money (YES, that is a correct estimate!) and use it to sue our friends, neighbors, their children, their grandmothers, their dead relatives, and to campaign for laws which violate the principles of innovation and private property of individuls.
that said, internet distribution is a reality now. It happens every day. Yet I still see tons of new acts, I have musician friends who have no trouble with p2p distribution and making a living at the same time.
Did star wars ep III bomb at the box office? No, it grossed millions, people lined up, and it also spread across p2p. P2p is not a substitute for official releases, it is “try before you buy” or “keep along with your purchase”.
It sates the public’s appetite for immediate gratification, but does not compete directly with the official product.
You are a musician, not an economist. Leave the economics to pros like me, and make your music. I’m telling you now music has already saturated p2p nets, and any damage p2p would have done is ALREADY done. The lawsuits are not and were never a deterrant (as indicated by the doubling of p2p use in the US alone since the lawsuits in ‘03).
Stop buying this hysterical sky is falling routine from the likes of Mitch Bainwol and relax, or maybe you’d like to campaign against that home taping scourge which has been around since the 80’s giving people the same options p2p now offers.
It’s nothing new, get over it.
May 30th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
As long as an artist is affliated with major music and represented by the RIAA, I have no problem with you getting NO MONEY at all. You have been painted and tarred with the same brush that the consumer has no love for. It is your choice whether you sign a contract with the devil and it is my money and I don’t support economic terrorism. That means I don’t spend on RIAA labels; it also means you get no money from me.
The backlash has been a long time coming but it has arrived. That is one of the reasons everyone in the industry is bitching and moaning about money. Unforetunetly, it seems those same artists have to support a small town of leechers and thieves to their profits and that is why the artists never recoup the profit they should. So don’t bitch to me about your money and what you should have made. I didn’t sign the contract, you did.
I have a reasonable expectation that if I buy something that it is mine to use as I see fit, as that is the purpose of owning something as opposed to downloans. I won’t downloan. I have a right if I purchase an item to use it in whatever container I see fit and to view or listen to it how I would wish on what ever means I have available to do so. Since I don’t agree with those EULA’s, copylocks, and DRM, they once again won’t get my money. In the end that means you the artist, that agreed with this sort of highway robbery won’t see a dime either.
May 31st, 2005 at 12:20 am
Yes, when you steal there is always a victim! So therefor, that must mean that downloading music, ISN’T stealing… cause no one is a victim… there is no lose of anything from downloading…
And what the hell is all this crap about licenses to program!!!!!!!
First of all, no matter how many laws they make… this is more impossible than stoping filesharring! there are many countries that would never except this kind of law… PLUS the internet is always a good place to find programming stuff, so people aren’t going to stop progamming!
How can you stop people from programing?… =/pff
Thats like trying to stop children from making knex models… or stoping someone from drawing art… or making inventions that make their lifes easier!
Selfish bastards….
May 31st, 2005 at 4:49 am
I don’t have a problem with the copyright law as originally intended, I have a problem with the large conglomerates getting congress to extend the copyright laws each time the expiration date approaches and they ,not the artists, would loose money. I don’t think that people have a problem with artists making money and the chain making money, but when you see them charging the same price for downloaded music as the do for a c/d purchased in the store, then you know that there is a problem somewhere. This problem was not evident before the advent of the internet and music downloading but it sure is obvious now.
Many of the older c/ds copyrights are owned by the companies or someone other than the original artist, if in fact, the artist is not long dead.
Obviously if the original artist is no longer the owner or is dead then the copyright should not apply. The copyright law was originally intended to reward the inovator for his inovations or creations and not to be the monster it has become. Companies now exist whose sole reason to be is to buy copyrights and sue those who may or may not have infringed on the copyright.
I would have logged in except I am not a registered user just an avid reader of the items posted on this site.
May 31st, 2005 at 4:53 am
I am a programmer. I create “Intellectual property.” I do not, have not ever, and will never request permission before I write and publish code. If the government insists on this law, then I will not only write code despite the law, I will also write code that will bring down the networks of the people responsible for violating the Constitutional Right to free speech. I draw the line there, and if necessary, I will bring arms against any enemy of my rights guaranteed under First Admendment of the Constitution.
As for the artists sticking up for the R.I.A.A., I want you to know something. I have never used a peer to peer application and always bought my CD’s from the store despite the fact that I considered the price way too high. That CHANGED once the R.I.A.A. started their government sanctioned extortion campaign. I now use LimeWire and several other p2p applications and will continue to do so. In the process of downloading cartel music, I also discovered many independent bands.
The cartel has cut the (financial) throats of many artists and other trade workers. Thanks to R.I.A.A. and M.P.A.A., you atrists have seen the last dime from me! BTW, I code open source, and I still make a good living.
May 31st, 2005 at 4:53 am
I am a programmer. I create “Intellectual property.” I do not, have not ever, and will never request permission before I write and publish code. If the government insists on this law, then I will not only write code despite the law, I will also write code that will bring down the networks of the people responsible for violating the Constitutional Right to free speech. I draw the line there, and if necessary, I will bring arms against any enemy of my rights guaranteed under First Admendment of the Constitution.
As for the artists sticking up for the R.I.A.A., I want you to know something. I have never used a peer to peer application and always bought my CD’s from the store despite the fact that I considered the price way too high. That CHANGED once the R.I.A.A. started their government sanctioned extortion campaign. I now use LimeWire and several other p2p applications and will continue to do so. In the process of downloading cartel music, I also discovered many independent bands.
The cartel has cut the (financial) throats of many artists and other trade workers. Thanks to R.I.A.A. and M.P.A.A., you atrists have seen the last dime from me! BTW, I code open source, and I still make a good living.
May 31st, 2005 at 5:05 am
I agree with everything you say, but who are you? and how do I know you’re an economic pro? It takes two minutes to sign onto this website….That’s all I’m saying
May 31st, 2005 at 7:53 am
We all dont mind paying for our music, but not at an inflated rate just to bankroll the music company’s execs. If I buy a music cd; I have every legal right to do with that cd (back up for personal use, transfer to digital media, etc.), but of course not to use it for illegal use. Perhaps music artists should just be their own bosses..