Most performance artists who have been “in the business” for any length of time, know that unless and until they make it to the very top echelon of performing artists where they can make demands of the labels rather than acquiescing to the demands of their label, that they are going to make their money from live performances. Mr. Henderson, you should certainly know this also. If you are unaware of this, your are totally incompetent to hold your position due to a significant deficiency in understanding the basics of your industry

Cutting albums is just a necessary evil in order to become popular enough to get the radio airplay that’s necessary to become popular enough to have people want to spend money to come see you play live, or to get booked for a television gig.

This is NOT an emerging career strategy for performance artists. The Grateful Dead knew this. They spent far more time on the road than in the studio and did well enough so that there were plenty of millions of dollars belonging to Jerry Garcia for all sorts of everyone to fight over.

All of the members of the “Rat Pack” knew this. They’d make more money in a Las Vegas showroom in two weeks than they would from a platinum album, but they made the albums, so that people would want to come and hear them sing the new songs right in front of them on the stage. Some even transcended this. Wayne Newton doesn’t even have to cut albums any more. People just shell out their money (or get comped if they are ‘players’) and pour into the showroom to hear him sing Danke Schein among other things.

Perry Como and Andy Williams knew this. They made the albums, but it was their television careers that made them wealthy. Perry is gone now, but Andy has his own venue in Branson and packs the house every night. (We’ve forgiven Andy for foisting the Osmonds on us.)

Please Mr. Henderson, spare us the sanctimonious scolding about the troubling implication of filesharing for those who believe in honesty trying to make a living in ANY field. What about all of the politicians that your organization has tried to get to see things your way with campaign contributions? I think most honest people would find that ‘troubling’, if not totally outrageous. Such feelings would not be the result of “sloppy thinking.”

–TG

Well here’s something to read about how great that law is:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/3673

The RIAA, CRIAA etc. are owned by the big four, and are therefore an extension of a corporation (grouped together kind of like a monopoly or interestingly enough, how the mob has been depicted over the years).
The motivation of these ‘trade groups’ or whatever guise they go under is pure and simple economics and they can be counted on to do one thing and one thing only: whatever is in the best interest of their stock holders.

They cannot be expected or even thought of doing what is best for their ’suppliers’ (that would be the artists/creators for those slow people out there) and for their ‘consumers’ (damn I miss being a customer, guess that’s why I don’t ‘consume’ their ‘product’).

They are NOT in the business of looking after any country’s, regions, ethnic groups (etc.) heritage…they’re only concern is the bottom line.