The RIAA Armageddon has begun

hahaha @ this

i'm learnding

An opportunity was missed by not calling this thread RIAArmageddon

RIAPOLLmageddon

the hell? more music is available more easily to enjoy in more different ways than ever. it's great! if it drives "the industry" into the ground, boo hoo

― goole, Thursday, April 15, 2010 6:22 PM (3 hours ago)

That visual chart was pretty shocking, subscriptions/streaming is pretty much pointless at those rates. I thought at least the iTunes/Amazon mp3 rates would be a little better than physical CDs, since the overhead should be MUCH less? I wonder how Tunecore releases stack up vs. iTunes and CDBaby, as well as Amazon, Lala, Amie and eMusic as mp3 prices slowly go downward.

As some of you said above, at $1 or less per album - whether it's a label CD or mp3 download - it does feel more sound to just pirate it and PayPal a few bucks directly to the artist.

vinyl purists talking shit about CDs is such a 2000s thing. you're all going to be embarrassed by this rhetoric in a few years. i say this as someone with a big vinyl collection.

i kind of sympathize with the record industry but the RIAA is seriously ridiculous--they're acting like fred phelps or something, just way off the charts.

buying on itunes is infamously horrible for artists--i thought everybody knew that.

it does feel more sound to just pirate it and PayPal a few bucks directly to the artist.

radiohead tried to do this, more or less, and everyone made fun of them!

no, everyone sent them money iirc

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/4/2010/04/e06e2928ad49f9e92485d18a2335d9cc/340x.gif

this stuff is actually somewhat complex, and discussions of it tend not to reflect that complexity - for example, the cut Apple takes doesn't pay a guy named "Apple": it pays a bunch of people who run the iTunes store, etc. it's still a large cut, don't get me wrong, a triumph for Apple (since the labels used to keep most of that cut themselves; Apple gave the labels a "this is our cut, if you don't like it, you don't have to have your stuff on our store" deal at the outset, which if I remember was met by the labels with much kicking & screaming). but I think conversations around this tend toward this "the only person who deserves a dime for the music is THE ARTIST!" which is an attitude with which I strongly disagree; few artists are completely DIY, and many don't want to be. just on behalf of myself, I don't like it when somebody hands me money and says "I downloaded your stuff, I don't support [the labels, iTunes, the RIAA, whoever]" - I'd rather people bought the stuff through the existing channels; the label who releases the album deserves to get paid, they're the ones who put up the money for it in the first place, and worked to publicize it, etc (and, in many cases -- most, I think -- don't even end up breaking even after costs; some of this is because of a culture of foolish spending, for sure, but that's a little beside the point). artists enter into a contract with the people who distribute their music, and they do so with their eyes open; the agreement is, you take care of getting the stuff out there & keeping it available, and I'll benefit in a couple of ways: the exposure of availability in highly visible, well-maintained hubs (formerly, record stores; for the purposes of this discussion, the iTunes store); the small amount of money I'll get if the project recoups; and the continuation of a marketplace in which I as an artist can sell my goods. like, imagine if your job is, I don't know, cook. but suddenly, there's no restaurants. do you really want to run around cooking for whoever looks hungry and hoping they kick you down some money, maybe a lot if they really like your chow, after you've already put in the work? for sure, a new marketplace has emerged, and how it's going to work is what's messily forming at the moment. but download-from-wherever, maybe-pay-the-artist (nb I'm guessing it's actually one person in 5000 who actually follows through on this model; my own sample group = in ten years since this conversation became a thing, the four people who've handed me cash + the one who wrote to offer to send, whose money I asked he send to charity, since at the one-person-at-a-time level it's basically a symbolic gesture until & unless it becomes a generally-adopted model) (which isn't ever going to happen; when people can get stuff for free, most of them who do so feel less obligated to pay for it once they've gotten it, that's just kinda natural) doesn't strike me as a great deal for artists - maybe with a very, very optimistic view of human behavior it's rad, but for me, if I can get ten reliable cents from a guy who signed a contract saying "you get ten cents for every dollar I make" I'll take that over "you maybe get money if people feel like giving it to you" every time.

OTOH, let's be clear - this:

download-from-wherever, maybe-pay-the-artist

is the future, most likely. the horse has left the barn. which is fine, really. there are plenty of ways to make a living making music. you have to work harder now, and if you want to spend time at home with your family, that's going to be much harder to do, so if you wanna put "artist" on your tax return, you're going to have to consider carefully how much of your life you're willing to trade for that; you won't be able to sit at home and collect money for recorded music unless you get loads of very-high-profile advertisement syncs (which is where much of the money in music is now, and even that seems to have crested). but really, this isn't a negative - or a positive - it's just the reality of the market, and I'm sure musicians will find a way to negotiate it; they may not enjoy that, but it's all right, the whole q has very little to do with the craft imo

"you get ten cents for every dollar I make"

They are paying you tithing!

aerosmith live, yes if you are on a label that has put forth money to record, master, and print your albums, ok. They've taken the initial risk and deserve to take the initial benefit in the rare event there is any. But I think the true value of the new music production channels is that the label doesn't have to take that risk, and in fact, you don't need the label at all. Anyone can burn a CDr, anyone can design album artwork. The industry no longer has a monopoly on production.

Yes, promotion of your music is a tricky thing, but you can certainly build up a fanbase without placement in a high-profile advertisement, or paying a promotional agent thousands of dollars to send out CDs. It's called playing out, and it can be a pain in the ass. But if consider yourself a musician and don't put in the hours rehearsing, playing shows night after night, or touring, then you should realize it's more of a hobby.

I think most people would be shocked to find out just how little highly-promoted musicians take in. People that are on national TV, in magazines, etc. still often make very little in CD royalties.

Yes, promotion of your music is a tricky thing, but you can certainly build up a fanbase without placement in a high-profile advertisement, or paying a promotional agent thousands of dollars to send out CDs

You can also build a rocket and shoot yourself into space, but it's an incredibly difficult thing to do without external help in the form of others with expertise/experience in rocket building and funding to buy the materials.

this isn't exactly rocket science, HI DERE

haha

one of my brother's lecturers said that last week, in a lecture on trajectory in space. nobody got the joke until after. it's a terrible tragedy to be a funny man in the body of a nerdy scientist.

The brightest response to the Napster/MP3 revolution was that of David Bowie, who in 1997 cashed out $55 million in so-called Bowie Bonds, early securitized IP backed by future royalty streams.

Courtney Love and others who noted that albums were a promotional medium for tours/merch in this millenium were late to the party.

Brings the LOLz
http://i.imgur.com/1pXlO.jpg

lolololol

hahahahahahaha

High Court approves '3 strikes' deal between major record labels and Ireland's biggest ISP.

a few choice quotes:

The Data Protection Commissioner had expressed the view the Data Protection Act was an obstacle to implementation of the measures as these involved the release of “sensitive personal” information... Mr Justice Charleton ruled that IP addresses of suspected illegal downloaders in the possession of the record companies who intend to give them to Eircom are not “personal data” or sensitive personal data such as required the companies to comply with data protection issues.

There was “a fundamental right” to copyright in Irish law existing since the time of Saint Colmcille who was often quoted for his aphorism: “to each cow its calf and to every book its copy”, he said.

lol if you are going to quote apocryphal stories about sixth-century saints, get em straight: Colmcille was the one making the illegal copy (of an illustrated manuscript) and it was the King of Ireland who said the quote about the cow (except of course he didn't, as this never actually happened).

this story is also the first thing they taught us on the Intellectual Property course in law school...

we need to shut down these Intellectual Source Proprietors if they won't give names

lol

TCP/IP : The Copyright Pirates vs. Intellectual Property

on the floor laffing at that letter

i'm all for dynamic IP (intellectual property)

I'm all for IP Freely

ACTA draft finally released to the public. This part is interesting:

Imminent infringement

Several sections of the ACTA draft show that rightsholders can obtain an injunction just by showing that infringement is "imminent," even if it hasn't happened yet.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/acta-is-here.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

Thanks for that link, Adam, that was super interesting and useful.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20021735-93.html

Jesus. o_0

People these days do not remember the immense range of music available back in the 50's through the mid 80's.

11 people liked this comment

Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the Minnesota woman who has been fighting the recording industry over 24 songs she illegally downloaded and shared online four years ago, has lost another round in court.

A jury in Minneapolis decided today that she was liable for $1.5 million in copyright infringement damages to Capitol Records, or $62,500 for each song she illegally shared in April 2006.

The Recording Industry Association of America--the trade group that represents the four major music labels--applauded the verdict.

"We are again thankful to the jury for its service in this matter and that they recognized the severity of the defendant's misconduct," the RIAA said in a statement. "Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset's willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions."

evil

Sorry, but I have to out more of that comment up because it's a classic.

Sick of prefabricated formula kid bands? Tired of an endless succession of so-called artists whose only talent is to jump around a stage and shout bad poetry? Stop ripping off the music industry. People these days do not remember the immense range of music available back in the 50's through the mid 80's.

The reason why it was so huge - particularly in the mid to late 60's - is because the record companies made enough money that they were free to seek out talent and nurture that talent. No longer, folks...

uh

That is some severe rose-colored "back in my day" nonsense right there

jump around a stage and shout bad poetry

wow, this ruling.

i'm not even going to look for a jim morrison jpg

i'm not an IP lawyer, but i assume the mixtapes that some sites put online (e.g., DIS Magazine, RA Review) are technically illegal to download?

i think i know the answer here, regrettably. that's why i stay away from even these items.

xp
Sadly BECAUSE OF ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING none of Jim Morrison's work is available anywhere.

that's why i stay away from even these items.

!

xxp for ethical reasons? Or because you fear that you will go to jail?

Fuck, for that money she could probably find all the original artists and personally pay them to re-record every song in a professional studio.

that would be pretty funny and amazing actually

The most expensive cd ever burnt.

Guns N Roses "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain"
Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last"
Janet Jackson "Let’s What Awhile"
Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You"
Goo Goo Dolls "Iris"
Journey "Faithfully"; "Don’t Stop Believing"
Sara McLachlan "Possession"; "Building a Mystery"
Aerosmith "Cryin’"
Linkin Park "One Step Closer"
Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me"
Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart"
Bryan Adams "Somebody"
No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"
Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run"
Richard Marx "Now and Forever"
Destiny’s Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"
Green Day "Basket Case"

poll "Which of these songs is most worth $62,500?"

As much as I hate to ever agree with commenters on sites like this, one of them has a point - she would have gotten off much, much easier if she'd just shoplifted physical copies of all of these.