Is Music Copyright Getting Ridiculous?

[Big Orange]

In this age of countless radio channels, TV channels, Internet sites, music CDs, vinyl, cassettes, and I pods, why is the conduct of the music industry, especially in the US, so needlessly anti-social, paranoid, greedy, and irrational?

Why is the RIAA being actively hostile towards the American consumers over petty things that are mainly a non issue in other developed countries? Why is there a supposed loss of profit or theft of property through file sharing, CD sharing, or even playing music in public?

Why is music copyright such a insurmountable roadblock for most TV shows going out on Region 1 DVD? The studios pay the record labels for the music content on TV shows, that sounds comparatively reasonable. But supposedly paying the record labels again for DVD releases and even reruns?! That sounds funking ridiculous, with both the studios and record companies shooting themselves in the foot over copyright issues that shouldn't be there.

I'm puzzled why music copyright in America is such a unwieldy dinosaur that appears to be easily three decades out of date, trampling over the consumers, and actively demolishing the rest of the entertainment industry.

[squidmonk3j]

they're dying and they don't understand why. panic and fear is inevitable.

[Justin.]

(Ignoring the fact you only have 10 posts and are already starting up a very, very touchy topic on the forums, which I'm almost positive has led to several bannings),

People actually pay money individually for each DVD they buy, which isn't exactly the case for Satellite or cable. It's like with art; you usually want to charge based on what Rights you sell to the client, not necessarily how much 'work' you put in.

[guggemmaneuver]

That sounds funking ridiculous

lol

...

musicians deserve to eat too.

[Hyskoa]

Don't be silly, musicians don't eat. They feast upon the blood of young maidens that visit their shows.

[light]

lol

...

musicians deserve to eat too.

It's more of a loss for the recording label and besides, most starting artists which can be anywhere near the point of needing money aren't as affected by piracy, if at all.

[sve]

Musicians, writers, singers earn their bread mostly by touring.

[Favila]

The ones who are losing money are the recording companies and distributors = intermediaries who just get money for doing something that nowadays just isn't needed thanks to the modern technology

And it's not just in america, lol. In many countries of Europe you can go prison for downloading music via P2P programs. In Spain, empty dvds and dvd recording devices are more expensive than in other countries because a big part of the price goes to an association of musicians and recording companies, this will also start to be applied to mp3 players, printers, even broadband connections. Needless to say, most people group and just buy massive loads of dvds online to people from other countries of the EU like portugal.

As said, they just dont accept the fact that their industry must change or die. You can also download books, but people still end buying the book because the benefits of having the original book pay off the price. The benefits of having an original music cd or dvd when compared to downloading the music in mp3 format are small.

Related to this, valve's STEAM has been a success for them, because many people dont care having the disc with the game, and games are cheaper if you get them by steam. Serial Numbers to play online, if you want to play in good servers you need original cdkeys for most games. And people pay for those original cdkeys. Or the monthly fee for playing mmorpgs (Although I think they are a bit too expensive). A music cd costs almosts the same as playing a month of WoW, but people just download the music for free and pay the month of wow. They could play in free servers but those aren't close in terms of quality to the blizzard servers.

I don't know how are things going with the conceptart vids, but its a similar idea and for me it's much more convenient to pay and download the video than having to pay a lot for shipment just to get a pretty dvd and case, when the thing I want is the information in it.

People dont just steal, people want to spend their money in the best way they can, and I'm pretty sure that if it wasnt possible to download the music for free, many people just wouldnt listen to most of the music the listen to, or they'd just listen to the radio (as has always been done). Recording companies seem to think that every downloaded copy is a copy they would have sold and thats not even close to the truth.

Internet, P2P, etc, is actually one of the biggest achievements in human history. We can now share culture for almost nothing. Before, you had to have a big shelf with the discs and their cases and labels, now you can just have your mp3 player and your hard drive. It's a big step for mankind in my opinion. We aren't realizing what could this mean to humanity. The expenses of sharing culture through internet are very very small. This is a good thing!! Why should we keep the old habit of wasting resources just to have a guy drive a truck with lots of copies of an album in it. Now we don't need the guy, the truck, the discs and the fuel and all the expenses related to the distribution of the culture. Why should we keep wasting resources on that, when we can change? The answer is simple: because a few rich people make a lot of money off that.

[Micaiah Nelson]

U.S is getting more strict about these laws. These musician are artist, like us. If someone freely takes your work without permision and distibutes it without you making profit then its time to lay the smackdown. And remember the artist is the last ones to be paid. So if there music isn't selling because of illegal download. Everyone will make a profit except the artist. I've seen it happen to the best. Thats why Manley doesn't like the subject. And its fucked up cause they do this for you!

[sve]

http://www.piratpartiet.se/referenser/courtney_love_does_the_math

[Micaiah Nelson]

She made some good points! But some points I don't know?! That has to be old cause Napster is know under legal game. Downloading is one thing selling it is another. But downloading is still one thing. If an artist album is leaked, then the artist will revise and make new tracks. But download continues, greed or not, their still missing on money. I also agree that with search engines you'll find what you want for free. *I just did a search and some douche ripped Markos DVD.* And just to prove a fact that I know. All the free sites that she mentioned leads to another site where you have to buy the songs. She missed the newer technology. The one people get the software to the computer and download the music, movies and games through the software. Not the ones that are advertised on T.V. like napster and itunes and such. I'm talking about these sly dogs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_%28protocol%29#Legal_issues
To avoid these dogs Artist come up with new way of getting paid. Ringtones. Tours like Sve said. And the golden ticket, Buy an album get a car.
At least respect the copyright law. Cause when your artist thats your best friend. Sadly the music biz is very currupt.

When I read that article I was shocked cause Courtney Love wrote it.

[sve]

Agreed. It was her speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference, given in New York on May 16, 2000.
And quality of musics you can get on line is not that cruddy anymore...

But point of her speech and me reposting it is that it is not the youngsters filching free musics from Internet websites who rob artists, they don't make a noticeable splash because artists were robbed already by recording companies and the money from persecuting the little rascals will never be shared with artists.

How did you like her math? 1 million dollars in advance and two millions dollars in royalties on paper and 45 thousands dollars to each member of the band in reality for creating music. Plus they lose the right to own their music forever.
And pure profit of the recording company is 6.6 millions dollars.
As she said: this is piracy.
And that's for established artists and in case if her musics is sold well.
What small musician can do?

She rose another problem: artists do what label said them to do and creative side of their profession is down. They don't write music which they would want to write, but the one which will sell in recording company's opinion.
That's stagnation, my dear.
She talks about not effective, obsolete methods to communicate with fans and spread her musics among them when the recording company stands in between. She could have had a much bigger audience. The current system of advertising is stagnant. Thousands fans instead of millions.
No one counted those numbers. Downloads continue shes said but sells are up.
I read on net that people who download musics have higher records of buying it afterwards.

[Micaiah Nelson]

Yeah I do agree with her on a lot of points. Which I'm scared to admitt:P. But her math is kind of messed up on how the spending is done buy the companies but thats on personal knowledge not really important.

I also agree about the rise on the music industry this year. Not suprising cause a lot of artist are becoming more indepent on themselves. Its like every artist is starting their own lable now. We both agree that the music industry is curupt. But the problem is what I just now remembered. The RIAA banning because EEeevrrythang is being downloaded. Books, Movies Softwares, Games. Not just music.

I'm just shocked that Courtney love said that.

[sve]

I would love it if you share your personal knowledge you mentioned :). Not to catch you, but to correct my own picture.
You probably meant the profits are not that big for recording company?


So... I'm not gonna laugh at Britney Spears anymore. The girl was used when her body was still attractive and when she did what they told her to do... and now... not a funny story.

You said you're scared... I don't understand... meaning you really hate the facts or something?

[Micaiah Nelson]

Hey, I'm back. Some of my knowledge compared to hers are first the label doesnt spend half as much on publicity and videos. If the artist doesn't understand their contract and how much they are worth plus have a lawyer secure their contract. Scewed. The money they take is called package deduction. The publicity, radio spins, video productions groups and the rest of that crap and they take it from the artist pay. But the thing is not every artist have the same package deduction. Lets say U2 and Britney Spears are on the same label. They put them out in the same year. Britney is the most popular, she starts selling herself by making comercials for pepsi, tours DVDs, Guest Apperence, front cover Magazine. She made more than enough. U2, they didn't do as well as she did (which is not true at all). So they did not make as much as profit as Britney did after the deduction. The weired thing is that they may not even put deductions on Britneys. Cause she has longevity.

It really depends on the artist if they will accomplish longevity. If the artist doesn't master this business then the big wigs will share whatever they made from the artist and its game over. Because if we werent entertained they wont push it. They'll just look for a new act. Its not possible for the label to pirate the artist if they are not popular, nor independent. It is possible if they don't know how much they're making. If you cant sell your record, they depend on the record label to make it sell and thats the artist salary. And its all about selling Records, Promotions and Longevity.
Also the record label wants as much publicity as he artist.

Courtney Love just seem like shes blaming and depnding to much on the record label. But its still weird to say that cause its Courtney love. If you dont know Courtney, most of her apperance she would be completely high of drugs. I've never seen the intellgent side of her.

Heres is a more informative vid that relates to this thread.
1eg5JKPwLqI

I go sleepy now. I haven't slept since 5 pm yesterday. And also Happy New Years to you Sve and the rest of CA.orgers!

[Sig.NAL]

U2, they didn't do as well as she did (which is not true at all). So they did not make as much as profit as Britney did after the deduction. The weired thing is that they may not even put deductions on Britneys. Cause she has longevity.

I know you wrote "(which is not true at all) so i'm really just being a semantic pain in the ass here, [my preemptive apologies] but i must.

U2 has been making music together for over THIRTY years, is still together and has achieved international acclaim as well as doing positive things promotions/fundraisers/spreading awareness to benefit humanity. I think there is a little bit more longevity there than selling Pepsi. And now her career is in the crapper.

I actually understand what you meant by 'longevity' and your explanation actually cleared up a lot of things i wasn't clear on so I'm not actually arguing against what the point of your post was, it's really plain as day that you know what your talking about in this case and as i said before i'm just being unnecessarily difficult. It's just that i couldn't help but scrunch up my nose when i read that paragraph. I'm just going to replace "U2" with "Korn" and it pleases me once again.

So my nonsense aside, would you approve the P2P downloading of NIN albums since Trent Reznor announced he wants anyone who wants his old stuff to take it for free off of the internet instead of paying for it after his record company wouldn't lower his album prices to a reasonable amount overseas after much contention between them? And his new stuff will be downloadable directly from a websight for a marginal download fee and an options for donations on there, like the new Radiohead album. Maybe soon we'll see a lot more stuff like What Trent and Radiohead are doing, though it's alot easier for big names such as theirs to sell records this way than a much smaller undiscovered group.

It's very interesting though to see where things are heading. The music industry is certainly going down and they realize it...

[Micaiah Nelson]

No matter what the means are its still wrong. I feel for NINs, they lose fans because of ridiculous cost. But if they think their valuable enough they can make it happen. Like 2pak they every album he sold he changed his contract because the price on him grew.

Radiohead and NIN wants that, its legal, fine. Smart plan as well.

For Undiscovered groups theres myspace.

(Big Wigs are becoming real greedy douches example, Writters Strike and Youtube. The reason you'll be seeing reruns until the companies give in. Companies are suing Youtube for having material on the site. Writters are being robbed of their money so they start making videos for Youtube! Right back the companies face. The Companies have to give in. I'm tired or watching reruns of Conan.)

But like I said before P2P softwares lets you download more than music. And RIAA wants to end that. But If you want to download everything the legal way. Napster is planing to make it possible for costumers to download movies and games.

Musician are know using technology to make money. Their Ringtone checks are huge. Theres a ringtone comercial for every commercial break.

And I was using the name U2 for an example, not their success.

[sve]

Hello... you know I don't know what to say to you... I have some links I will put here in the post in case if you want to read them and I read about this lawyer Dan Passman who apparently worked for 20 years guarding recording companies interests against artists. I listened to video you gave me and some more of them I found on Internet researching his BG...

I don't know what to say. He talks about how recording companies who own the copyrights of the musics they didn't write could have more money in the future... Artists are not participating in this process, they are out on earlier stages of contract. He talks about how recording companies should have their share in artists tours profits and from selling merchandise... and how poor artists have to go on tours because the teenager's piracy rips them from profit of selling their records... well you know in the light of the last facts it is ridiculous in my opinion.

The records don't belong to artists, the less money in selling records is labels trouble, not artists.

Of course the artists should hire lawyers but come on... artists in the beginning of their carrier or even accomplished artists and a big recording company. It is incomparable. Guess who will be all lawyered up before even entering the contract and who will have the best lawyers who will not stop from anything to make a profit for their owner. Here is your man mentioning who was tricked into this:

http://www.videoaround.com/view_video.php?viewkey=64055d5ca3e5a354acbe&page=&viewtype=&category=
The names are Prince, Billy Joel, Michael Jackson.
here are more links for you if you are willing to read them which actually confirms Courtney Love's math.

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2004-05-16-royalties-main_x.htm

About drugs abuse... it is irrelevant. Her numbers were not confronted and in the link above it is actually confirmed by another reporter Steve Albini and in the second article.

They are giving me numbers to think about and make my own conclusion and their arguments are clear... I'm sorry but the person you gave me link to, Dom Passman gives just a general statement, avoiding major slice of information btw about how things are in relationship between creators of musics and owners of the music. And it makes me suspicious of his objectivity and integrity about all piracy phenomenon.

[Micaiah Nelson]

Hi...I dont know what we are talking about anymore... I don't even know him. Just wanted to find a guy explaining exactly what we are talking about. You don't agree with that video? If not explain. I was only explaining how an artist
needs to venture out more to make money. I'm not sure if Beyonce record label got her half of those big indorcements. (Probably did). Frankly I'm quite tired of seeing her on comercial breaks! But congradulations to her huge succes.
Your right about the artist don't own their records. I guess I was misinformed.

Are you agreeing with me that artist need lawyers?! He said that those names didn't have lawyers review their contract. Didn't he?

The second link was great! Thats the math I was talking about. Courtneys math only made me scringe in the package deduction. And How not all package deductions are the same! But the sums are. Broke. But like I said before I still agree with her!


I only told from what I was told from an Artist and their manager. I asked them a question cause the young me wanted to be in the industry making music. *But I lost that intrest quickly*. (thanks sve for making me remember my horrible rap skills I tried so hard to repress.:P)

I don't know but I think what we are debating about is P2P softwares? What are your stand! For or Against! Or were you saying it doesn't affect the artist and there situation!

Me go pack for revelations now!

[sve]

heh, buddy, I think you will agree that all lawyers are not created equal, you know.
Royalties were 100 pages documents ( a lot of spots to be cheated on) and everything depends on experience and honesty and qualification of your lawyer... And I hope you know when you are young and fresh from any knowledge, your main decision making factor in hiring people is affordable cheap prices, not their knowledge in the field.
Having a lawyer doesn't guarantee you will not be fooled. you need a good lawyer.
I need to listen again, but I think he said that contracts were not written correctly. I'm sure lawyers for both sides were present... but artists were cheated


In the second article the prices for publicity and videos are mentioned and it is said it can go up to 500 thousands dollars... so she didn't lie about this. I don't think she lied at all... and you know I think she is a highly intelligent person, very smart, despite her personality. She is a fighter too. But that's irrelevant too the same as her self-destructive tendencies.

About new technologies and how deal with them... I think trying to put fences and boundaries on using progressive technologies will not stand the test of time. It is a new reality and working against it as like swimming up the river.

Recording companies, radio, publishing are losing money and influence on process of creating and popularizing music. New ways of sharing and getting information appear. Who knows ... maybe in the end artist will get more money from a bigger audience and without middle men getting on the way of distribution information and money. I think this needs to be analyze and new models are tried. Just barricading and trying to racket computer software companies are not gonna work I think. They have a right to sell their product too.
I think bought CD or DVD belongs to the buyer and he should be able to do with it anything he wants like with a book or any other item.


Have fun in the revelations, :). And thanks for New Year wishes, right back at you!

I want to hear your rap if it is possible.

[Micaiah Nelson]

Agreed!

And I was just going off what I tubed of Courtney love. But since shes in the business she should now as much!

I go sleepy time now. (all of a sudden I'm talking like Borat).
ByeBye