Moby: The RIAA Needs to be Disbanded

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I watched the first video.
Hiring people costs money. But a lot of free downloaders feel making music should be for the love of it, not for money (the money required to hire marketing experts).
That's exactly where the disconnect lies.
But anyway, yeah I hope it all works out - mostly for the sake of quality music, rather than for me.

another point in the video was how bands like wilco are making music for their fans rather than to get on the radio or appease some guys in a suit.

it's about a direct connection between musician and fan. of course the quality of music is going to improve!

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Hiring people costs money. But a lot of free downloaders feel making music should be for the love of it, not for money (the money required to hire marketing experts).

And to make quality music costs a ton of money. Anybody hanging out on THIS SITE should be pretty aware of that. How are the artists suppose to pay for the studios, producers, etc? Or do they all just work for free and contribute free gear, all for the love of music?

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by chrisso

YouTube of course. It's great!
Although YouTube of course periodically clear out content that isn't created by it's uploader.
If only bit torrent sites, linking to free versions of music software and free music, were full of user created content.
I think it's far from that.

Youtube clears it out only when they receive requests from copyright holders. That might actually be part of their downfall in the end, because they can't monetize any of those vids, but for now, it's a big part of their traffic. (i know this because i'm a yt partner and friends with several staff members - before you dismiss me again).

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

another point in the video was how bands like wilco are making music for their fans rather than to get on the radio or appease some guys in a suit.

it's about a direct connection between musician and fan. of course the quality of music is going to improve!

So what?
Honestly, I've played in reasonably successful bands for 20+ years.
Very few of which wrote songs, or went into the studio to make music for the radio, or to appease a suit. They made the music they wanted to hear, and hoped their fans would love also.
That's how you make honest music.
This is just another myth about the music business.
That musicians are all greedy and the record companies are all crooks.
Wilco are nothing new.
Although I feel it's the cxurrent situation with piracy which is fueling the move to a more certain profit model - like The Jonas Brothers, American Idol etc......

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by Sounds Great

And to make quality music costs a ton of money. Anybody hanging out on THIS SITE should be pretty aware of that. How are the artists suppose to pay for the studios, producers, etc? Or do they all just work for free and contribute free gear, all for the love of music?

Did you watch the videos?

It is getting increasingly cheaper to record an album, btw. That's why a lot of big studios have gone bye bye.

But...in addition to those facts...there are things like this:

Make the new Allison Weiss EP! — Kickstarter
SellaBand

All the pieces are falling into place to support this model. Again, i find it very strange how dismissive you guys are.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

Youtube clears it out only when they receive requests from copyright holders.

I wouldn't argue. Why would I?
The fact remains - YouTube can make self made content highly successful (the 'boom, boom, chick' girl for example).
But the majority of free music downloaders aren't downloading music designed to be free, especially not made to be given away by fellow pirates.

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by chrisso

So what?
Honestly, I've played in reasonably successful bands for 20+ years.
Very few of which wrote songs, or went into the studio to make music for the radio, or to appease a suit. They made the music they wanted to hear, and hoped their fans would love also.
That's how you make honest music.
This is just another myth about the music business.
That musicians are all greedy and the record companies are all crooks.
Wilco are nothing new.
Although I feel it's the cxurrent situation with piracy which is fueling the move to a more certain profit model - like The Jonas Brothers, American Idol etc......

Anything i say you're going to dismiss, man. It's sooo weird.

You're telling me now that labels had no say in the records they put out?

Why are you here? What is your point in this discussion? i'm honestly confused, at this point.

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I wouldn't argue. Why would I?
The fact remains - YouTube can make self made content highly successful (the 'boom, boom, chick' girl for example).
But the majority of free music downloaders aren't downloading music designed to be free, especially not made to be given away by fellow pirates.

Guy, what?

Irrelevant.

[ThetaAlpha970]

Originally Posted by chrisso

So what?
Honestly, I've played in reasonably successful bands for 20+ years.
Very few of which wrote songs, or went into the studio to make music for the radio, or to appease a suit. They made the music they wanted to hear, and hoped their fans would love also.
That's how you make honest music.
This is just another myth about the music business.
That musicians are all greedy and the record companies are all crooks.
Wilco are nothing new.
Although I feel it's the cxurrent situation with piracy which is fueling the move to a more certain profit model - like The Jonas Brothers, American Idol etc......

Honest music implies value. I do agree with much of what you've said here. If you are currently a music exec, you don't have a lot of room for risk, and will sell only what you know you can sell. Meanwhile, honest music is being shared directly from artist to fan, as a means of a relational connection. Some people will eventually pay for it, when the artist gives them a reason to buy it.

For example, I would never pay for a digital copy of In Rainbows. Why would I? The Discbox is everything and sooooooooo much more. Worth every penny.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

Anything i say you're going to dismiss, man. It's sooo weird.
You're telling me now that labels had no say in the records they put out?
Why are you here? What is your point in this discussion? i'm honestly confused, at this point.

Dude, you should take a leaf out of ThetaAlpha970's book and debate things intelligently and rationally.

All I'm saying is that from the 1950's to the 2009's, many, many bands have made music for their fans (or more likely for themselves).
The fact you now say things like 'labels had no say in the records they put out'? proves you knwo little about the industry you hold court on.
Yes, many albums are put out with the artist having the ultimate and final say.
Additionally, many labels agree to release albums by major artists who refuse to cede control to the men in suits.
There are many different label types around the industry. And as such many labels are fan focused and in tune with both their artist roster and their artists' fanbase.
It's all a big collaboration, with the musician ultimately writing the material and the consumer deciding whether to consume it or not.
It ain't all about labels, radio and suits, as Radiohead, Byrne/Eno and Wilco (along with many others) would exemplify.

[thenoiseflower]

Originally Posted by ThetaAlpha970

Every musician here started out, and continues to be, a consumer. Pirate or not.

What? pirate does not equal consumer. it negates +1 for -1. always.


drbill, chrisso, these other ****s are not worth the time, let them parade to an empty street about a new model.

**** them, **** everyone who pirates as rule.

you guys can **** eachother for all i care. but defending piracy is horseshit dumb and against all social and economic pillars we have used as a species for many many years, way before your hero moby stopped sucking his neon pacifier and made some decent ****ing music...

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Dude, you should take a leaf out of ThetaAlpha970's book and debate things intelligently and rationally.

All I'm saying is that from the 1950's to the 2009's, many, many bands have made music for their fans (or more likely for themselves).
The fact you now say things like 'labels had no say in the records they put out'? proves you knwo little about the industry you hold court on.
Yes, many albums are put out with the artist having the ultimate and final say.
Additionally, many labels agree to release albums by major artists who refuse to cede control to the men in suits.
There are many different label types around the industry. And as such many labels are fan focused and in tune with both their artist roster and their artists' fanbase.
It's all a big collaboration, with the musician ultimately writing the material and the consumer deciding whether to consume it or not.
It ain't all about labels, radio and suits, as Radiohead, Byrne/Eno and Wilco (along with many others) would exemplify.

His posts are far superior to mine - i can't compete.

Bro, they still had to satisfy a certain promotional machine with their record or their record would tank. There was a system and way to make things or they wouldn't sell. There are tons of exceptions to that rule, but there are just as many records that had to fit into a box to get onto the radio, to get reviewed by a certain magazine, to jump on a certain trend, etc.

But above you said that you wish music would get better and i said that it would and now you are telling me artists did whatever they wanted in the first place...so why would you wish it gets better if you are arguing that artists did whatever they wanted before?!?!

See, that's is how you are being argumentative for the sake of it.

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by thenoiseflower

What? pirate does not equal consumer. it negates +1 for -1. always.


drbill, chrisso, these other ****s are not worth the time, let them parade to an empty street about a new model.

**** them, **** everyone who pirates as rule.

you guys can **** eachother for all i care. but defending piracy is horseshit dumb and against all social and economic pillars we have used as a species for many many years, way before your hero moby stopped sucking his neon pacifier and made some decent ****ing music...

You should watch the second video I linked to and it will refute your position with examples.

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

Topspin » NARM’d and Dangerous

2nd video. I wish it wasn't just video of the slideshow but the info is amazing and there are some great success stories.

I tried to watch it, really I did. That has to be the most annoying presentation I've ever seen.

Looks like they have a great media model working there.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

But above you said that you wish music would get better

Where?

I'm pretty sure i said 1) the piracy situation is IMO stifling quality by fueling short-termism like American Idol, and 2) I hoped the future would work out for the better for the sake of quality after the advent of (whatever) new industry model (NOT to 'improve' quality).
So nothing inconsistent in what I'm saying.
Many bands have always focused on quality music over many other considerations.
I feel the new paradigm somewhat threatens that.... you don't, we'll see.

[orangeoctane]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

See, that's is how you are being argumentative for the sake of it.

I'm seriously not trying to be a smart ass here but honestly, I think he can't help it. His long history of having the last word on every argument may just be indicative of a behavioral disorder of some kind.

You find folks like these in every forum. You just have to politely ignore them or humor them the same way you would for say, someone with Tourettes.

[chrisso]

What I would expect from you....
a post full of abuse with nothing constructive to add to the debate.
Debate... yeah it's like when people disagree with each other ya know.

And what do you know about 'long history'. You've only been on the site less than two years and this is the first time i've seen you raise your head.

[orangeoctane]

You're the bestest poster in the world Chris. I'm gonna print 'em and put 'em on the refrigerator, Sport

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by orangeoctane

I'm gonna print 'em and put 'em on the refrigerator,

Hey, you might learn something.

Anything to say on the RIAA?

[orangeoctane]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Hey, you might learn something.

Anything to say on the RIAA?

Yes. Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's head of litigation, admits that the 20,000+ anti-downloader lawsuits run by the labels cost the companies "millions" and are enormous money-losers.

Have a great day Sport

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by orangeoctane

Sport

You make a lot of silly assumptions.

[orangeoctane]

Originally Posted by chrisso

You make a lot of silly assumptions.

And you need to keep taking your meds.

RIAA losing millions

[drBill]

Originally Posted by orangeoctane

And you need to keep taking your meds.

RIAA losing millions

The suits themselves may be loosing money, but there is an overarching greater reason for doing this than winning a lawsuit. One with potential dollar figures much higher than the cost of the lawsuits. The success/failure for that reason is a long way down the road it seems....

Also, note that the vast majority of these suits are "settled out of court" at a much lower rate than what they could almost certainly gain with a jury trial.

To believe that the RIAA's reason for suing is for the dollar amount alone that it receives back in either settlements and/or awards is beyond naiveté - if that was your intended point.

The RIAA is in this for Scare Tactics. No more, no less. Is it working? Who knows. Maybe the industry would be even worse off without these suits. There's scientific really no way of knowing. It's all conjecture. I do think it's a relatively safe statement to say that the lawsuits have caused SOME potential pirates to think twice. How many? Who knows. Certainly not enough.....

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by orangeoctane

Jennifer Pariser, Sony BMG's head of litigation, admits that the 20,000+ anti-downloader lawsuits run by the labels cost the companies "millions" and are enormous money-losers.

Well there you are, the industry is acting on principal and not just for short term monetary gain.

[orangeoctane]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Well there you are, the industry is acting on principal and not just for short term monetary gain.

Yep. There you are Chris. We can all go to sleep tonight knowing the world is better place.

[chrisso]

Seriously though.....
I've never had a lot to do with record companies, and I probably wouldn't care if the RIAA were disbanded.
I don't see a lot of other people protecting the lifestyles of ordinary musicians, music software makers and studio engineers however.
Maybe the guys at Topspin (or similar)???

[orangeoctane]

Originally Posted by drBill

To believe that the RIAA's reason for suing is for the dollar amount alone that it receives back in either settlements and/or awards is beyond naiveté - if that was your intended point.

Nah, I was just interested to see Chris show his lack of restraint in responding. Doesn't matter what I say. He's compelled to have the last word which I guess makes me a bit of a troll, and he, a bit of an obsessive-compulsive disorder candidate. Mark my words... he CAN'T let my post go without a response. Or can he???

[MrT]

Originally Posted by Sounds Great

And to make quality music costs a ton of money.

Pure self-effacing bullshit...

[Croaker]

Originally Posted by orangeoctane

Nah, I was just interested to see Chris show his lack of restraint in responding. Doesn't matter what I say. He's compelled to have the last word which I guess makes me a bit of a troll, and he, a bit of an obsessive-compulsive disorder candidate. Mark my words... he CAN'T let my post go without a response. Or can he???

seems like you respond to every one of his posts so who is to say who is trying to have the last word? I thought the idea of a debate was to respond back and forth in a respectful way. whats the problem?

I find him to be respectful and to the point on the anti-piracy side of the argument.

[ThetaAlpha970]

Originally Posted by drBill

The suits themselves may be loosing money, but there is an overarching greater reason for doing this than winning a lawsuit. One with potential dollar figures much higher than the cost of the lawsuits. The success/failure for that reason is a long way down the road it seems....

Also, note that the vast majority of these suits are "settled out of court" at a much lower rate than what they could almost certainly gain with a jury trial.

To believe that the RIAA's reason for suing is for the dollar amount alone that it receives back in either settlements and/or awards is beyond naiveté - if that was your intended point.

The RIAA is in this for Scare Tactics. No more, no less. Is it working? Who knows. Maybe the industry would be even worse off without these suits. There's scientific really no way of knowing. It's all conjecture. I do think it's a relatively safe statement to say that the lawsuits have caused SOME potential pirates to think twice. How many? Who knows. Certainly not enough.....

The scare tactics aren't working. It's outrageous, or courageous, depending on where you stand. I have yet to see anyone here post anything remotely sounding like fear. The RIAA, to some degree, has to be suing out of principle. But to what end? I think it's a safer statement to say that this is a really confusing way to preserve the intellectual property of an artist.