Moby: The RIAA Needs to be Disbanded

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by Jam

You said said the music industry was dead, this is binary, it's dead or it isn't.

The only way I can think of to measure this is to look at sales, the charts are still dominated by traditional record labels, that seems pretty unequivocal to me.

You said the two models can't coexist, yet the charts of the outlets you named are full of releases from traditional labels, you go on to name a number of "new model" acts that are doing great, how is this not coexisting ?

The make up of the charts both the P2P and legal, seem to show that major labels are still here and dominant, you may know better but you seem unwilling or unable to demonstrate this.

I totally accept sales aren't what they used to be, you can prove this with data, I can't understand why anyone would argue the contrary. I certainly didn't.

You can toss out any casual insult you like, you've called me a fantasist and stopped just short of calling me a shill. You won't provoke me and it won't make what you're saying any truer.

James

DOMINATE? The major labels DOMINATE? There are major label records that debut on the charts all the time now with like 15,000 sales. The numbers are embarrassing. What is with your fascination with charts?!?!? How are charts relevant at all!?

You just pulled this charts nonsense out of the air which has nothing to do with anything.

Are we arguing over the word coexist? Semantics again?

I told you that they have coexisted in the past - i gave examples (something i have a habit of doing, eh?).

Is your argument that the major record labels are alive and well? Either you are saying that (!!!! WUT?!?!) or i have no clue what you're talking about at this point.

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by Jam

There's a lovely expression, correlation is not causation, it seems fair to use it here.

James

Wow. pull your head out of the sand. people can't buy $9.99 albums because of the economic crisis...right...

BUT - look at all the iphones apple just had people line up to buy yesterday - many of them at the full $599 price unsubsidized.

Seriously, wow.

You guys are too much.

The labels are fine everyone...once this economic crises passes, James has declared it will all be ok.

I mean, every media expert out there disagrees with him as does the evidence, but hey, he's not a "fantasist".

Please be objective, James. You clearly just want to argue with me but please look at the evidence.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

James, the internet is all about sharing.

I really don't agree with this premise.
The internet is about communication and information. Simple as that, end of story.
The internet is also chock full of content that people want to protect - keep to themselves.
Virtually every forum I visit includes content with a copyright symbol attached.
I wonder what would happen if someone started Gearsluts dot com, with a 'Music & Studio Business forum etc.....
I know amateur enthusiasts who have published info about a particular band, or about a particular brand of drums.
They plaster their photos with a web watermark so no one else can use them.
they pursue, out and shame anyone who regurgitates their text on another forum without asking first.

So, I honestly think this notion that the internet is all about sharing is quite bogus.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

The labels are fine everyone...once this economic crises passes, James has declared it will all be ok.

I mean, every media expert out there disagrees with him as does the evidence, but hey, he's not a "fantasist".

Please be objective, James. You clearly just want to argue with me but please look at the evidence.

I think you have a lot of powerful things to say.
I really wish you would stop mocking and belittling people who disagree with some of your points.
We cant all sing perfectly from your hymn sheet.
The music industry is hugely diverse.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

Origin of the Internet: Purpose and Evolution | Suite101.com

Whatever the origins, do you deny everything or anything that I've written above.
take a look at BBC online news terms of use for example.

You may not copy, reproduce, republish, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer, download, post, broadcast, transmit, make available to the public, or otherwise use bbc.co.uk content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any bbc.co.uk content except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of bbc.co.uk content requires the prior written permission of the BBC.

[Jam]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

DOMINATE? The major labels DOMINATE? There are major label records that debut on the charts all the time now with like 15,000 sales. The numbers are embarrassing. What is with your fascination with charts?!?!? How are charts relevant at all!?

You just pulled this charts nonsense out of the air which has nothing to do with anything.

You've been saying, I paraphrase "that it's game over the old labels", there is an available statistical measure of records sold, this is charts, in those charts the majority of material is from the old labels. Currently in anyway that can be evaluated reliably, old labels are not dead and still have the larger market share, hence the dominant position.

Originally Posted by XHipHop

Are we arguing over the word coexist? Semantics again?

I told you that they have coexisted in the past - i gave examples (something i have a habit of doing, eh?).

Is your argument that the major record labels are alive and well? Either you are saying that (!!!! WUT?!?!) or i have no clue what you're talking about at this point.

I'm very comfortable with my use and definition of the word coexist, you said that the old models and new models couldn't coexist, I disagree.

I have no particular love for major labels, or new model businesses, I've met scumbags and lovely people in both.

My point as clearly and concisely as I can put it is.

Competition and innovation is good for a market place.

Major labels and old model businesses should be allowed to charge what they want for their media and it's uses.

New model musicians and businesses should be allowed to monetise, charge and reap the rewards for their labours as they see fit.

Nobody should abuse, disrespect or steal from either of the above.

I'm pretty sure I said something similar in my first post in this thread.

James

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I think you have a lot of powerful things to say.
I really wish you would stop mocking and belittling people who disagree with some of your points.
We cant all sing perfectly from your hymn sheet.
The music industry is hugely diverse.

Fair enough.

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Whatever the origins, do you deny everything or anything that I've written above.
take a look at BBC online news terms of use for example.

You may not copy, reproduce, republish, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer, download, post, broadcast, transmit, make available to the public, or otherwise use bbc.co.uk content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any bbc.co.uk content except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of bbc.co.uk content requires the prior written permission of the BBC.

Chris, you just proved me right. See bold sections.

[Jam]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

Wow. pull your head out of the sand. people can't buy $9.99 albums because of the economic crisis...right...

BUT - look at all the iphones apple just had people line up to buy yesterday - many of them at the full $599 price unsubsidized.

Seriously, wow.

You guys are too much.

The labels are fine everyone...once this economic crises passes, James has declared it will all be ok.

I mean, every media expert out there disagrees with him as does the evidence, but hey, he's not a "fantasist".

Please be objective, James. You clearly just want to argue with me but please look at the evidence.

Back with the insults, again.

Moving on, in a time of economic scarcity people have reduced disposable income, how they choose to spend this reduced amount is up to them.

Originally Posted by XHipHop

The labels are fine everyone...once this economic crises passes, James has declared it will all be ok.

I mean, every media expert out there disagrees with him as does the evidence, but hey, he's not a "fantasist".

Please be objective, James. You clearly just want to argue with me but please look at the evidence.

Where did I say this, please be specific ?

James

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by Jam

You've been saying, I paraphrase "that it's game over the old labels", there is an available statistical measure of records sold, this is charts, in those charts the majority of material is from the old labels. Currently in anyway that can be evaluated reliably, old labels are not dead and still have the larger market share, hence the dominant position.



I'm very comfortable with my use and definition of the word coexist, you said that the old models and new models couldn't coexist, I disagree.

I have no particular love for major labels, or new model businesses, I've met scumbags and lovely people in both.

My point as clearly and concisely as I can put it is.

Competition and innovation is good for a market place.

Major labels and old model businesses should be allowed to charge what they want for their media and it's uses.

New model musicians and businesses should be allowed to monetise, charge and reap the rewards for their labours as they see fit.

Nobody should abuse, disrespect or steal from either of the above.

I'm pretty sure I said something similar in my first post in this thread.

James

James...

I promised chrisso that i'd be nice.

That is the only response I can make to this post at this time.

[Jam]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

James...

I promised chrisso that i'd be nice.

That is the only response I can make to this post at this time.

I'm going to leave it as well, it's Father's day and I'm going to see my old man.

James

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by Jam

Back with the insults, again.

Moving on, in a time of economic scarcity people have reduced disposable income, how they choose to spend this reduced amount is up to them.



Where did I say this, please be specific ?

James

Ok so they've reduced the disposable income that they'd spend on music yet are still buying ipods and iphones by the millions...?

Guy...

And when this economic crisis is solved, they will suddenly start buying records again and the labels will be fine?

Please.

You're smarter than this. Please read what you are typing.

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by Jam

I'm going to leave it as well, it's Father's day and I'm going to see my old man.

James

Have fun, sincerely.

Happy father's day to everyone on here!

I'm an acerbic bastard but i love you all.

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Whatever the origins, do you deny everything or anything that I've written above.
take a look at BBC online news terms of use for example.

You may not copy, reproduce, republish, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer, download, post, broadcast, transmit, make available to the public, or otherwise use bbc.co.uk content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any bbc.co.uk content except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of bbc.co.uk content requires the prior written permission of the BBC.

I have to repost that again.

This ENTIRE argument centers around this...why is the bbc ok with you sharing their information if it's non-commercial but the music industry isn't?

A green day mp3 is more valuable or needs to be protected more than something by the bbc?

You just totally proved my point, chris and i wish i put the thought together earlier.

Please think about this, people. Let it really soak in.

EDIT:

and if your answer to that question is "because that's the way it's always been"...that answer isn't good enough.

[Jam]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

Ok so they've reduced the disposable income that they'd spend on music yet are still buying ipods and iphones by the millions...?

Guy...

And when this economic crisis is solved, they will suddenly start buying records again and the labels will be fine?

Please.

You're smarter than this. Please read what you are typing.

Fair enough, I should have been more expansive.

My point was, in a time of economic turmoil you shouldn't read too much into reduced sales figures, as there are many other possible factors. No one is seriously suggesting the UK mortgage lending business is dead and buried but this year ( quarter for quarter ) mortgage lending is less than half that of the previous year.

I totally accept that the music industry sales figures have a long term downward trend. I've said as much in this thread already.

I'm entirely in favour of any new ideas that will keep us all working and enjoying our music. Be it free, paid for or otherwise funded. I am still unashamedly anti piracy.

And I'm really going to see my Dad and not get dragged back in !!

James

[chrisso]

Firstly, thanks for being nice.

Originally Posted by XHipHop

This ENTIRE argument centers around this...why is the bbc ok with you sharing their information if it's non-commercial but the music industry isn't?

Well I suppose the BBC makes all it's money from other means.
On the website there is advertising.
A lot of the website is brought together from the television and radio reports (which are paid for by UK television owners via a license fee).
And the BBC website is another quasi loss leader.
It helps to build the BBC brand all over the World and attracts people to listen to BBC radio and track down BBC produced television.

So for the music industry model to match, there would be a license fee for all music consumers, and there would be advertising attached to music.

But anyway, you make a decent point and I'm all for exploring new business models.
My summation is, musicians and print media journalists are looking down the barrel at a huge loss of paid work.
The BBC however pay all their staff the industry standard for the type of jobs they do.
So if someone is going to pay me my usual studio fee for playing on a record, despite that record being shared freely, or paid for with a very small fee, I will be very happy.

[Geert van den Berg]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

I have to repost that again.

This ENTIRE argument centers around this...why is the bbc ok with you sharing their information if it's non-commercial but the music industry isn't?

A green day mp3 is more valuable or needs to be protected more than something by the bbc?

You just totally proved my point, chris and i wish i put the thought together earlier.

Please think about this, people. Let it really soak in.

EDIT:

and if your answer to that question is "because that's the way it's always been"...that answer isn't good enough.

Chris also gave a reply to your question a couple of pages back. The BBC gets paid by the government and by the taxes people are paying. Green Day isn't...

Also the BBC has restrictions, I can't watch any of their online shows in Holland, IP's other than from the UK are blocked.

Sometimes you also got to change your standpoint based on new information and not stay with your head in the sand... and repeating the same arguments for which there might be more arguments against it.

[Geert van den Berg]

The problem with these 'new' business models is that they're completely not transparant. (you can basically conclude that there is now an economic crisis due to selling 'air').

The way it was: the music is the product, it gets sold, people involved get paid. Very simply put. (It's irrelevant that the head of a record company drives an expensive Audi. He has a good income because he's responsible for the company.)

Paying artists from fees that are paid by people which happen to have an internet connection is not simple. I don't want to pay for something I don't do or use. Who likes higher taxes?

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by MrT

Pure self-effacing bullshit...

Nice response.

Why don't you explain why you feel that way? I guess it WOULD depend on your threshold of quality. If you feel that stuff made on some bedroom recorder's computer with a bunch of plug ins and a cheap mastering program sounds great to you, then perhaps you are right.

[MrT]

Originally Posted by Sounds Great

Nice response.

The statement I commented on made the assumption that all music that didn't cost "a ton of money" to make was therefore not quality. There are many quality albums that didn't cost that much to make and conversely there are MANY albums full of crap that cost six or seven figures.

Now I'm not saying everyone and their brother can make good music with an Mbox, 57 and some cracked software, but to say that anyone not shelling out a lot of money to record with "professionals" is pissing in the wind strikes me as egotistic.

[Chrislpp]

The RIAA needs to be disbanded?

Is this news????

RIAA: ''Hey kid did you steal that lollipop''

Kid: ''Yea, I don't have $0.20 :'(''

RIAA: ''Well then, you owe us $500,000 and since you let your friend lick it, thats a total of $1,000,000 you owe us, we don't accept checks''


So once the kid finally pays the fine (somehow) the shop it was stolen from never receives the money, while the RIAA and labels drown their wrinkly pirate fighting faces in champagne.



God I love capitalism.

Downloading is the best thing that has ever happened to the RIAA, they get to cash in on fining people millions while they wouldn't have sold that music anyway. It's amazing, the artist has no control in what happens with their music anymore, I'd buy the CDs, t-shirst, shoes, condoms, and any other merch of an artist that would break away and release things on their own, (that are currently on a major and don't happen to SUCK)

I'll have to do it myself, anyone got tips on making record labels 100% irrelevant?

[MrT]

Originally Posted by Chrislpp

I'll have to do it myself, anyone got tips on making record labels 100% irrelevant?

I don't know... how about just sit around and wait. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of it all on their own. Isn't that what all these threads are about?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Chrislpp

RIAA: ''Hey kid did you steal that lollipop''

Kid: ''Yea, I don't have $0.20 :'(''

RIAA: ''Well then, you owe us $500,000 and since you let your friend lick it, thats a total of $1,000,000 you owe us, we don't accept checks''


So once the kid finally pays the fine (somehow) the shop it was stolen from never receives the money, while the RIAA and labels drown their wrinkly pirate fighting faces in champagne.



God I love capitalism.

RIAA to 'kid': But I tell you what, we'll let you off if you give us $0.50.

Yes, those are the facts. The woman was twice offered to settle out of court, once for $3000 and a second time for $5000. But don't let the facts get in the way of a slamming rebuke.
The trouble is, people (especially the uploaders/downloaders) refuse to accept responsibility for their actions.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by MrT

The statement I commented on made the assumption that all music that didn't cost "a ton of money" to make was therefore not quality.

The word 'all' was never mentioned.
Quality product often costs a lot of money to produce.
I agree with you that cost doesn't automatically reflect quality of content, but to simply post 'bull$hit' as a response flies in the face of reality.
You can't keep a band together, or make an album (even in your bedroom) for tuppence, so the outlay (even modest) needs to be reflected in musicians income.

[MrT]

Originally Posted by chrisso

The word 'all' was never mentioned.

Sure, I guess it wasn't but it was most definitely implied.

And to make quality music costs a ton of money.

That's a period at the end. He makes no attempt to qualify the statement... at all. So, if quality music costs a ton of money then not spending a ton of money means it isn't quality if you follow that statement logically.

[Volodia]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

Wow. pull your head out of the sand. people can't buy $9.99 albums because of the economic crisis...right...

BUT - look at all the iphones apple just had people line up to buy yesterday - many of them at the full $599 price unsubsidized.

Weren't you the one to say music is overpriced ? Where's the logic ?

[Volodia]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

I have to repost that again.

This ENTIRE argument centers around this...why is the bbc ok with you sharing their information if it's non-commercial but the music industry isn't?

A green day mp3 is more valuable or needs to be protected more than something by the bbc?

You just totally proved my point, chris and i wish i put the thought together earlier.

Please think about this, people. Let it really soak in.

EDIT:

and if your answer to that question is "because that's the way it's always been"...that answer isn't good enough.

Nowhere is it said you can share . It's actually written "you can't copy, reproduce,download" . For your own personnal use is for you and your family , period . Not for millions of copies .

[Louis Bernstone]

What is really frustrating about all of this, is that if the record companies focused some of their resources, there will always be a way to make music downloads generate revenues, whilst not making the consumer feel ripped off.....technology is the great innovator.

Innovation is what is needed, not lawsuits.

[rectifier]

Originally Posted by belolab

What is really frustrating about all of this, is that if the record companies focused some of their resources, there will always be a way to make music downloads generate revenues, whilst not making the consumer feel ripped off.....technology is the great innovator.

Innovation is what is needed, not lawsuits.

Absolutely!

[Spiritworks]

Originally Posted by ThetaAlpha970

I don't have absolute answers for others, true. You should watch those videos posted on Topspin, and get back to me then. As for human nature, I have to say piracy feels more like sharing than stealing, for sure.

I think I'll go into my local bank and demand that they share all of the money in the vault with me. After all, surely the depositors placed it there knowing full well they wanted to share it with me.