The RIAA is at it again-sueing college and 3rd graders

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by not_so_new

You didn't answer my question... if they are worried about getting sued why not pay for the music in the first place? Seems pretty easy to me.... pay for something that you use. That is what I had to do as a kid and that is what I still have to do now.

of course they have to pay for the music they get. no one here as far i as i read has said something against that in any way. no one is saying, poor kids they should be able to download freely because its not their fault or they dont know any better.

this matter is a little broader and poeple here giving really good posts with very interesting posint of vew but none has defended the right for kids to download iligally.

this matter is not like a phisical object like a candybar they get from a store, thus have to pay. it turned more complicated becuase its happening indoors and its hard to track and we all know that and second people will go naturally to the free stuff. yes i know we all have outr morals, but if u live outside sitcom land you will see that 90 percent of the world will get their stuff for free if they can get away with it. of course its more complicated than the "they download it, they have to pay for it" in theory they should pay no doubt but because the amount of poeple they are going after is too small to be considered an effect at at. so we are not arguing that those kids at that U shouldnt pay we are arguing that the RIAA is just pulling a smoke screen or a stupid attempt to cut iligal file sharing.

so its not that they stole a "candy bar". is a little deeper like they stole a "pack of smokes" which is iligal also but why are those kids stealing smokes in the 1st place? maybe it has something to do with the cartoon caracters in the smoke ads.
maybe a bad example but the idea is that there a little more to think about
like when a kid discovers that its bigmac meat comes from a cow they slaughter in an inhuman way. just because u dont see it it dont mean ots not there.
or the way the book silent spring put all iligal pesticides in a diferent perspective.

i could go on forever with examples that make us expand a litle our minds specially in this industry that it has had very bad history specially with the fat cats on top.

Originally Posted by not_so_new

I don't have any problem with any of this. You may think this is strange after all of this back and forth.....



Your post is almost exactly how I feel about the situation as well, with a few small exceptions.

First being, the cat may already be out of the bag right? Now that people of (I assume) Justin's generation already have it in their mind that "free is easy and better because... well... it is free" I don't know if that genie can be put back in the bottle without the stick (and I agree even then the stick is probably not going to work).

The only thing that can change this is a shift in culture. There was a shift in culture that got us here and I think a shift will have to happen to get us out.

As a kid if my dad would have caught me taking something… ANYTHING you would not imagine the ass beating I would have received. Just the fear of that beating kept me from ever getting one.

Now days it seems as if parents are defending their children's actions. I know a guy around here that I do some computer work for. He has MONEY, in all CAPS. His house is worth well over 2 million + and that is WAY big money around here. Anyway I work on his 17 year old's machine and it has 1000's of songs on it all illegal. When I tell him about it he just says "who cares my boy likes music".

THAT is a problem and I agree a lawsuit from the RIAA is not going to fix it (but man would it make me happy to see him have to pay… I would even stand in court and testify that I told him it was coming).

Second point that I am not 100% with you on.. but maybe we are on the same page? I don’t think that the average artist can go around giving their music away. Maybe Trent can but that is not a good business model and if you want to make money you need to be a business man.

Screw the labels, they got themselves into this mess. I am worried about the artist and the art that I love. If they can’t make money on the recordings they produce they will stop making them.

I don’t like live shows, I listen to all my music on CD etc. If people are only making CD's to promote live music I think the quality of the CD will suffer…. all that energy will be spent in the live area that I am not in the least bit interested in. Also that means bands with more flash on stage are going to do better, less concern for music and more for show perhaps? Not sure but I could see it leaning that way.

In some ways this is a personal issue with me, I love music and want to see more of the good kind and less of the bad.

Anyway, for the most part we agree, your post in almost 100% in line with my views as well.

thumbsup

It's not a shift in culture. People of any generation would have stolen if they could with no consequence. People steal for the same reason people always stole. It's becaue they can.


We can fool ourselves into thinking this generation has more of a sense of entitlement so they don't know right from wrong if we choose. But, it's pointless to do so.

Those who point out the record biz is shooting after kids as an easy target, that's like saying "The cop shouldnt give me a ticket, the guy in that truck was speeding faster than I was"

[Jazzpunk]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

It's not a shift in culture. People of any generation would have stolen if they could with no consequence. People steal for the same reason people always stole. It's becaue they can.


We can fool ourselves into thinking this generation has more of a sense of entitlement so they don't know right from wrong if we choose. But, it's pointless to do so.

Those who point out the record biz is shooting after kids as an easy target, that's like saying "The cop shouldnt give me a ticket, the guy in that truck was speeding faster than I was"

[Resonant Alien]

Originally Posted by PoorGlory

Actually, that is incorrect. I don't need permission from you to record a cover of your song. You will, however, receive songwriting royalties from my recorded version. You can take legal recourse against me if you believe that my cover of your song somehow mocks or demeans your original song, which could arguably cause you to lose revenue from your original record....

I believe that is incorrect.
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works<SUP>36</SUP>

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.


Based on the above, a cover is a violation, as the author has exclusive rights.


"Fair Use" is the only exception, and is defined as:

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use<SUP>38</SUP>

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


Recording a cover does not constitute fair use unless the reason for recording the cover falls under one of the above conditions.

Originally Posted by Resonant Alien

I believe that is incorrect.
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works<SUP>36</SUP>

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.


Based on the above, a cover is a violation, as the author has exclusive rights.


"Fair Use" is the only exception, and is defined as:

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use<SUP>38</SUP>

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


Recording a cover does not constitute fair use unless the reason for recording the cover falls under one of the above conditions.

I think you are overlooking compulsory liscenses



Circular 73

Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Phonorecords

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents
The Compulsory Licensing Provisions
Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels
Does the Intended User Have to Use a Compulsory License?
When May a Compulsory License Be Obtained?
Under What Conditions May a Compulsory License Be Obtained?
May a New Arrangement of the Copyrighted Musical Work Be Made for the Recording?
How Does a Person Obtain a Compulsory License?
For Further Information

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Compulsory Licensing Provisions
The Copyright Act contains compulsory licensing provisions governing the making and distribution of phonorecords of nondramatic musical works. Section 115 of the law provides that, once phonorecords of a musical work have been publicly distributed in the United States with the copyright owner’s consent, anyone else may, under certain circumstances and subject to limited conditions, obtain a “compulsory license” to make and distribute phonorecords of the work without express permission from the copyright owner.

The Copyright Office Regulations set out in detail the procedures that must be followed, while the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels determine the royalty fee that must be paid by the user under a compulsory license.

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels
The Copyright Royalty Tribunal Reform Act of 1993, Public Law 103-198, eliminated the Copyright Royalty Tribunal and replaced it with a system of ad hoc Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels (CARPs). The panels, administered by the Librarian of Congress and the Copyright Office, adjust the copyright compulsory license royalty rates (including the mechanical rates for making and distributing phonorecords) and distribute the royalties collected by the Licensing Division to the appropriate copyright owners.

For further information about CARPs, write to:

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels (CARPs)
P.O. Box 70977
Washington, D.C. 20024

Tel: 202-707-8380
Fax: 202-252-3423
Web: U.S. Copyright Office - Licensing and CARP Information

Does the Intended User Have to Use a Compulsory License?
No. The person wishing to make and distribute phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work may negotiate directly with the copyright owner or his or her agent. But, if the copyright owner is unwilling to negotiate or if the copyright owner cannot be contacted, the person intending to record the work may use the compulsory licensing provisions of the copyright law.

NOTE: The statute defines “phonorecords” as “material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed....Since the compulsory license applies only to the making and distributing of phonorecords, and soundtracks are not “phonorecords,” the compulsory license is not available to one wishing to record on a soundtrack.

When May a Compulsory License Be Obtained?
A compulsory license is available to anyone as soon as “phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work have been distributed to the public in the United States under the authority of the copyright owner.”

Under What Conditions May a Compulsory License Be Obtained?
It may be obtained only if the primary purpose in making the phonorecords is to distribute them to the public for private use. It is not available for phonorecords intended for use in background music systems, jukeboxes, broadcasting, or any other public use.

May a New Arrangement of the Copyrighted Musical Work Be Made for the Recording?
Yes. The compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work “to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved.” However, section 115 also provides that the arrangement “shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work . . . except with the express consent of the copyright owner.”

How Does a Person Obtain a Compulsory License?
The first step is to identify the copyright owner of the nondramatic musical work to be recorded. This may be done either by personally searching the records of the Copyright Office or by requesting that the Copyright Office conduct the search. (For further information about searching the files of the Copyright Office, see Circular 22 How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work, and Circular 75, The Licensing Division of the Copyright Office.)

If the Name and Address of the Copyright Owner Are Found:
Before or within 30 days after making, and before distributing any phonorecords of the work, serve a Notice of Intention to Obtain a Compulsory License on the copyright owner by certified or registered mail.
Note: A separate Notice of Intention must be filed for each title for which a compulsory license is needed.

A copy of this Notice of Intention does not have to be filed in the Copyright Office.

Make royalty payments, accompanied by a Monthly Statement of Account, to the copyright owner on or before the 20th day of each month for every phonorecord made and distributed in accordance with the license.
Definition of “distributed.” For the purpose of computing royalties, a phonorecord is considered “volun-tarily distributed” if the compulsory licensee has voluntarily and permanently parted with possession of the phonorecord.

File with the copyright owner a detailed Annual Statement of Account, certified by a certified public accountant.
If the Name and Address of the Copyright Owner Are Not Found:
File a Notice of Intention to Obtain a Compulsory License in the Library of Congress, Copyright Office, Licensing Division, 101 Independence Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20557-6400.
Note: A separate Notice of Intention must be filed for each title for which a compulsory license is needed.

Submit the statutory fee with each Notice of Intention.
Upon receipt of such a Notice, the Licensing Division will provide the sender with a written acknowledgment of receipt and filing. Upon request and payment of an additional fee for each Notice of Intention, the Licensing Division will provide a Certificate of Filing.

Make checks payable to Register of Copyrights.
Important: The name and address of the copyright owner may appear in the records of the Copyright Office at a later time. Since royalty payments must be made after the copyright owner is identified in the Copyright Office records, the licensee should periodically search these records to ascertain if the copyright owner has been identified. If and after the copyright owner is identified in the Copyright Office records, the licensee should make royalty payments for phonorecords made and distributed after the copyright owner is so identified.

The Copyright Office does not provide forms for the Notice of Intention, the Monthly Statement of Account, or the Annual Statement of Account. For detailed instructions concerning the form and content of the Notice of Intention and Statements of Accounts, write for the Copyright Office Regulations on Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Phonorecords, Circulars 96 Section 201.18 and 96 Section 201.19. Address your request to:

Library of Congress
Copyright Office
Licensing Division, LM-458
101 Independence Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20557-6400

(202) 707-8150


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Further Information
Information via the Internet
Circulars, announcements, regulations, other related materials, and all copyright application forms are available from the Copyright Office website at U.S. Copyright Office.

Information by telephone
For general information about copyright, call the Copyright Public Information Office at (202) 707-3000. The TTY number is (202) 707-6737. Staff members are on duty from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm, eastern time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. Recorded information is available 24 hours a day. Or, if you know which application forms and circulars you want, request them 24 hours a day from the Forms and Publications Hotline at (202) 707-9100. Leave a recorded message.

Information by regular mail
Write to:

Library of Congress
Copyright Office
Publications Section
101 Independence Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20559-6000


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Circular 73, Revised August 2003

Format Note:

This electronic version has been altered slightly from the original printed text for website presentation. For a copy of the original circular, consult the PDF version or write to Copyright Office, 101 Independence Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20559-6000.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Home | Contact Us | Legal Notices | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | Library of Congress

U.S. Copyright Office
101 Independence Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20559-6000
(202) 707-3000

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

It's perfect if you want to totally devalue music. Giving away a few million records is not the forumula for selling records. It may sound like good publicity, but it's a bit silly.

It's not the formula for selling records, but it's certainly a forumula for making a lot of money.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Rob, I don't know what the heck you're laughing at, sometimes people steal cars, and it makes them go out and buy that very same car to support the mfgr.

Try making flat screen TVs free or better yet sell them in the projects for $100 each and see if sales decline at circuit city?

LOL the only way the sales will increase is if the guy who stole the credit card to buy them and sell them hot keeps going back to re up. LMAO.

Don't you know having a free TV will make you buy one?

Here's another bad idea for you to laugh at - 2 liter bottles of Coke for 99 cents and buy one get one free at the grocery store!


Forget file sharing and illegal downloads. In about three weeks the playback medium is about to become the distribution/sales medium. Labels or anyone with a recording, will be able to sell it directly to your phone where it can be in your recording library forever.

The paradim of music distribution has been changed and will continue to change. Even if there aren't problems of illegal file sharing, the methods of making money for a writer or recording artist are going to change. The fact is, there may be substantially more income for the recording artist if they don't sell their music using old models and one of the new models may involve not selling it at all or not selling some of it.

Surely you must understand the concept of a loss leader.

Revenue from the sale of recordings has always been the smallest revenue stream that a recording artist creates. Loosing sales revenue from recordings is insignificant in the big picture.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by not_so_new

I think Rob was laughing at the idea that people "listen to the download and then go buy the CD." Which is a laugh to me as well.

If you saying that you don't think someone will go buy a CD after they have an MP3 in their possession, I agree.

If you think that the idea is so absurd to be funny, I'm not even sure how to charaterize that. For nearly the entire history of the music business has been based on people buying an album after hearing the songs. As a concept it's not absurd, radio has proven that. It's sematics wheter it comes over a wire or airwaves.

Why would someone pay for something that they already have in their possesion? They wouldn't. The post you responded to said "support the band" not buy a CD.

How much do you think the average U2 fan spends in a year because of the band - meaning, the total the spend to go to a concert including ticket, merch, food/drink, gas, parking CDs, DVDs pay-perview concerts?

Now subtract $20 for the cost of a CD. There is still so much money coming out of fans wallets that the band and any label or management could make as much or more without selling music.

Look at hip hop. Do you think Jay Z would every bother to check a royalty statement if he put out an album? He'll probably make more money from selling clothes each year than double the income from his highes selling album or even double the artist's portion of the highest selling album in the past 20 years.

Jay Z is a brand because of his songs. The wider his songs spread the more clothes he can sell.

Album revenue, especially from the artist's perspecitive has always been a joke compared to the other sources of revenue. That's what you should be laughing at.

I laugh at the people who don't see that that's the way it's been since at least 1980.

How do you sign Brittany Spears without making a clothing line part of the deal? Did it not occur to them that she might be a famous teen pop icon? Isn't that why they signed her? Did they not read Mim Udovitch's NYT Magazine article on the Olsen Twins making half a billlion a year?


Clearly you live in drug free suburb. That's why you've never seen the idea of giving away product to get people hooked and then draining every last cent because they need what you have - they need your concert, they need your t-shirt. Check out what the hip hop artists are selling - pantone colors! Check out the list of Kiss merchandise - there are over 600 products that say Kiss. Surely you've heard about the Kiss coffin, right?

What income amount would it take for you to decide that the artist's revenue from a successful album was relatively worthless? There are pleny of artists who make enough from other sources that that's the case and it's certainly the case with poorly selling albums.

Hell, even DIY bands printing 1,000 CDs make more profit in a year of gigs than in a year of selling their CDs. They'd have more money at the end of the year if they gave away their music digitally than from pressing and selling CDs.

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by DeathMonkey

I AM NOT DEFENDING DOWNLOADING. Not sure how many times I can say this. All I am doing is trying to present an alternative solution to the RIAA's current strategy. I'm asking "what can we learn from the way people consume music?" without touching the moral implications. What are people's motivations for downloading, either illegally or legally? And is there a better way to ensure the health of the music industry other than the traditional paradigm?

What you should do is defend downloading, but not defend breaking the law.

Both paid and free downloading are great. If someone wants to choose selling their songs which may in turn limit their income, they certinaly should be allowed to.

Clearly there are benefits from downloading and filesharing, but that doens't justify breaking the law. It does justify adapting to the advantages provided by technology.

[C Heat]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

Check out the list of Kiss merchandise - there are over 600 products that say Kiss. Surely you've heard about the Kiss coffin, right?

Is KISS a trademark?

If I used the word KISS in a song title, is that legal?

[PoorGlory]

Originally Posted by Resonant Alien

I believe that is incorrect.
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works<SUP>36</SUP>

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.


Based on the above, a cover is a violation, as the author has exclusive rights.


"Fair Use" is the only exception, and is defined as:

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use<SUP>38</SUP>

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


Recording a cover does not constitute fair use unless the reason for recording the cover falls under one of the above conditions.

I will quote some of what was just written regarding compulsory licenses:

Does the Intended User Have to Use a Compulsory License?
No. The person wishing to make and distribute phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work may negotiate directly with the copyright owner or his or her agent. But, if the copyright owner is unwilling to negotiate or if the copyright owner cannot be contacted, the person intending to record the work may use the compulsory licensing provisions of the copyright law.


May a New Arrangement of the Copyrighted Musical Work Be Made for the Recording?
Yes. The compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work “to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved.” However, section 115 also provides that the arrangement “shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work . . . except with the express consent of the copyright owner.”

To put it simply, a recording a cover doesn't violate anything. It doesn't violate your original sound recording copyright because it's a completely different sound recording, and it doesn't violate the performing arts copyright because you are seeing royalties from the distribution of that material.

It has nothing to do with fair use. Once your song has been published and out there for people to consume, it's subject to compulsory licenses.

[7161]

well with the appaling cost of having to buy almost all tickets for gigs at vastly inflated re-seller prices, i for one would gladly buy more CD albums if it meant i could get live tickets at genuine cover prices as a return for being someone who actualy paid for the CD instead of d/loading it

the problem is for me I spend so much money to see gigs cos artists and promoters simply cannot sort this problem out (apparently in every territory), there's no money left to buy CD's in my budget!

they need something so that GENUINE FANS who can show they bought the album get the tickets

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

If you saying that you don't think someone will go buy a CD after they have an MP3 in their possession, I agree.

If you think that the idea is so absurd to be funny, I'm not even sure how to charaterize that. For nearly the entire history of the music business has been based on people buying an album after hearing the songs. As a concept it's not absurd, radio has proven that. It's sematics wheter it comes over a wire or airwaves.

Why would someone pay for something that they already have in their possesion? They wouldn't. The post you responded to said "support the band" not buy a CD.

How much do you think the average U2 fan spends in a year because of the band - meaning, the total the spend to go to a concert including ticket, merch, food/drink, gas, parking CDs, DVDs pay-perview concerts?

Now subtract $20 for the cost of a CD. There is still so much money coming out of fans wallets that the band and any label or management could make as much or more without selling music.

Look at hip hop. Do you think Jay Z would every bother to check a royalty statement if he put out an album? He'll probably make more money from selling clothes each year than double the income from his highes selling album or even double the artist's portion of the highest selling album in the past 20 years.

Jay Z is a brand because of his songs. The wider his songs spread the more clothes he can sell.

Album revenue, especially from the artist's perspecitive has always been a joke compared to the other sources of revenue. That's what you should be laughing at.

I laugh at the people who don't see that that's the way it's been since at least 1980.

How do you sign Brittany Spears without making a clothing line part of the deal? Did it not occur to them that she might be a famous teen pop icon? Isn't that why they signed her? Did they not read Mim Udovitch's NYT Magazine article on the Olsen Twins making half a billlion a year?


Clearly you live in drug free suburb. That's why you've never seen the idea of giving away product to get people hooked and then draining every last cent because they need what you have - they need your concert, they need your t-shirt. Check out what the hip hop artists are selling - pantone colors! Check out the list of Kiss merchandise - there are over 600 products that say Kiss. Surely you've heard about the Kiss coffin, right?

What income amount would it take for you to decide that the artist's revenue from a successful album was relatively worthless? There are pleny of artists who make enough from other sources that that's the case and it's certainly the case with poorly selling albums.

Hell, even DIY bands printing 1,000 CDs make more profit in a year of gigs than in a year of selling their CDs. They'd have more money at the end of the year if they gave away their music digitally than from pressing and selling CDs.

Jay wouldn't be a brand if he never sold CDs. So looking at a situation that was caused by selling CDs originally is not fair to the discussion. You are discussing individuals who made what they are doing today possible by selling CDs remove that from the process and you have a totally different situation.

Also CDs are NOT Drugs. Your comparison is a stretch. With coke, If i give you a dime, you no longer have it tomorrow when you want another one. But if you could smoke the same dime every day and nothing would happen to it, you'd never come back to me.

Your argument about other revenue streams does not apply. You are totally missing the point that these revenue streams started because record sales were the catlyst


Tshirts, Concert tickets are sold because people appreciate the band. If everyone is bombarded with free samples of music all day every day, there would be little interest in finding the gems if you had to wade through Months worth of bullshit to find one.

Your concept of a loss leader is not likely to apply. Americans don't really respect what they get for free. There is no prestige attached to ownership.

You are overlooking the very nature of the industry. There are loss leaders, the single is given away to promote the album. But you are discussing giving away the ALBUM. It would work fine for Jay or Kiss, because they built their audiences by selling units. But for a new artist with good music what do you think would make him stand out among all of the MILLIONS of other wanna be artists giving away music?

If every day you opened your mail you had 1 MILLION pieces of junk mail, how many of them would you read?

Let's not apply other things to the record industry that don't apply and let's not consider things/conditions that exist for stars today as if they apply to the entire industry.

[Resonant Alien]

Originally Posted by PoorGlory

To put it simply, a recording a cover doesn't violate anything. It doesn't violate your original sound recording copyright because it's a completely different sound recording, and it doesn't violate the performing arts copyright because you are seeing royalties from the distribution of that material.

It has nothing to do with fair use. Once your song has been published and out there for people to consume, it's subject to compulsory licenses.

no ssl yet and PoorGlory - Thanks for that! I did indeed overlook compulsory licenses. Thanks for edumacating me. I guess the key point to making sure the copyright owner is paid royalties. This is probably where some guys making covers get in trouble.

It does raise another question I have though: Parodies like Weird Al would seem to violate the section about "changing the basic character" of the work, and would seem to fall under "derivative works", which are not covered under the compulsory license, and would have to receive the permission of the copyright owner. I believe Weird Al actually does get permission when he does his parodies - in fact I seem to remember him commenting there were a few songs he wanted to do but couldn't get permission to.

I guess this is where rap artists also get into trouble, because sampling also changes the basic character of the work, and would still require direct permission from the owner.

Thanks, again.

RA

Originally Posted by Resonant Alien

no ssl yet and PoorGlory - Thanks for that! I did indeed overlook compulsory licenses. Thanks for edumacating me. I guess the key point to making sure the copyright owner is paid royalties. This is probably where some guys making covers get in trouble.

It does raise another question I have though: Parodies like Weird Al would seem to violate the section about "changing the basic character" of the work, and would seem to fall under "derivative works", which are not covered under the compulsory license, and would have to receive the permission of the copyright owner. I believe Weird Al actually does get permission when he does his parodies - in fact I seem to remember him commenting there were a few songs he wanted to do but couldn't get permission to.

I guess this is where rap artists also get into trouble, because sampling also changes the basic character of the work, and would still require direct permission from the owner.

Thanks, again.

RA

No you kinda have it wrong. Rappers get in trouble because sampling is equivalent to bootlegging. It's a copy of the sound recording. If I replay your material I have to pay you a set royalty. If I sample your material, I have to pay you what you want. There's a big difference in sampling and doing a cover. This is why more rap guys are starting to recreate samples instead of sampling.

[Resonant Alien]

Originally Posted by not_so_new

I think Rob was laughing at the idea that people "listen to the download and then go buy the CD." Which is a laugh to me as well.

It happens. There have been a lot of times when I bought a song from iTunes, sometimes even a whole album from iTunes, and then still went out and bought the CD. Why? If I liked the songs and the band well enough, I want the CD because the sound quality is much much better than MP3 or AAC. Also, I may want the liner notes, etc., that I can get with the CD. So, it can happen. (I know that is legal downloading versus illegal, but the question is similar: i.e. "why would I buy a CD if I have the MP3")

There have also been times where someone sends me an MP3 in an email saying "check out this band" or whatever. I don't know if they got the MP3 legally or not. But, if I like the song, I will go out and buy it myself, rather than just keeping the MP3. Maybe it's because I'm a musician and I am sensitive about this stuff, but it happens.

Take this back 20 years. I used to make cassette tapes of my brothers LPs. Sometimes, I would share my tapes with my friends. Technically, I was in violation of Copyright, but at that age (12, 13) I had no idea. But even then, the same rule applied for me - if I had a tape of a band and ended up liking them enough, I would eventually go buy the LP because the sound quality was better and I got the liner notes.

It is interesting. I still think that illegal downloading is a crime and it has been publicized enough such that every person over 12 in the world should be aware that it is illegal and no longer has the excuse of "I didn't know". OTOH, what is so different about a teenager downloading an illegal song from the web versus me making a cassette tape of my brother's LPs when I was a teenager??? I would hate to think that I could have been locked up for making a freakin' mix tape!!!!!

[Resonant Alien]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

No you kinda have it wrong. Rappers get in trouble because sampling is equivalent to bootlegging. It's a copy of the sound recording. If I replay your material I have to pay you a set royalty. If I sample your material, I have to pay you what you want. There's a big difference in sampling and doing a cover. This is why more rap guys are starting to recreate samples instead of sampling.

A Ha!!

[lordmiguel]

Originally Posted by JustinPhelps

Read my example edit above about stop sign running. I'm sure you've atleast once (probably thousands like most) not COMPLETELY stopped at a stop sign. Meaning, you are actually not moving at all, period.

Justin,
The example you give is of poor context. No one was ever required to pay to stop at an traffic interersection. The law is there for public safety and a ticket is for deterrence. However, note that you will still receive a ticket for speeding and running traffic lights when the cameras go off. But its not so good an example as you said.

A better example is like is running a car through a toll booth and not paying. You are supposed to pay to the manufacturer of the road the right to use the road. You don't and the road manufacturer comes after you with a hefty fine. In this example the road manufacturer is the big label, the road is the song.

I don't see anything wrong with this.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by Resonant Alien

OTOH, what is so different about a teenager downloading an illegal song from the web versus me making a cassette tape of my brother's LPs when I was a teenager??? I would hate to think that I could have been locked up for making a freakin' mix tape!!!!!

I don't know, maybe the fact that your mix tape was only good for one generation where as a digital copy is a bit for bit duplication?

Or maybe someone still had to pay for the cassette tape and that tape was getting an amount tacked on to cover royalties.

Or how about you are not going to have 2000 songs you did not buy on your casseette mix tapes. Everyone says the reason people download is because it is easy right? Mix tapes were cool because they took work, not because they were easy.

Also back then you had to sit there and do a one for one conversion from record to tape. The best you would get is maybe a 3 to 1 ratio if copying between tapes. Now you can grab 10 songs in 3 minutes all at the same quality as the original copy, that is better than a 10 to 1 ratio.

I am just say'n...

[Jazzpunk]

Originally Posted by Resonant Alien

OTOH, what is so different about a teenager downloading an illegal song from the web versus me making a cassette tape of my brother's LPs when I was a teenager??? I would hate to think that I could have been locked up for making a freakin' mix tape!!!!!

There is a huge difference! It is really ignorant for people to keep making comparisons like this. Are you guys really blind enough to believe that making a mix tape or taping your buddies records like you did 'back in the day' is at all comparable to the impact file 'sharing' on a global scale is having on the industry?!

Give me a break! It's like comparing the difference between the damage that can be inflicted by being hit with a wiffleball bat to that of being shot in the head.

I have repeatedly stated that every single advantage the internet and P2P networks have to offer can be taken advantage of without allowing the distribution of copywritten material that is intended for sale. I love how the defenders of P2P's and file 'sharing' keep glossing over this fact.

I have not heard one sane argument against why someone shouldn't be prosecuted for illegally downloading music. The arguments so far seem to be;

1. The record companies deserve it dude.
2. If music was better, people wouldn't illegally download it to listen to and enjoy, they would run out and buy it instead
3. My buddy only downloaded a few hundred songs. How can the RIAA say that he and the thousands and thousands of other people (he's in college-tell him to add that one up!) just like him are part of the problem?!
4. Look man, people have figured out a way to get copywritten material intended for sale for free so they should just be allowed to continue to do so. Instead of outlawing this practice, artists should just suck it up and start figuring out how to sell Pepsi or develop a clothing line.

I do not believe that at this point in time, P2P networks are vital to anybody who is doing legitimate business. However, to those who enjoy stealing music, software and sharing porn, I can definitely see why they would argue vigourously in favor of these networks.

Give me one good reason why P2P's as they currently exist should not be shut down until they can figure out how to regulate them in a manner where no copywritten material can be distributed without the consent of the owner. Please illustrate in your example how P2P's are currently helping you in your job in the entertainment business. Also, I would like to hear how your job would be negatively impacted if these networks were regulated or shut down.

[Jazzpunk]

Started a new poll;

How much did you spend purchasing music last year?

[The Byre]

But they do deserve it!

For the majors to bitch about downloads is like hearing a bald man complain that his comb has been stolen!

The CD is no longer a product.

Period.

[Jazzpunk]

Originally Posted by The Byre

But they do deserve it!

For the majors to bitch about downloads is like hearing a bald man complain that his comb has been stolen!

The CD is no longer a product.

Period.

See my above list. I've got you covered under excuse #1!

BTW, I'm not defending the majors, I am defending independant labels and artists who should have their rights protected. It should be up to them to decide if selling their music or giving it away for free is more beneficial.

The right of a consumer to decide whether he will pay for something intended for sale or just steal it, has never been defended...until now apparantly.

[The Byre]

But you are just defending the indefensible! The CD is dead.

The party's over.

This parrot is dead.

The RIAA can run its' arse off, sueing anybody and everybody, but illegal downloads is all the market you're going to get.

At best, the CD is free with a DVD concert video. Or comes with the sunday newspaper - and then just gets thrown away.

Peope give me CDs and I still throw them away.

There is no market for CDs.

[The Byre]

Originally Posted by Jazzpunk

The right of a consumer to decide whether he will pay for something intended for sale or just steal it, has never been defended...until now apparantly.

It has nothing to do with stealing, or legality, but value. The CD has become an utterly worthless object.

[Jazzpunk]

Originally Posted by The Byre

It has nothing to do with stealing, or legality, but value. The CD has become an utterly worthless object.

That's why they have iTunes.

So how does the CD being dead have anything to do with an individual not being willing to purchase music and choosing to illegally download it instead?

'Um, so like your honor, the CD is dead so I just decided I was entitled to all the free music I wanted'

[The Byre]

Economic reality.

Sue all you like and maybe a court here and there will uphold a claim or two, but the reality is that the CD and iTunes downloads and all the other attempts to ward off the inevitable are just that -

- attempts to ward off the inevitable.

The music industry has to stop whining and compaining about downloads and find a new business model that is not based on recorded music.

[The Byre]

Hey! I wish it were otherwise, but reality is reality - busta!!!

Dealing with reality is one of the secrets of success. Living in a dream World is a sure-fire path to failure.

I wish we could un-invent digital. I wish ProTools and every other home-recording F-witt programme would just go away! I wish I were 20 years younger!

But we can't, they won't and I ain't.

You can wish all you like and you can even litigate against who use this new economic reality in an illegal manner and even win.

But you cannot put the clock back.

Free downloads are a reality.

We have to learn to live with that reality.

Originally Posted by The Byre

But you are just defending the indefensible! The CD is dead.

The party's over.

This parrot is dead.

The RIAA can run its' arse off, sueing anybody and everybody, but illegal downloads is all the market you're going to get.

At best, the CD is free with a DVD concert video. Or comes with the sunday newspaper - and then just gets thrown away.

Peope give me CDs and I still throw them away.

There is no market for CDs.

I love the way you guys cheer "Down with the RIAA" as if it doesn't effect everyone. NO more money from music can = NO more record business. No more record business = no more studio. NO more studio = No more gear sales = No more gear manufacturers = no more MONEY.

LOL We can be naieve enough to think that free music will be a simple marketing tool for other avenues.

But it's short sighted. We have a real problem here.

And I like the idea of comparing the whiffle ball bat to a gunshot. Except it doesn't say enough.

It's more like some one hitting you with an acorn from across the street compared to WMD

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by The Byre

Economic reality.

Sue all you like and maybe a court here and there will uphold a claim or two, but the reality is that the CD and iTunes downloads and all the other attempts to ward off the inevitable are just that -

- attempts to ward off the inevitable.

The music industry has to stop whining and compaining about downloads and find a new business model that is not based on recorded music.

First, I agree that it is dieing but it is not dead yet. The CD still accounts for a very large chunk of revenue for all labels, major and indy.

Second, no matter if the CD is dead or not that does not mean anyone can take the music for free. If Ford were to start producing the Model-T again next year, even if you hate the company and think the design of the car is out of date you still don't have a right to take it illegally. THAT is the point that Jazzpunk. I don't see why you don't get that?