The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Moby: The RIAA Needs to be Disbanded
Old 21st June 2009
  #61
Quote:
Originally Posted by XHipHop View Post
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.
Old 21st June 2009
  #62
Lives for gear
 
XHipHop's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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.
Old 21st June 2009
  #63
Lives for gear
 
XHipHop's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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.
Old 21st June 2009
  #64
Gear Maniac
 
ThetaAlpha970's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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.
Old 21st June 2009
  #65
Quote:
Originally Posted by XHipHop View Post
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.
Old 21st June 2009
  #66
Lives for gear
 
thenoiseflower's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThetaAlpha970 View Post
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 horse**** 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...
Old 21st June 2009
  #67
Lives for gear
 
XHipHop's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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.
Old 21st June 2009
  #68
Lives for gear
 
XHipHop's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoiseflower View Post
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 horse**** 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.
Old 21st June 2009
  #69
Quote:
Originally Posted by XHipHop View Post

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.
Old 21st June 2009
  #70
Quote:
Originally Posted by XHipHop View Post
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.
Old 21st June 2009
  #71
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.
Old 21st June 2009
  #72
You're the bestest poster in the world Chris. I'm gonna print 'em and put 'em on the refrigerator, Sport
Old 21st June 2009
  #73
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeoctane View Post
I'm gonna print 'em and put 'em on the refrigerator,
Hey, you might learn something.

Anything to say on the RIAA?
Old 21st June 2009
  #74
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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
Old 21st June 2009
  #75
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeoctane View Post
Sport
You make a lot of silly assumptions.
Old 21st June 2009
  #76
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
You make a lot of silly assumptions.
And you need to keep taking your meds.

RIAA losing millions
Old 21st June 2009
  #77
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeoctane View Post
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.....
Old 21st June 2009
  #78
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeoctane View Post
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.
Old 21st June 2009
  #79
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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.
Old 21st June 2009
  #80
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)???
Old 21st June 2009
  #81
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
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???
Old 21st June 2009
  #82
MrT
Gear Addict
 
MrT's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
And to make quality music costs a ton of money.
Pure self-effacing bull****...
Old 21st June 2009
  #83
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeoctane View Post
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.
Old 21st June 2009
  #84
Gear Maniac
 
ThetaAlpha970's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
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.
Old 21st June 2009
  #85
Interesting.
I'm warming to your opinion.

I think it's that a workable new industry model hasn't been invented yet.
OK, the major labels should be doing more to speed up that process.

Looking at the print media as a similar situation.
Newspapers are going under by the week.
People who once bought newspapers are flocking to free services on the net.
So it's another choice between paying or getting something for free.
The difference is.....
Free news online is by and large created by online writers. It isn't copied word for word from the front page of the NY Times, or copied from the BBC News website holus bolus.

So I think that's why these music industry actions have taken place.
If people were running away from music they had to pay for, towards music that was created with the intention of giving it away via the internet, I don't think anyone would have a problem.
With news, people outside the news media have set themselves up as an alternative.
With the music industry, that has rarely happened. There is no widespread free alternative, so people have found a way to take it anyway.
Like walking out of a cafe with the cafe owned copy of the daily paper under your arm.
Old 21st June 2009
  #86
Jam
Lives for gear
 
Jam's Avatar
 

Diversity and competition are what drives a market. Innovation is brilliant, wonderful and necessary in any market.

Personally I have no problem with anyone who wishes to pursue alternative methodologies for engaging with and ultimately monetising their fan base.

But I still can't see how this negates the need to protect intellectual properties, if you start a "new model" based enterprise, there are costs, for some products these will be small for others large.

An example, hypothetical band A, funds, creates and distributes an album on the web, hoping to recoup their costs of capital expenditure and labour by selling advertising on their website. They have an offer of one band with one record.

An unscrupulous individual takes this work and the work of nine other bands pursuing the new model and bundles them together on a new website. They have an offer of ten bands and ten albums, which offer is more appealing to the consumer and advertiser ? Which offer has the lowest start up cost ? Which offer has the greatest chance of profitability ?

If the "new model" really is the way forward then it should be relatively straight forward for it to enter the market place and out compete the old model. This seems to me the logical, ethical and appropriate way to test the validity of these claims.

In the meantime it seems moral and appropriate to respect the wishes and intentions of the "old timers" as the "new model" wants respect from them.

What I have a real problem with, is a few people who find no hypocrisy in tossing around defamatory terms, like "suits", "corporate shills" and defaming other peoples wishes and beliefs while behaving in a way that borders on totalitarian themselves.

James

Last edited by Jam; 21st June 2009 at 08:42 AM.. Reason: Sunday morning idiocy
Old 21st June 2009
  #87
Lives for gear
 
XHipHop's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jam View Post
Diversity and competition are what drives a market. Innovation is brilliant, wonderful and necessary in any market.

Personally I have no problem with anyone who wishes to pursue alternative methodologies for engaging with and ultimately monetising their fan base.

But I still can't see how this negates the need to protect intellectual properties, if you start a "new model" based enterprise, there are costs, for some products these will be small for others large.

An example, hypothetical band A, funds, creates and distributes an album on the web, hoping to recoup their costs of capital expenditure and labour by selling advertising on their website. They have an offer of one band with one record.

An unscrupulous individual takes this work and the work of nine other bands pursuing the new model and bundles them together on a new website. They have an offer of ten bands and ten albums, which offer is more appealing to the consumer and advertiser ? Which offer has the lowest start up cost ? Which offer has the greatest chance of profitability ?

If the "new model" really is the way forward then it should be relatively straight forward for it to enter the market place and out compete the old model. This seems to me the logical, ethical and appropriate way to test the validity of these claims.

In the meantime it seems moral and appropriate to respect the wishes and intentions of the "old timers" as the "new model" wants respect from them.

What I have a real problem with, is a few people who find no hypocrisy in tossing around defamatory terms, like "suits", "corporate shills" and defaming other peoples wishes and beliefs while behaving in a way that borders on totalitarian themselves.

James
Hi James.

I agree with your entire post including the part where you a problem with me EXCEPT for this part:

Quote:
In the meantime it seems moral and appropriate to respect the wishes and intentions of the "old timers" as the "new model" wants respect from them.
That part is kind of irrelevant. What do morals have to do with this? In a perfect world they would...but sadly, morals have very little place in this discussion. Trust me. You can put little quotes around it, too, and not say my name again.

Anyway, i think some labels are already doing some of what you suggested. This site, RCRD LBL | Free MP3 Downloads, for example, is a big promotional tool for a handful of different labels.
Old 21st June 2009
  #88
Lives for gear
 
XHipHop's Avatar
"Dear potential consumer,

I feel you are immoral..."

See... doesn't really have a good ring to it.

Hasn't really worked too well for the industry either. It's about time to leave that out of the convo.
Old 21st June 2009
  #89
Jam
Lives for gear
 
Jam's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by XHipHop View Post
That part is kind of irrelevant. What do morals have to do with this? In a perfect world they would...but sadly, morals have very little place in this discussion. Trust me. You can put little quotes around it, too, and not say my name again.
Well to me, evaluating whether to do something that is against another's wishes or not, is an explicitly moral issue.
In this specific case, ( music piracy ) if there's no legal consequence, which there isn't for majority of transgressors, I don't know what other criteria one would use to asses it.

I do accept that absolute morality is subjective.

I'm not avoiding you or using your name, I'm just to lazy to read back up the thread and quote.

Allow me a specific question ? As you say you largely agree with me, how do you imagine protecting your intellectual property in the "new model" future ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by XHipHop View Post
Anyway, i think some labels are already doing some of what you suggested. This site, RCRD LBL | Free MP3 Downloads, for example, is a big promotional tool for a handful of different labels.
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out !!

James
Old 21st June 2009
  #90
Lives for gear
 
XHipHop's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jam View Post
Well to me, evaluating whether to do something that is against another's wishes or not, is an explicitly moral issue.
In this specific case, ( music piracy ) if there's no legal consequence, which there isn't for majority of transgressors, I don't know what other criteria one would use to asses it.

I do accept that absolute morality is subjective.

I'm not avoiding you or using your name, I'm just to lazy to read back up the thread and quote.

Allow me a specific question ? As you say you largely agree with me, how do you imagine protecting your intellectual property in the "new model" future ?



Thanks for the link, I'll check it out !!

James
The new model really has little to do with intellectual property. It has to do with connecting with fans and selling them something.

James, EVERY SONG EVER RECORDED HAS BEEN COPIED DIGITALLY. You can't go all gestapo into every harddrive in the world and remove them. It's just not going to happen. They are out there.

We can't go back in time "Back to the Future" style (yet! that's the only viable solution so far to stopping piracy and supporing the old model that i've thought of thus far).

All it takes is for a song to be uploaded once and that's the same as it being copied a million times as far as the internet is concerned; it's out there.

So why even discuss that!?!?! Every back catalogue has been compromised and since all it takes is one upload, every album in the future will be, as well.

If you have the time to watch those videos NARM videos from Topspin, they talk about how the beastie boys just successfully reissued their old catalogue with a ton of added material and it was a success because people like the added value of that package.

Radiohead is about to rerelease 3 of their albums in the same way. It's not rocket science. Connect with fans, add value, sell them something.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump