RIAA or no RIAA?

[Adam Richards]

I am personally opposed to the RIAA. They make decisions based upon their own opinions, not those of the artists that they're trying to "protect". There is no need for the organization as a whole, since the actions that they take do not reflect the music community as a whole, just the executives that operate the members of the RIAA.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Adam Richards

I am personally opposed to the RIAA. They make decisions based upon their own opinions, not those of the artists that they're trying to "protect". There is no need for the organization as a whole, since the actions that they take do not reflect the music community as a whole, just the executives that operate the members of the RIAA.

I may be wrong but from what I read, most of the members of the RIAA are production companies and Music labels. There are some artists but not a lot. Remember though, that usually the rights are owned by the labels, as they are the ones that sign the artists to contracts and pay them royalties..

[Dave Scheck]

I see the points from both sides on this one. I understand that people that depend on their music as a source of income are hurt by illegal copies...but I think that they are just as hurt by the sheer number of people that take a cut out of the money made off of their work product.

What people don't realize is that there is a healthy living that can be made without being signed, and ultimately not being under the RIAA's wing. There is a local band in Chicago (7th Heaven) that has been unsigned since the late 80's. They have taken a complete grass roots approach to their music and they clear $250k a year. On top of playing shows, they also run a local recording studio and web site company. They make their money by living their music. They often play multiple shows per week (at one point they had 7 shows in 6 days). Sure they have roadies and merchandise people that get their cuts, but ultimately, they are smart about the way they do their business.

Here is some recent RIAA news that really ticks me off. Personally, I use tabs found online as a jump start for learning a song. Maybe there's a chord that's giving me trouble, or maybe I know the chords, but there's a simple solo that I can't quite place. That's when I go to the online tabs. Anybody that's ever used online tabs knows that the quality of 75% of the tabs found are sub-par, so it's tough to use them without using some creativity and intuition. If there's something that I want to learn note for note, or is clearly too complex for tabs (i.e. Dream Theater), I will go out and buy the book.

Playing other people's music inspires me to become a better musician. I see tabs as a way for people wanting inspiration to get it from their peers. If someone has a stellar ear and can accuratly transcribe what they hear, then what's the harm in that? Now, if they buy the book and transcribe based on that, I see that as copyright infringement. I view that as translating a book to another language and making it freely available.

What's next? Requiring a band to obtain a license to play a song live?

[Mike]

Please people, do not call downloading music stealing. Again, downloading music is NOT stealing, nor pirating. I don't see any parrots and peg legs, do you?

Downloading music is copyright infringement, calling it anything other would be a strawman's argument.

You steal CDs from the brick and mortar music store, you commit copyright infringement online.

[Cyberguy34000]

The point consistently brought up in this discussion is that pirating music is stealing, or that pirating can deprive people of their income, etc...

Lets clarify something....

In a pure free-market system, you cannot guarantee people anything, except for the value of the currency that they use. You cannot garuntee housing arrangements, income, money, working conditions or even a job. Winds that blow in the the world of pure capitalism are unpredictable, and can violently change situations. The good thing is that this tends to create enormous wealth and prosperity, especially for those who understand how it works, the bad part is that there are no guarantees and people can lose out.

When you advocate against ideas or technologies (like pirating), because "someone might lose out, or this band will lose lots of money", than you are advocating for something other than capitalism. We can debate the merits of pure capitalism as an economic model, but that is a separate issue.

The term "intellectual property" is one of the more outrageous terms that has arisen, simply because the entire thing is bunk. Ideas are nothing without the tools, materials, workers, testing, business plans, production lines, or anything else to fruition. Ideas by themselves are worthless.

I've had literally hundreds (I have written documentation of many of them) of really cool ideas. Anything from mechanical inventions, to household products, to power tools, to movie plots. And what have I done with the majority of them? Nothing. But sure enough, given 5-6 years, someone else will independently come up with the same idea, but they'll actually go and do something with it, creating a business, hiring workers, selling the product, and bringing that idea to fruition.

Now, I've probably been deprived of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of "intellectual property" over the years. Dang it, those were my ideas! But you know what? Even if I did go through the process of copyrighting and suing anyone for infringing on my idea, I'd probably take it with me to the grave, because I would have done nothing with it. And so countless people are deprived of the fruits from that idea.

So what about movies? Millions of dollars are pumped into those ideas. They've gone through countless man hours worth of work, shouldn't they be able to profit? The answer to this rhetorical question really depends on what you think about free-markets.

Free-markets guarantee nothing, and can be quite brutal. If those movie studios lose millions because they invested in a bad business model that was outpaced by technology, than the true capitalist would be saying "tough break, better luck next time". Those that do not fully trust the the idea of free-markets will want things to be more fair, and will try to artificially control and legislate matters so that no one gets hurt, no one loses out, and no one has to suffer.

Capitalism insures nothing to anyone, save for the legitimacy of it's currency (even that made the founders of our Constitution choke). The only crime you can really commit against this economic model is stealing. Stealing is depriving people of their physical money or their physical property. "Intellectual Property" doesn't exist, so it cannot be stolen. You cannot "own" an idea. In fact, I would go as far as to argue that there is no such thing as an original idea, because in some way, all ideas or thoughts that have ever been thought were derived or inspired from others. Ideas are worthless.

The only thing that has any value in the world of capitalism, is physical property.


Do you really believe in capitalism?

-Chris

[Cyberguy34000]

Originally Posted by Steve W
Basically if you reproduce any copyrighted/ patented material without the express written permission of those holding the rights then you are a basic common thief. There is no other way to look at it.

(bolding mine)

This is a side note, but it is quite difficult to have a civil debate when one side is saying that there are no other legimate viewpoints or using ad hominem arguements.

The ideas being discussed here are relatively new, and there is lots of room for discussion and interpretation of facts. Very few things are actually well established by either side, and so there are many ways that we can discuss and argue about the issue. But can we please not resort to this?

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Yeah I'm the only one who voted otherwise and I have to admit I don't know much about the situation. Does the RIAA represent artist or record companies? Becasue I have seen artist who have openly endored the RIAA's side of the arguement.

http://www.riaa.com/about/default.asp

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Jane

http://www.riaa.com/about/default.asp

Artist must be involved because I can see the lables they have started to produce their own records and those artist they discover. I just wonder how much of a say they have.

[X-Istence]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Being an artist I support them.
They worked hard to create their works of art and deserve to be rewarded for their work.

I agree with the artist created their work and they deserve to be rewarded, I don't support the RIAA though. I buy all my music legally, from iTunes, but only after I have had a chance to sample the music. I don't like DRM and hate the fact that the RIAA is pushing it onto us. I can understand the need for DRM, but at the same time do not feel that it allows the freedom that has been allowed under US copyright laws.

If it were not for me downloading music, mostly one or two songs from bittorrent, limewire, kazaa or other applications, I would not have a huge legal collection amounting to well over $4000 worth of music. If I like music I buy it, when I buy it I look for more music like it. Kinda an infinite loop

[Michelle Celio]

I don't like the RIAA just because they're weird. But thats just my opinion.

I mean yeah, they're trying to protect the artist (thats my impression of it) but like Mike said

Originally Posted by Mike

I have yet to see one artist claim to receive a penny from all of these settlements, however.

But think about it..."back in the day" when people used to use cassette tapes to record songs off the radio, kinda reminds me of how people now (illegally) download music.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Michelle Celio

But think about it..."back in the day" when people used to use cassette tapes to record songs off the radio, kinda reminds me of how people now (illegally) download music.

Know what? If you decide to broadcast your work over public airwaves, expect for it to be used in ways that the public decree acceptable. If I go outside and start shouting a new algorithm that makes some fancy improvements in robotics, can I sue you if you use that algorithm on your '07 bot?

[Koko Ed]

I'm lovin' some these RIAA images I'm finding online (can't post the best one though. Too vulgar for these pages)





The internet is soooooo fun!

[DanDon]

That it is.......I love those pictures!

[artdutra04]

While I support the rights of artists and their property, I cannot say that I love the RIAA. Especially when they complain about things like ripping a CD to your computer so you can put the music on your iPod. If I bought the CD, then why should I be forced to buy the song a second time if I want to listen to it on my iPod, or a third time if I want it as a ringtone on my phone, or a fourth time if I want to listen to it via a streaming media server in my house?

It's like buying a set of rims for your car, only to have the car company tell you that you will be sued if you ever put those rims on a different car. It's only possible to use the rims on one car at once, so does it really matter if you decide that you like them better on your other car or not?

If I buy a CD, and copy the music onto my iPod, I'm never going to be using both at the same time - I'll either be using one or the other. So there will only be one copy of the song at most ever playing. Would this not constitute "fair use" under Copyright law? So why should I get penalized for making backup disks of my CDs or ripping the music to my computer to archive it?

Or here is my favorite one. According to WIRED news, the RIAA wanted to hack people's computers to delete mp3 files that it found. If the RIAA ever hacked my computer and deleted my files, how could they prove the original source of the files and whether or not they were illegal? What if I wanted to listen to some tunes while I work, so I purchased a few mp3s and legally downloaded them, only to have my legal mp3 files deleted by the RIAA solely because of their file extension?

If they did do this to me, they would have illegally infiltrated my computer network, snooped around my private files, and then destroyed my property. Last I checked, hacking was illegal and destruction of private property was fair grounds for a lawsuit.

There is a right way to protect the rights and intellectual property of people. The RIAA is not one of them.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I know that this might be a little hard to understand but there is a lot of money being lost to people who pirate music. On the surface it would seem harmless, but the effect on the industry and on you is beyond your wildest imagination. The RIAA has been around a long time and during that period they have help set standards for music reproduction that have formed the world as we hear it. Without their efforts, hifi would have meant 50 5000 Hz instead of the 20-20kHz accepted today. Many of the pirated selections that are reaping the largest profit are substandard copies of some excellent artists and their greatest works. Substandard copies do nothing to advance the art or educate the listening public as to excellence in recording art. The RIAA is trying to protect the future of the recording industry. You don't have to agree with their goals but they are trying to cover a lot of problems that will make your enjoyment of music last a lifetime. The biggest problem for any recording artist these days is the pirating of music. It has become prevalent throughout the world but particularly in technologically advanced countries like the US. You can see a representative group who has already answered here and who think copying music for their own use is not illegal. Well it is, it's stealing no matter how you cut it. Just because almost everyone you know does it, does not make it right. When you borrow a friend's CD and rip it on your computer, your are stealing. Each copy you cut for someone else continues the theft. For example, your are lead guitar in a moderate band and a record company thinks you have a future. They contract with you to cut a CD for which you will make 3 cents on everyone sold. The CD takes off and you think it's pretty cool, you are going to see some real money coming in which will allow you to invest in some new amps, maybe buy a composition or two from another artist and get started on a road show. The record execs tell you that predictions are that the market will likely top out at sales of 650,000 units. That's about $20K in your pocket. Someone early on thinks your CD is pretty hot too and they start the campaign on getting copies of your material onto web sites and e transfers across the country. You start to see the sales numbers which shot up in the first few weeks dwindle to nothing. Everyone is talking about how hot your band is but no one is buying the disc and the record execs come back and tell you, "Sorry, we thought you were hot and were going some place but the sales are just not there." The second CD deal is canceled, the road show is canceled and your band dissolves before your eyes. Your projected $20K tops out at $8-10K and you take it, pay your bills and go to work for Target and see your CD in the $3 discount rack at the checkout. It's a harsh reality that is playing out everyday. If you are really hot, then there are the real professionals (thieves) who are out making look alike copies which are being sold and you see nothing from the sales. Wouldn't you want an advocate, someone to go after these thieves and who will share your legal expenses to get them prosecuted. If you were an artist, you would want to belong to the RIAA and you would want someone fighting for you so you could devote your time to advancing your art. If music is important to you, then don't copy it.
Signed,
A person who works in the music industry...