[www.thepoint.com]

makesomethinghappen

Now, I'm all for damaging the RIAA, but this doesn't seem like a good way of going about that. Why not get everyone to send letters to their favorite record labels (that are RIAA members), telling them how worthless the RIAA really is? It seems that with enough letters, a record label would get the idea and stop supporting musical tyranny.

YAOMTC

Probably too late for you to read this, but I'll respond anyway.

You've already paid for the cd, why should you pay more for rights to use the cd as you see fit?

Long answer: By buying a CD from someone who has the standard anti-copying policy we see from the RIAA, you are purchasing limited rights to the use of the disc. Again, the mere act of exchanging money for something does not automatically confer upon the buyer total ownership rights to the seller's property. There are times when the seller attaches conditions to the use of the property as part of the sale, in essence creating a contract with the buyer. You won't normally find such conditions arising between informal buyers and sellers (such as in the want ads or Ebay), but they are more likely when buying new products or services.

What is the value of a CD? The music is certainly crucial, but closely tied to is the ability to experience it. Therefore, paying extra to have the extra value of a freer CD (or whatever medium) makes sense.

Drizzten

Yes, the RIAA is protecting jobs, but many of them shouldn't be around anymore. Distribution of music is only a fraction of what it used to be, and a true capitalist economy will eliminate all those middlemen. And the RIAA is exploiting our not-so-perfect law (just throw tons of money) system to control the flow of money by doing just about anything they can. In a business perspective, can you blame them? But it is a good example of greed and wretchedness of humankind.

percival

larsnme

You've already paid for the cd, why should you pay more for rights to use the cd as you see fit?

pangelboy

http://www.riaaradar.com/

For anyone to double-check before they buy an album associated with the RIAA.

rad_matter

Shady bastards - according to them (not completely in their words, but) -

- If you're being sued, deleting your files voilates your obligation to preserve their evidence.
- The settlements are meant to recoup a 'small amount' of the 'massive' damage that piracy has inflicted on the poor music industry. D'jou get that - thousands of your dollars is a small amount to them, but it's worth them suing you for.
- Oh, and if you can't afford to pay them all of the money immediately, they're kind enough to let you make payments (for a fee, of course - wow, how charitable of them).
- By the way, you're not being sued by the RIAA. The RIAA only acts as council for the music industry - just like the guy a loanshark sends to break your knees isn't taking your money, he's just 'picking it up for a friend'

They make it sound like they're David, and we're Goliath. Poor pathetic turd stains. However will they endure such a massive amount of damage to their small mom & pop orginization?

Munch the BanNail

NateGnau

Wayde

Question for everybody: are there any popular sites out there that sell DRM-free indie music?

Emusic is obviously the most popular, but there are tons. Off the top of my head, I can think of spindividual.com (which appears to be in maintainence mode at the moment) and discrevolt.com. There are dozens all over the net.

Jenna Tollerson

coolyfooly88

In short: Fuck the RIAA

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

metgirl13

I agree with you. Doesn't anyone else want to support Britney Spears right now with her tripped out self? Buy her album. Do you want Paris Hilton to shut down another website about her? Buy her album. Do you want Puffy, Piffy, whatever, to host another party that you will NEVER be invited to? Buy his album. Do you want Jay-Z to buy something that you NEVER heard of, but he wants you to believe it's cool? Buy his album. Look People, I believe in protecting the artists, but at the same time, use the money like I would, you know you have bills!!! And to someone who is going to comment, I know these artists and others have other deals besides the music, because I know that the music business "doesn't pay well." Point blank, stop showing me a world that doesn't exist for someone like us regular joes, and there might be a possibility that we will support some aspect of the artists and the RIAA, but not the DRM.

rg4vr

Apopheniac

When you download an Mp3 you are depriving snoop dogg from buying an Island in Dubai.

bob fisher

bob fisher

DO YOU REALLY THINK I'm going to spend my last $15 on some Album ? I'd listen to the Radio .

Also Mr Underground Artist, Learn its only recently that Musicians earn Good money.
Before Musicians Died poor, Not Rich and with a drug Overdose.

Also the RIAA are Extremists, and everybody except artists are against them.

bob fisher

What the fuck are you talking about Walter?

djdare

cybergrunt

-underground artist

uaintaballer

hnkelley

thethrizzle

The best part is that there are a lot of compilation albums containing songs from popular artists - artists who are, I imagine, signed to the big labels. Songs for which I would not purchase a whole CD or a file that would not work on a cell phone, but which I will happily gobble up as single easily-played units. I feel this is exactly what needs to be explained to the RIAA.

boingystar

This isn't news. These arguments have been made before and more eloquently too (I agree, but come ON)

femstix

xxdesmus

You can put all sorts of crap in a contract, but it won't legally hold up.

Do you see any limits on the restrictions an artist/record label can implement? For instance, what if they only wanted to grant you, the sole purchaser, the rights to listen to the music? If they wrote on the cover that you had to turn off the music whenever a second person came within hearing distance, you'd follow it, right?

I personally think telling someone what devices they can listen to your music on should be illegal.

Rather than fining and throwing people in jail, I'd be for record companies asking for extra money in exchange for a more expansive right to use the music...no different in principle, really, than the current situation where you are clearly asked to request permission from the copyright holder to have a public broadcast or when you use the music in conjunction with a money-making activity.

For example, Sony can't say you can only listen to their CD's on sony cd players

...yet iTunes can force you to only listen to their songs on ipods.

Similiarly, I disagree with anyone telling me I can listen to it on my home pc, but not my work pc.

If they chose to do stupid things like this, wide-spread boycotts are in the consumers best interest.

Drizzten

again, its not the "requiring DRM" part thats important. it is hurting any company that deals with the RIAA and DRM

nova

Actually, when you use the Zune to 'squirt' a song to another Zune, it applies DRM to the song, whether or not it had any to begin with, to prevent the permanent transfer of music between the two devices.
So, in a way, the Zune, at least. requires DRM, as it applies it to music loaded on your player.

ottermann

Oh well, time to fire up Acquisition.

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

That is why it is important for anyone who supports this to: mail (for maximum effect) or email the RIAA, local news organizations, and state/federal representatives. It's a lot harder to claim in front of congress that lower sales are a result of piracy instead of boycotting when the boycotters (us) warn in advance and then follow through...

raulthepoolboy

raulthepoolboy

I've been trying to think of a good idea for an online business lately, and this article inspired me. I may consider creating an indie music site with a no-bull, extremely simple business model: Upload your band's music, cover art etc, we each get a share of every track purchased. Thoughts??

vandezuma

bulletmagnet

Now f*ck off and die somewhere before you cripple the internet for everyone else.

testrack

SharkByte

At least you'll be able to afford the iPhone.

Grodesh

Broken-Infinity

barkingart

MTV has done such a great job and glamourizing being in a band, along with shows like American Idol that says "everyone can be a star" that people have lost touch with reality. Everyone is in a band, and almost all of those bands are horrible. It takes talent to actually sing, play a guitar, or write songs. People seem to be lacking that.

I work in the industry. Every time I go to a show, I get handed 19 burned cds with address labels, or myspace addresses written on them with sharpie markers. I can tell you that I don't even listen to them anymore, and most people won't even accept them. This is what everyone's idea of "local music" or independent artists is. 9/10 times the quality on the outside reflects the quality on the inside.

Back in the early 90's there was so much great music. You could hear Counting Crows, Green Day, Rusted Root, Blind Melon and Nirvana all on the same radio station.

When you actually cared about your craft, you practiced, you saved money to go in and record your CD and then paid to have the artwork done and the CD pressed. It took real dedication and time. Now everyone has a $79 fender squire strat, and a $100 Crate 150w half-stack, records in garageband with their radio shack mics, then burns CDs and writes their myspace address on it.

We really need a board in every major city that you have to perform in front of in order to get a "band license." You'll only be allowed to perform in venues once you are licensed. This is a half-serious idea.

THIS is the real problem with the music industry. The RIAA may be the rock but the artists are the hard place, and the consumer is trapped.

m1979

instead, we need to boycott and pressure the companies that deal with the RIAA, the ones who are actually giving the RIAA revenue. that would be any company that sells a product with DRM. for one month lets not buy a microsoft, apple, sony, creative, etc, etc.

the consumer has a more direct effect on these companies revenue stream because, compared to the RIAA, they are smaller and more dependent.

im talking about not buying a single product from these companies, even if that product has no DRM. that means, no iPods, no AppleTV, no keyboards, no cellphones....nothing, until these companies stop propping up the RIAA...

you could even go as far as boycotting stores that are playing music from the big four, but that might get to be too hard.

nova

barkingart

You're not the only one. I've been going strong since 2001.

Apsalus

1. I still don't understand why the artists still need to be supported. If I recall, it was Lars of Metallica who led the charge. If artists want to continue to be supported, they should speak out against the RIAA. In the end, any artist who doesn't speak out against the RIAA is probably not too concerned with DRM, and is happy getting their paycheck.

2. This is a little absurd:

First and foremost, we want the lawsuits to stop.

I agree that the extortion is wrong, but there is nothing wrong with suing someone who steals from you. In the end, people who pirate music are doing so illegally, and should face the law. Lawsuits are fine, as long as they stay within the limits of the law.

The Hoff

I personally think telling someone what devices they can listen to your music on should be illegal. For example, Sony can't say you can only listen to their CD's on sony cd players, yet iTunes can force you to only listen to their songs on ipods. Similiarly, I disagree with anyone telling me I can listen to it on my home pc, but not my work pc. If they chose to do stupid things like this, wide-spread boycotts are in the consumers best interest.

crash

Remember, the decline in CD sales has NOTHING to do with the fact the RIAA has already reissued their entire back catalog on CD, and that back catalog sales were a major part of CD sales in the past. It has nothing to do with the quality/talent of the acts the RIAA is pushing. It has nothing to do with more and more consumers buying indy music. Per the RIAA, piracy is the ONLY reason for the decline in CD sales.

Hitchcock

scoot2006

I just wish the government would disband the RIAA.

pete

sp3nc3

selcouth14 says:
Fight the power!

Therefore, fight the people!?

Just kidding, of course. I completely agree to and embrace this cause. RIP RIAA. The sooner, the better.

Grodesh

It's not enough to boycott the RIAA; there has to be an alternative, and the alternative needs to MAKE money. Pick couple of labels, or better yet, some indie band(s), and buy them a couple of quad platinum CDs purely on the basis of their not being with the RIAA. Then you'll have the ultimate counter argument about why crappy global media corporations can't make a profit.

junyo

...not a single penny that the RIAA has received from their series of lawsuits has actually made it back to the artists that had their "copyrights infringed" in the first place.

You should be able to do what you want with an album once you've paid for it; like a CD or a record, you now own it for life.

There are many things the RIAA does that amount to petty (and downright seriously invasive) bullying and they should be condemned for it. However, just as there are few excuses for someone to believe smoking has no negative impact on your health, musicians have little reason to believe that signing on to a RIAA-supporting label is going to result in both substantial creative and business freedom.

The "push" Gizmodo is seeking cannot happen without the strength of the musicians on our side. They also need to demonstrate their power. I think, therefore, that it's long overdue for the musicians themselves to come clean and tell us directly what they wish to be done with the music they produce. If they care about their fan base, they should make it clear if they support DRM and aggressive intellectual property rights protections. If they don't and they are unable to petition their labels to change their ways, then they need to bail out. Start a label of their own. Find one that is willing to be more flexible on what the customer can and cannot do with what they buy.

Because it is not the case that the act of giving money to someone in exchange for a physical object automatically and universally results in the complete transfer of property rights to the buyer. The seller, if they so choose, can attach conditions on the sale. Breaking those conditions is, quite literally, a breech of contract. I think if a musician really wants to attach DRM restrictions to their music, his or her wish should be tolerated. If that choice bothers you, feel free to persuade the musician otherwise. But hating it doesn't give anyone license to acquire what isn't theirs without the permission of the owner.

Drizzten

TheGeoff

orig_club_soda

If this is just a slacktivist boycott, I don't expect it to do any more good than brief boycotts against more evil consortia like the oil industry.

genericman

Mr. Feller

begemot

wezelboy

enzo

combat chuck

rg4vr

papabigz

I for one will with stand the urge to purchase any music on the iTunes store, but I *may* have to purchase a TV show here and there. You can blame my lack of Tivo...

thechansen

PS, you might also wish to note that the Big Four (and others) have not simply been "accused" of price-fixing; they were forced to settle a suit by 43 State District Attorneys and pay restitution to all purchasers who so requested:
http://www.musiccdsettlement.com/english/default.htm

janedark

Selcouth14: makes jokes in base 13

strider_mt2k

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

I'm only assuming it's comprehensive.

Yaotl

MJDeviant