Sign a petition to help stop the RIAA's war

[Barandine Vondenger]

HOW about SNAPPING a PICTURE of a famous PAINTING? a picture is a COPY or facsimile of that FAMOUS "PAID FOR" WORK? what about QUOTING a line from a SPEECH? YOu make it PUBLIC and it's PUBLIC.

[strat0124]

This horse (dead) is starting to smell.

[Shayne White]

Wait a minute...the RIAA has been charging taxes for pro recording equipment? Or just consumer CD recorders? I sure hope *I* haven't been paying money to the RIAA when I've been buying pro audio equipment! What kind? Shayne

[djwayne]

That's what they told me when I bought the DA-88 A Panasonic DAT, Tascam CDRW-5000 ( pay the premium and you can use the CD-R's royalty free, instead of the higher priced CDR's with the royalty fee tacked on.), Sony Mini Disc, Tascam Cassette recorder, lots of pro quality DAT tape, HI-8 Tape, cassette tapes, I was told they all had a fee tacked on to cover royalties, and because I was charged this fee, I could record anything I wanted from whatever source. Even the computer people said, hey get hooked up with the internet, you like music don't ya ?? Lot's of free music on the net. So again I ask, where did this money go ?? I never seem to get an answer, hmmmmmm.....

[Jotown]

[quote]Originally posted by Geenard Skeenard: [b]This horse (dead) is starting to smell.[/b][/quote]You got that right. Just the like whole .mp3 debate. :wave:

[george costanza]

[quote]Originally posted by george costanza: [b]Ignoring for the moment any contentions of who's right, how effective could we expect a petition to Congress to counteract the methods of a powerful big business group to be? I'd suggest that the answer is, "Not very".[/b][/quote]I reiterate my earlier comment (above) but add that, regarding the "theft" argument, that the record biz has never not been profitable for major companies & even most smaller ones. Companies---even those like Okeh, Chess, etc., that we think of as being good---have always given artists the short shrift. John Lomax, working for the Library of Congress made [i]more than any of the musicians he recorded[/i]. At various times ( the mid-1920s, the late 1950s through the late 1970s) it's been a wildly successful business. Introduction of CD technology & the attendant re-issue campaigns made huge amounts of money [i] for executives[/i] (& [i]some[/i] artists). Having said that, however, I still align myself with JTown (& others) who think that the artists & actual producers of music that you like deserve recompense---wouldn't you want to be paid for your work?---& unless we want to abandon the whole notion of copyright, etc., some way of rewarding those whose work we enjoy has to be maintained.

[doug osborne]

Two articles from author Orson Scott Card on the subject of file trading: [url=http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/archives/091103/osc2.html]MP3s Are Not the Devil: Part 1[/url] [url=http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/osc2.html]MP3s Are Not the Devil: Part 2[/url]

[The T Dot]

[quote]Originally posted by Philip O'Keefe: [b]Just a small correction - the RIAA does not, nor has it ever, "protect the interests of the artists they represent". They do not represent artists. The don't even represent the record industry as a whole. They represent major labels. [/b][/quote]That's for damn sure. I wish I could sign the petition. Unfortunately, I'm all the way up here in the T dot. :D

[Jotown]

[quote]Originally posted by The T dot: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Philip O'Keefe: [b]Just a small correction - the RIAA does not, nor has it ever, "protect the interests of the artists they represent". They do not represent artists. The don't even represent the record industry as a whole. They represent major labels. [/b][/quote]That's for damn sure. I wish I could sign the petition. Unfortunately, I'm all the way up here in the T dot. :D [/b][/quote]But they do represent the artists on those major labels, and in fact are looking out for those artists interests as well. Again, I will repeat that I don't endorse the current tactics that the RIAA is employing. However, to insist that the artists have no place in this equation is erroneous and misleading. I had a conversation this week with a member of the Romantics. They got screwed by their label and managment. Yet they have survived the last 20 years mainly on songwriting royalties from "What I like about you" and "Talking in your Sleep". I will let you guess as to whether they are for or against unauthorized file sharing, and if they feel that the RIAA is looking out for them.

[NMcGuitar]

[quote]Originally posted by Shayne White: [b]That's right. If you buy "Data CD-Rs" you're not paying any money to the RIAA. I always buy Data CD-Rs for this reason.[/b][/quote]Is that the [i]only[/i] difference?

[doug osborne]

[quote]Originally posted by NMcGuitar: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Shayne White: [b]That's right. If you buy "Data CD-Rs" you're not paying any money to the RIAA. I always buy Data CD-Rs for this reason.[/b][/quote]Is that the [i]only[/i] difference?[/b][/quote]Yes it is the only difference, grasshopper. A data flag tells the machine that you can record on a Music CD-R in a consumer CD-R recorder, and that flag is not on a data cd-r. Check out the [url=http://ahra.org/aftra/htdocs/AHRAMAIN8.htm]AHRA[/url] to see who gets the money.

[djwayne]

Thank You for that link to the AHRA.

[Fat Cat]

I like the famous painting--song analogy. :idea: The price of cd's should be going up , not down. I think the recording industry has screwed it self by flooding the market with crappy songs for years, which has severely lessened the value of music. When you have to pay a lot for a work of art whether it's a painting or an album, you value and cherish it much more. If the artist/label were getting $25/ album that was recorded at 24/192, I doubt they would care if Joeblow made a shitty mp3 of it and put it on the net. A work of art is worth something, a crappy replica isn't and most people know why. Even kids know value, look at what they are spending on expensive clothing. Make the original work of art better, charge more for it, and people will buy it. BTW, a brand new album cost $15 in 1985. With inflation, albums should be costing $25 today. Reguardless of their quality.

[djwayne]

[quote]Originally posted by Fat Cat: [b]I like the famous painting--song analogy. :idea: The price of cd's should be going up , not down. I think the recording industry has screwed it self by flooding the market with crappy songs for years, which has severely lessened the value of music. When you have to pay a lot for a work of art whether it's a painting or an album, you value and cherish it much more. If the artist/label were getting $25/ album that was recorded at 24/192, I doubt they would care if Joeblow made a shitty mp3 of it and put it on the net. A work of art is worth something, a crappy replica isn't and most people know why. Even kids know value, look at what they are spending on expensive clothing. Make the original work of art better, charge more for it, and people will buy it. BTW, a brand new album cost $15 in 1985. With inflation, albums should be costing $25 today. Reguardless of their quality.[/b][/quote]I've got about 500 cd's here you can have for $25 a piece. Wanna buy em back ?? The current technology is 5.1 High Resolution DVD-A's, I've got a few of them and they cost between $15-25, I feel they are a good value, if the music & mix is good. CD's/MP3's are going the way of the horse and buggy, but then again, some people still like 8-track tapes.

[doug osborne]

[quote]Originally posted by Fat Cat: [QB]I like the famous painting--song analogy. :idea: The price of cd's should be going up , not down. ...QB][/quote]OK, Marissa :D And as DJWayne said, there already are higher quality versions of alot of the music available. DVD-A and SACD are both significantly better in sound quality on a high-end playback system than their CD versions. It's no coincidence that the same week price reductions of CD are announced that many new DVD-A releases were announced.

[djwayne]

Last time I checked, Marissa wanted $1,000 for a four cd set. The truth is, for the amount of work that goes into a recording, they are very cheap, and should be worth more, but the problem is, there are so many artists, and fans have limited budgets, so supply and demand dictates the price, and cutting back on the supply, only works for a select few artists, after they've achieved popularity, and even then, fame is fleeting, and subject to customer demand and current trends.

[doug osborne]

At any rate, I think it will take a generation for our culture to really absorb a value for art in light of our new technologies, and establish a way to compensate artists appropriately. The RIAA is destablizing the current market for short term profits. They are a bunch of scared girlies :) Our culture will have to become more sophisticated with our understanding of the difference between the actual work and an image of that work.

[djwayne]

The music business is either a boom or a bust for many people. Some people have done very well, while others are left behind, and many times fortunes aren't determined by artistic skill, but more so by entertainment value, determined by the whims of the general public, and by the artist's marketing and promotional skills, and sometimes, just plain old dumb luck. Even though many have tried to make it into a predictable science, there's so many outside forces at work, and unforseen situations outside the artist's control, anything can, and does happen. As far as what is fair compensation, finding an answer everyone can agree on, may never be achieved, as your dealing with 1,000's of differing opinions, and each one is a seperate case, with it's own merits.