Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

RIAA can now sue individual file sharers.


fig

Recommended Posts

I agree that downloadable MP3s are a great thing for audience exposure. I've had my music on MP3.com for several years now. But... the difference there is that I have given my permission for that music to be there.

 

It is soooooo different than someone buying my CD and then uploading it and giving it away to other people, or worse yet, burning CDs and selling them, without my consent.

 

I have literally "given away" over 1000 CDs for promotional and other reasons. I am happy to give my music away, and very often do. As long as it's my choice. I don't want someone else deciding to give away or sell my stuff.

 

... Connie Z

"Change comes from within." - Jeremy Cohen

 

The definition of LUCK: When Preparation meets Opportunity!

 

http://www.cybergumbo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Connie, you and some others seem to enjoy making the music because it's music, and music is something to be shared, and to me that's the right attitude about what we do as musicians. If I were creative and wrote music and songs, I would be giving it out for free, thru the wonders of the internet, which makes it relatively easy and possible now. I'm not that creative, though.

 

As for these stars, and some posters on here, who whine about money being taken away, well as in another post, I submit that the top stars in the business today get a pay cut to something above minumum wage...say, 20 bucks an hour, and just see who is in it for the money, and who really believes that music is for the soul (and personal gratification), and would continue on.

 

Of course, I have this fantasy of seeing J. Lo saying, "Would you like fries with that order?" :)

 

On the other hand, things being what they are, I'm gonna hold off downloading until this resolves itself one way or another. And if I have to pay 99 cents per song I want, that's cool, too.

Bassplayers aren't paid to play fast, they're paid to listen fast.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by sam 2000:

Lee you guys rock! i might have to come buy your album and see you play sometime sence you live in atlanta.

Ah, so you're in Atlanta too eh? Well hey, come on out to the Star Bar tomorrow night for the big release party gig!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I wish the RIAA and everyone who is so upset would just step back and take a deep breath. Some years ago, I used to download a few songs, but I don't do it anymore.

 

Wanna know why? I was reading something in a magazine and a certain bassist was mentioned. Victor Wooten.

 

I never heard of him until that moment. I went on Napster and downloaded songs with various titles from him. That was the beginning of my fascination with this unique and most remarkable musician.

 

Then I found his website and I saw the pictures he posted, announcing the birth of his first child.

 

I thought about my child and how hard it is to earn a living. So I e-mailed him and explained that I felt bad, and wanted to send him a check to pay the royalties I owe him, from downloading his songs. I only had about 6 or 8 songs so I figured it wouldn't be too expensive.

 

His answer to me (my old e-mail address) caused me to stop downloading entirely, out of sheer respect:

 

http://www3.sympatico.ca/georges.rutkay/Vwooten.gif

 

Another group I like, the "Cowboy Junkies", actually encourages bootlegs, trades, recordings of shows and MP3 downloads of their songs.

 

They ain't starving! Neither is Mr. Wooten.

 

I think the RIAA is just crying.

 

Just my $0.02.

Beware the lollipop of mediocrity; one lick and you suck forever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, great post. But I don't understand why Victor's email made you stop downloading because - as you said yourself - you discovered his music through downloading! You might not have even heard him if you hadn't used Napster, because he certainly doesn't make it onto any RIAA sponsored playlists. :rolleyes:

 

So... I say, download all you want, discover lots of great musicians and then go to their shows and buy their CD's, T shirts, whatever will show your support and help get the word out. That is the kind of respect most musicians would love to have most!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stopped downloading because I thought his answer showed alot of class, that money isn't the sole object of making music, or doing anything for that matter.

 

Someone who willingly takes the risk of losing money so gracefully out of love of music, via MP3 swapping, certainly deserves much respect.

 

That about sums up the reason why I stopped downloading altogether. I figured if he can be big enough to see something better, then I can too.

 

Since then I've bought most of his CDs (what I could find) as well as those of the Flecktones.

Beware the lollipop of mediocrity; one lick and you suck forever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I know this is old, but, I didnt want to start a new thread when this one exists.

I was just reading up on the RIAA on CNN.com and it got me thinking, what gives the RIAA the right to assume that all musicians want to sue users that DL thier music? If people were DLing my music, id be happy they want to hear it. Im not in it for the money, I want people to enjoy my music.

How do you guys feel? Do you think the RIAA is taking thier power a little to far? Would you want people who DL your music sued?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The future will be downloading individual songs, albums, whatever we will call them next, for a set fee. You will be able to easily access the music that you want, when you want it and the artists don't get #&%@ed. I would hapilly pay a buck a song or thereabouts to get the music I want and support my artists. What Napster and the like has done for the music industry is actually very good: it will get these greedy technophobes in the recording industry to take the lead and modify thier old way of doing things into something convenient AND profitable.

 

Ok, thats about $0.03.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in it for the money and I do have some free samples on my website.

 

Right now I am very discouraged. It'll cost me 10 grand to make a new cd and then no one will buy it because they get all their music "free" from the internet.

 

Listeners don't want to pay to buy music because "music should be free" and listeners don't want to go to concerts because they are too expensive and they don't want to go to clubs because "it's too far away and late at night and on a weekend, and let me know when you are playing closer and on a weekday, but sorry I can't come then because I'm going skiing that weekend."

 

I know that record companies have been screwing musicians and listeners for years. Now the listeners are screwing the musicians directly. This does not solve the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am on both sides of the fence-

for exmple- a few weeks ago a frined offered to let me burn a copy of Oscar Stagnaro's cd- i declined and bought a copy from his site- he can use the $ and he deserves it.. i feel much btter putting a cople of dollars in his pocket for HIS work- even when friends in the industry offer THEIR cds- i always pay for them- David Dyson offered me one of his cds- i put a $20 in his hand- he was pretty blown away- i felt good.

on the other hand- just last week i got a cll to fill in for bassist in a Prince tribute band here in Vegas- three sets of Prince songs- i had a few of them already ( i dig Prince) but no wy was i gogin to go spend $40 in his two greates hits cds to do this gig- i was in to make money, not spend- and the band didnt supply the material so i downloaded a few songs- is there a difference? i dont know.. its just the way i saw it...

i think, if they dont do it already- that charging $1 per downlaodable song is fair- i would have paid 7 or 8 bucks to get the Prince songs i needed- but paying more?, i would have had to pass on the gig... my .02

Praise ye the LORD.

....praise him with stringed instruments and organs...

Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD.

excerpt from- Psalm 150

visit me at:

www.adriangarcia.net

for His glory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear what you're saying, Adrian.

 

I wonder how similar this issue is to various other "intellectual" property issues. For example, I used to set up xeroxed course readers for the college classes I taught. Crudely put, the copyright law allowed me to make a single copy of an article for my own personal use. However, when I make a packet for 40 students, there are copyright fees to be paid (often small fees, but on occasion something a bit higher). As an educator I may feel that my course is not best served by using an entire book, but rather two chapters from that book. I was also able to put items on "electronic reserve." Then my students could download an article or chapter (usually .pdf format) from the university library website for their own, private educational use.

 

If Adrian downloads a tune or six for his own personal use, arguably educational (to learn the music and hopefully learn a little more about music in the process), is that so wrong?

 

Going with the same analogy, university libraries, and sometimes high school systems as well, will "subscribe" to some academic journals that are available electronically. Students at the subscribing institution have the ability then to download articles from the archives of those journals for their educational use. Would it be possible to have a similar subscriber system in regards to music? Joining a music club or organization for some kind of membership fee that has a subscription to music from particular recording companies? I guess this isn't so far off from the $0.99 per song Apple concept.

 

Personally I'd like to support the artists and buy their CDs, especially lesser known artists that really aren't selling 100s of 1000s of CDs (e.g., Adrian's example of giving Dyson $20).

 

One last example: a couple of years ago I did a monologue/presentation at a high school poetry slam about hip-hop, jazz, and poetry. I started to work w/ one of the school media people to put up the prose, poetry, and samples of the music on a webpage as part of the school's website. I asked her about what kinds of copyright infringement there might be by posting the music, lyrics, and other folks' poetry. She said all was cool as long as the purpose was educational -- clearly so in this case as the presentation was being put on the high school website for access by students and other members of the school community.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Maybe I'm trying to also agree with Jeremy -- there is a problem, but these law suits aren't really a solution. Maybe I'm also trying to broaden our understanding of the contexts in which we may or may not want to download for free or pay for music via the internet.

 

Peace.

 

(This was a bit stream of consciousness. I may re-read it later and feel an irrepressable urge to edit it! :) )

spreadluv

 

Fanboy? Why, yes! Nordstrand Pickups and Guitars.

Messiaen knew how to parlay the funk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the RIAA has it all wrong. I have sympathy for the musicians like jeremyc that is trying to make an honest living. The RIAA uses not the little guys but they use the multimillion dollar superstars to market why downloading music is wrong. You see some rockstar, rap star, ect, ect on tv talking about how downloading is wrong and it is hurting their livelihood, then you turn the tv to mtv and cribs is on, you see the same star living like no of us will ever live, in multimillion dollar homes, 7 cars, you see what i'm getting at.

The RIAA doesn't care about the little guy, they only care about keeping themselves rich.

 

I don't think targeting people and sueing them is going to change anything. Kids, adults will rebel and find ways around this and still download music, I don't think there is anyway around it.

 

I personally don't download music. I acctually like to have a physical cd collection, but I have a good paying job and can afford the outrageous prices cd's cost. The way we think of aquiring music is going to have to change. Downloading songs for a small fee would be great, but you know the music industry is just eventually going to start marking that up. We will be paying $5 one song before you know it.

 

MONEY IS EVIL

 

Thats my .02 cents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone hear about the RIAA's offer of "amnesty"? At first it sounds like a pretty good deal if you're genuinely worried about the whole thing, but then you realize it's actually pretty bad. No lawyer would let anyone sign this. Because it's a full admission of guilt, and it only protects you from the RIAA--not the individual bands or labels, if they are so inclined to sue you.

 

I haven't downloaded a song in months. Many of the songs I've downloaded either I bought on CD eventually or they are songs that are not available anywhere else on CD that I'm aware of. My collection is not nearly as significant as that of most others. And, contrary to file-sharing etiquette, I download and save--I don't continue to share. I wonder how high or low someone like me is on the RIAA's hit list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I go on www.allmusicguide.com pick an artist i like then find out similar artists, download some of their songs and if i like them i buy the cd. I think thats perfectly fair.

 

CD sales of more decent bands in the u.k have been making it into the charts :freak: because the people that listen to them want to support them by owning the cd.

 

Also theres just something nice about having a record collection thats official and not all dodgy stuff you'll lose.

Derek Smalls: It's like fire and ice, basically. I feel my role in the band is to be somewhere in the middle of that, kind of like lukewarm water. http://www.myspace.com/gordonbache
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

IMHO...

 

In her article, Janis Ian said this, "Realistically, why do most people download music? To hear new music, and to find old, out-of-print music--not to avoid paying $5 at the local used CD store, or taping it off the radio, but to hear music they can't find anywhere else. Face it: Most people can't afford to spend $15.99 to experiment. And an awful lot of records are out of print; I have a few myself!" :confused:

 

But, most of the people I've heard of who download, do it for one reason... because they feel like they are "getting over" on someone. They like the idea of stealing the music, because it's fun and it's sneaky. They say, "Those bands are making TOOOOO much money anyway." "Why should I have to pay for it???" :mad:

 

One person I've heard of says, "and if I like the music, I'll go out and buy the CD." He has yet to purchase one CD in the last three years, but listens constantly to his burned CDs. :mad:

 

And I don't think I'm wrong in thinking that most of the people who do illegal downloading are probably not downloading Janis Ian music, because they are teenagers, and are into the newer artists. I am a Janis Ian fan, and I purchase albums, with real money. I am 44 years old. :)

 

... connie z

 

Note: I don't have any kids living at home, but if I did, I GUARANTEE that they would not be doing illegal downloading from my house.

"Change comes from within." - Jeremy Cohen

 

The definition of LUCK: When Preparation meets Opportunity!

 

http://www.cybergumbo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...