Record labels suck

[iceman]

I read about this sony hidden file extension a while back and knew right away that it was gonna be abused, why didnt the guys at sony realise this ?

(sorry I havent read this whole thread (tired) will do later)

[Tank Program]

Oscilloscope, I don't really have any gripe except with this:

Newly released books don't immediately go into libraries.

I've seen on numerous occaisions new books be bought by libraries immediately on release. Or at least within a week or two.

[Fonkay]

I download music.
I have many legit reasons to do so.

To listen to one or moe songs off a not-so-good album.
To check out a new artist/album to see if I would like to buy said album.
To get songs that aren't available on albums (live or unreleased songs)

Also, I own an MP3 player, because I like to listen to music on the bus and other places, and a CD player is hard to carry in my pocket. Some albums I've bought are protected against the ripping of songs onto my computer so that I can put them onto my player. So I like to DL these songs/albums off the internet rather than streaming them into my player. (since I can't seem to stream them into a good OGG format)

I do think it's wrong to only download songs, and never buy albums from artists you like. But I don't see anything wrong with the way I'm using the system.

Although I'm sure you do.

[Lucifer]

Hmmm, that's a long and mostly incorrect post, silly.

The internet provides a way for bands to distribute their music to billions of people for very little money. That's why the RIAA and big record labels are afraid of it, it has nothing to do with morality.

I can think of two bands who encouraged, asked, and abetted people copying their music and distributing it (aka "piracy"), and both of them became really big, famous, and so forth. (The Who and Metallica. Now I'm thinking of the Grateful Dead too, and I know there's more)

Now, I'm going to play your "I'm too lazy to give you links so go google it card". Janis Ian wrote about this very same issue awhile back, and numerous small bands have done the same. There are quite a few small bands that would really love to give away their music because they know how much the free advertising is worth.

As for radio: Back in the 60s, I believe, maybe the 50s, there was a big battle between radio and record labels. TV had become affordable and popular and radio needed something else to play, so the radio stations started playing music. The record companies didn't like that, of course, so they sued. Went to the Supreme Court, and the court decided in favor of the radio stations. That crap you see on the CDs about public broadcasting? It's not entirely accurate....

And what about starving musicians? You think supporting the RIAA in their attack against morally right file sharing is going to feed musicians? (heh heh, I say morally right, I still don't see the problem. You're asking me to guarantee profits to somebody for making music, and that's no guarantee. Make me a value offering, and if it's good enough, I'll open my wallet up for you. If it's not, too bad) Why don't we give them grants and stuff, you know, public tax-paid support? Musicians wouldn't be in this starving situation if our copyright laws weren't so screwed up. I don't really have time to show you, but it doesn't take much to make the connection between "our copyright laws are screwed up and this is why" and "this is why record labels rape musicians" and "musicians that don't go to major record labels starve". It really doesn't. (I'm playing your "I'm too lazy to support what I say" card now)

[iceman]

I've never had problems ripping tracks from protected CD's (that I own ) to mp3 as I never install anything from the CD and my system is set not to autorun any CD I insert

Autorun is easy to disable in the registry

run regedit and locate the following keys

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\
Explorer]

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\
Explorer]

in each there should be an entry called NoDriveAutoRun (if not then just right click in the blank space and create a new DWORD value with the name NoDriveAutoRun)

now right click on this key and left click on modify, its currently set to zero, change it to hex value 03ffffff, this will disable autorun on all drives

if you do insert a cd that needs installing simply browse the cd and click on the installation file (usually setup.exe)

[Fonkay]

Seems to me that Silly is arguing about abuse of downloading. And Luci is refering to the use of it.
Luci, do you think that it's still free advertising if people do not buy CDs at all? If they Download whole albums and then copy or sell them?

The points is that there's always going to be good use for downloadable music. But there are also going to be people who use and abuse it.
Just because people can steal your credit card info over the internet, doesn't mean that we should exclude it as a payment option. It just doesn't make sense.

If I'm out of line, just ignore me.

[Lucifer]

Yes, you're right, Fonkay, however I don't believe that millions of people who download are criminals. Quite the contrary, there are numerous studies that show that people who download music buy, on the average, one more CD per year than otherwise. The number of people who download and *don't* buy is not statistically relevant, they're the same people who listen to the radio and don't ever buy any CDs. Is that a crime? Is it a crime to go the library, sit and read a book without ever checking it out or getting a library card? Is it?

I think the record companies are completely in the wrong, here. I know that there are quite a few bands who have come out against filesharing ibecause they're record label forced them to. The ones that come out in favor of filesharing, what happens to them? They get booted, their contracts come up and the record label picks option #whatever that says "**** off, we don't like you anymore".

Indie labels? For the most part, they're the ones who will be screwed by filesharing being shut down, because they're the ones who benefit by it. They're the ones who don't have $millions to pay off radio stations (through the "Independent promoter" system, aka payola). They're the ones who join the RIAA because if they don't, they can't even get into the distribution system.

Even if it was morally wrong to download music for free off of opennap et al, I think it would still be a good way to boycott the record labels. Show them that you want the music, but you don't want them. RIAA = Recording Industry Association of America. It's not "Musician Association of America", nor is it "Artists Association of AMerica". They exist to protect record labels, and that's it. They don't give a shit about musicians, they just pretend to because that's what gets people to agree with them. WHen they say "Think of the starving artists, the ones who make the music", what they really mean is "Think of the record labels that own the copyrights to the music you're downloading".

[Your_mom]

(Most) Bands make most of thier money from touring and merchandise sales not from cd sales. Its likely the artist doesnt even have the rights to thier music like luci said. if you ever listen to a beatles song on a commercial Micheal Jackson is making money not Paul McCartney.

[Lucifer]

(Most) Bands make most of thier money from touring and merchandise sales not from cd sales. Its likely the artist doesnt even have the rights to thier music like luci said. if you ever listen to a beatles song on a commercial Micheal Jackson is making money not Paul McCartney.

The royalty deal usually looks something like this: (most of my information comes from an article Courtney Love wrote, or rather, a speech she gave, and numerous other articles I've read have corroborated her information)

The songwriter get 0.5% of the sale price, the performer gets 0.5%. You'd think that if the performer also writes his own music that he'd get 1%, right? Wrong, he gets 0.75% because the record label says they're taking a greater risk on the band.

What's the sale price? It's not what you pay in the store! It's what the label gets for it at the beginning of the distribution chain. The label sells the record wholesale for about $10. So for every sale, the band gets half a cent to split. Among what, 5 people? 4? ANd since the record label happens to own significant shares in the distribution companies and the record stores themselves (hence the reason they've fought and killed most mom&pop record store operations), they make a killing that they don't have to pay any royalties on in the first place!

The 6-record contract that is considered the holy grail of rock stardom requires them to sign over copyrights to the songs (not the recordings), and gives them in exchange a perpetual license to perform the music. So the band doesn't have to pay a royalty to the record label for performing the song.

The record label can terminate the contract at any time, but the band can't, not without getting sued into oblivion.

Then the contract also specifies a series of costs the record label is "likely" to incur that are recoupable. Recoupable means the band pays some or all of the cost. The only thing the record label pays for itself is printing the CD. Everything else, in one form or other is recoupable.

When does the band get its royalty check, if it even has one? *After* it has reimbursed the record label for all the recoupable costs *and* the initial million-dollar advance. ANd where does it get the money for this? (Hint: there's a reason some musicians will sign, run extremely successful arena tours, and then wind up broke and getting sued by the record label for the other $18k still owed)

Courtney Love's article does all the hard math using a generous royalty that no label would ever agree to. Google "Courtney Love does the math", and you'll find all sorts of hits for it.

Filesharing is not happening in a vacuum. Ignoring for the moment that the record labels have fought every new technology remotely related to recording technology, they have engaged in anti-consumer and anti-musician behavior that is pretty unforgivable. Why did Sony put this crap on their CDs in the first place? Because they think that you and I are all criminals, and they want to control us. Do you like being accused of being a criminal whenever you give someone your own hard-earned cash?

[Phytotron]

Well, I appreciate your mischaracterization of my post. I haven't defended or supported major corporate record labels that screw bands and own their copyrights. I haven't defended or supported the RIAA. I haven't defended or supported Sony's idiot move. I haven't stated that U.S. copyright law is perfect. And I haven't stated that filesharing should be criminalised.

I did clearly state that when bands and/or labels willingly give away music files over the web, and/or promote filesharing (whatever their reasoning), that I have no objection to that.

My point about nonmainstream bands was not that they should have guaranteed profits (although it does trouble me that hugely successful ones still have to work a primary job for income, but that's a separate subject). It wasn't even to argue that filesharing is the cause of them being unable to make a living at music alone. Rather, it was to illustrate the subsequent point that fans should support the musicians—as I said initially, irrespective of how one feels about the RIAA or any other of the jerks out there.

My position deals with the personal ethics of behaviour on the part of the public. Yours is apparently dealing with a larger ideology to which you subscribe, and of which filesharing is only a part. Pardon me if that's not correct.


Remember another thing, something to which I already alluded. The bands and individuals that sign to these corporate labels, by doing so, are voluntarily becoming part of that corporation, and a larger enterprise that also includes commercial radio and MTV. More than a few are created solely for that purpose. Their existence is purely premised upon a money-making machine, not music.

Finally, in the paper today was an article about what Sony did. As examples of "artists" signed to Sony BMG, they listed Celine Dione and Neil Diamond. I thought to myself, har, anyone who buys that crap and seeks to further distribute it into our culture almost deserves to have their computers messed up. It's a joke, people.

Oh well.

[Lucifer]

You're missing the point! The way the industry is organized, you can't be large and successful without one of the big 5 record labels on your side. Indies only get as much room in the distribution system as the big 5 need them to have in order to avoid falling under various laws that would otherwise prevent their behavior. That's why you see "hugely successful" independent bands still working primary jobs to survive. They're on a bread and butter label that will always be a bread and butter label if they don't get on the screw-everyone-over bandwagon with the big 5. The indie labels that do get on that bandwagon benefit (and ultimately get bought by one of the big 5).

You can't look at filesharing independently of the rest of the industry, it doesn't exist in a vacuum! You have to look at the whole industry, and just like dumping tea in the Boston Harbor was the right thing to do at that particular time and place in history, filesharing is the right thing to do now.

Your point about fans should support the musicians, how exactly are we supposed to do that when the musicians are getting screwed over at every point? If the label isn't screwing them, the venues are. If they want to play the big venues (and they have the fanbase to do it), they have to get with TicketMaster or one of the others. You really think they're in better shape?

Support your band, sure. Go to their website and buy a t-shirt. I sent an email to Scott Ian asking how I can send Anthrax money directly and he didn't respond. This was after a brief exchange about unrelated stuff. Support them? HOW? I have my ANthrax t-shirt, and have bought every one of their records TWICE. I went to the only show in the last 16 years that played in Austin, which they didn't headline (Pantera headlined). Then I learn that that's not enough, because one record label screws them, the next one goes under, and I don't know about the third. I bought the merchandise at the show, but they won't come to Austin. HOW DO I SUPPORT THEM? Frankly, I'm considering withdrawing what support I had for them.

A band is a small business, but every single band (with one exception) that I've ever known wants to be "artists". But they're a business. Run it like a business, and you're ******* Metallica. Try to be artists and you're wormfood. I'm getting sick of bands asking me to support them but then turning around and calling me a criminal, but whose shooting the dope? Ain't me.

I really don't see how downloading their music isn't supporting them. If they want money, they need to ******* ask for it, instead of trying to look over my shoulder and bitching when I do something they don't like. Without copyright, they have nothing. So quit trying to use it to screw us over.

[Phytotron]

I'm out of this one. You're off the handle.

[dlh]

Sony rootkit distribution over the world