RIAA offers file-sharers amnesty!

[monkspider]

More good news, one man sued was in Romania at the time the RIAA claimed he was sharing files and has never even owned a computer while in the United States.
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/7777

Another man is sueing the RIAA over their Amnesty Offer.
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/7771

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by monkspider
Damn it all to hell Borie, it's time that you and I take a greater appreciation of Naxos recordings.

I already appreciate how well the CDs work as coasters.

[chequita guevara]

I think we should all stop buying cds.

[Boris Godunov]

Or just avoid RIAA sources. Get them used:

www.secondspin.com

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think we should all stop buying cds.

Excellent idea! Then rich capitaists will stop funding trash culture when the fast bucks are no longer there! The collapse of the music recording and distributing industry will go a long way towards suppressing the development of NEW Madonnas, NEW Eminems, NEW Tupacs, NEW Brittany Sperars, NEW Sex Pistols and so on and so on. Sure, the established "artists" ( Gaggghh! Cough! Cough!) may be able to continue scratching their way through on revenues from concerts, but new "artists" will find it very difficult to make their reputations without the backing of those very same RIAA member companies.

Do you know of any "artist" who has established himself by virtue of downloads fom the web?

DIE POP CULTURE DIE!!!

[mrmitchell]

I hope the RIAA goes out of business and is dissolved.

The good side of me hopes that their tactics show that they're becoming more desperate. The bad side thinks they're just getting more and more powerful and wreckless.

turns out cd sales have fallen over 50% in the seven weeks since they started this legal blitz.

*applause* Where can I get this info? I'd like to keep myself up to date on how much they're sucking.

[mrmitchell]

I think we should all stop buying cds.

Yeah. They're really pointless--if you MUST listen to whatever bull they put out, why don't you turn on the radio? Completely legal, too, unless the RIAA starts charging radio stations per user

[Soul Survivor]

well the record companies charge radio stations based on how many people the radio station's signal reaches

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

Yeah. They're really pointless--if you MUST listen to whatever bull they put out, why don't you turn on the radio? Completely legal, too, unless the RIAA starts charging radio stations per user

If the record companies go bankrupt, then what? You'll be listening to internet radio recordings produced in someone's garage. That might have been OK for the tastes of the public in the 1950s (Motown, etc.) but not for today.

[mrmitchell]

Personally I don't find the tastes of the public today very appealing, thank you.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
If the record companies go bankrupt, then what? You'll be listening to internet radio recordings produced in someone's garage. That might have been OK for the tastes of the public in the 1950s (Motown, etc.) but not for today.

False dichotomy. There's no need for record companies to go bankrupt, so long as they embrace the future instead of trying to forestall it. The fact is that CDs are going to go the way of 8-tracks, and the sooner companies realize this and move to the future, the better off they will be.

As computer technology improves, such "garage" recordings--or, more likely, independent recordings made by artists directly or through small labels--will be of such high-quality that the big, expensive studios used today will be rendered bloated, unneccessary anachronisms. Through direct internet distribution, artists will promote their works without having to go through the stranglehold of the RIAA.

And bad artists, like Ms. Spears, will be far less-tolerated, as their musical and vocal ineptness won't be glossed over by studio execs looking to mint a talentless hot body.

[Nubclear]

DIE POP CULTURE DIE!!!

[JohnT]

"talentless hot body."



Oh, wait - that's right.



I also think that a shakeup of the current recording industry could likely result in an increased variety of "popular" music.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


False dichotomy. There's no need for record companies to go bankrupt, so long as they embrace the future instead of trying to forestall it. The fact is that CDs are going to go the way of 8-tracks, and the sooner companies realize this and move to the future, the better off they will be.

So how are they going to make their profits? There's no money to be made in giving away downloads. Smaller profits means less investment in promoting new artists.

As computer technology improves, such "garage" recordings--or, more likely, independent recordings made by artists directly or through small labels--will be of such high-quality that the big, expensive studios used today will be rendered bloated, unneccessary anachronisms. Through direct internet distribution, artists will promote their works without having to go through the stranglehold of the RIAA.

Internet distribution though doesn't reach audiences in the great mass numbers as does the relationship between the RIAA member companies and the radio stations, MTV, and VH-1. I already asked this question: Does anyone know of a musician or musical group that made its reputation via the internet?

And bad artists, like Ms. Spears, will be far less-tolerated, as their musical and vocal ineptness won't be glossed over by studio execs looking to mint a talentless hot body.

Yup. There will be a general decline in the number of new artists attaining national prominence. Pop culture will die. Classical music OTOH tends to be subsidized by governments and the rich.

Hehehehehe DIE POP CULTURE DIE!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
So how are they going to make their profits? There's no money to be made in giving away downloads. Smaller profits means less investment in promoting new artists.

Who said anything about free downloads?

Look at the porn industry. Okay, stop looking now. I said stop...

Seriously, porn has seized on the internet revolution and has done exactly what RIAA companies should be doing--using the internet as a medium for selling their product. Porn sites which offer direct downloads of videos and images have boomed and continue to profit, even in the economic malaise. You can still buy DVDs and videos to get more bang for the buck, however. Porn stars aren't going broke.

Internet distribution though doesn't reach audiences in the great mass numbers as does the relationship between the RIAA member companies and the radio stations, MTV, and VH-1. I already asked this question: Does anyone know of a musician or musical group that made its reputation via the internet?

Such distribution WILL reach the audiences, when that is the predominant mode of obtaining music. Who among the consuming public wouldn't rather carry with them an mp3 player full of songs they've downloaded at a reasonable price--the playlist they can change at will at their computer--instead of lugging around a discman and a CD-carrier full of easily-damaged CDs that cost $15+ a pop to replace when they get scratched? That's the way the future will be, and if recording companies don't find a way to adapt to that new reality, they deserve to die. People won't put up with a more inconvenient and costly method of doing something because they've been threatened to be sued otherwise.

As for such musicians, I can't think of any, but then again, I'm an awful source, considering I know so little about popular and modern music. Regardless, plenty of people in other fields have made their reputation on the internet and have profited from it. Matt Drudge and Howard Dean are two names that spring instantly to mind. Why shouldn't the same hold true for musicians, once the stranglehold of the RIAA is gone?

Yup. There will be a general decline in the number of new artists attaining national prominence. Pop culture will die. Classical music OTOH tends to be subsidized by governments and the rich.

There will be an ascent, however, of truly gifted musical artists. In such an environment, one will have to be truly good to achieve prominence. Well, that's not totally true. See, people will still pay a lot of money to go see live concerts, so I can see that artists specializing in spectacle will still have some shelf life.

Oh, and most Classical venues aren't subsidized by the government. Having performed with a great many, I can attest that most are small outfits that are sustained by modest advertising from sponsors, individual donations from patrons and ticket sales.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Who said anything about free downloads?

Look at the porn industry. Okay, stop looking now. I said stop...

Seriously, porn has seized on the internet revolution and has done exactly what RIAA companies should be doing--using the internet as a medium for selling their product. Porn sites which offer direct downloads of videos and images have boomed and continue to profit, even in the economic malaise. You can still buy DVDs and videos to get more bang for the buck, however. Porn stars aren't going broke.

You're missing the point. These companies could offer downloads for a fee, in fact soem of them do, but who is going to pay the feee when they can get the same for free? If the companies don't managed to stop this revenue hemorrhage it isn't going to matter whether the stuff is available on a disc or a website, people are going to go for the free stuff.

Such distribution WILL reach the audiences, when that is the predominant mode of obtaining music. Who among the consuming public wouldn't rather carry with them an mp3 player full of songs they've downloaded at a reasonable price--the playlist they can change at will at their computer--instead of lugging around a discman and a CD-carrier full of easily-damaged CDs that cost $15+ a pop to replace when they get scratched? That's the way the future will be, and if recording companies don't find a way to adapt to that new reality, they deserve to die. People won't put up with a more inconvenient and costly method of doing something because they've been threatened to be sued otherwise.

The distribution will reach the public, but the funds to pay the artists won't. The issue isn't the format of the medium carrrying the music, but whether or not the producers get paid for their service. I wonder how many of the people here who oppose the RIAA's attempt to quash file-sharing loss of revenues have ever given away a significant portion of their living? (Civilization mods don't count.)

As for such musicians, I can't think of any, but then again, I'm an awful source, considering I know so little about popular and modern music. Regardless, plenty of people in other fields have made their reputation on the internet and have profited from it. Matt Drudge and Howard Dean are two names that spring instantly to mind. Why shouldn't the same hold true for musicians, once the stranglehold of the RIAA is gone?

A medium that reaches millions simultaneously (TV) is vastly superior for advertisement over one that is limited to a few hundred simultaneously(Internet). Surely you can realise that there is a great difference in sales potential between having your song aired to captive audiences of millions (TV) or tens of thousands (radio) compared to a mediium that allows perhaps a few hundred to hear it each day. ]

[mrmitchell]

You're missing the point. These companies could offer downloads for a fee, in fact soem of them do, but who is going to pay the feee when they can get the same for free?

You're assuming everyone is a criminal. When CD costs actually go towards benefiting the artists instead of a few fat balding white males at the RIAA, many many more people will buy it--especially when it's also only the song they want etc.

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually, that looks like what I will be doing.

All of my research that I do for prolife proposes will be given away to benefit everybody interested. In fact, I have several pieces already done making the rounds. I'd make a living off those willing to support me so that I can do the work full-time.

It's an older model of economics for sure, but most artists used to follow this model.

[The Mad Monk]

Dr. S, my brother does exactly that.

http://www.sluggy.com/

He does a webcomic, and his product is available for free all day, every day. He still manages to make a decent living, because in spite of giving away his work for free, fans are willing to buy books, shirts, and subscriptions to an enhanced site for "extras". He's been doing this for SIX YEARS, now. When the recession caused a hit in his revenues to an extent that he wasn't making money (happened earlier this year), he had a donation drive that covered his needs for this year and next over the course of two weeks. He has a family to support, and he's doing it quite well without resorting to the comic syndicates (equivalent, for all intents and puposes, to the RIAA).

Such is the power of an independently cultivated and maintained fan base.

[JohnT]

Such is the power of hard, intelligent work. Props to your brother, TMM.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Or just avoid RIAA sources. Get them used:

www.secondspin.com

Used CDs are still very expensive.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by St Leo
Used CDs are still very expensive.

I don't know about popular music, but the classical CDs are generally good deals compared to retail prices.

For instance, the Kurt Sanderling recording of the Brahms 4th goes for about $22 retail, whereas on that site is $11. Half price.

I noticed a lof of CDs were in the $5-8 range.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by monkspider
Damn it all to hell Borie, it's time that you and I take a greater appreciation of Naxos recordings.

RIAA (or local variants)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
These companies could offer downloads for a fee, in fact soem of them do, but who is going to pay the feee when they can get the same for free?

Doc, you are assuming people are thieves who won't bat an eyelash to steal when the chance presents itself.

Most are not. TMM used his brother as an example. I will point you to the success of (some of) shareware programs (e.g. WinZip).

[Adagio]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think we should all stop buying cds.

I haven't bought any CD's in the last 18 months... not because RIAA, but because of lack of music... Ever since the millenium, only few artists have been able to make good albums. Nowadays there's only 3 types of "music" being made: Rock/Metal, techno and copycat, and there's NO WAY I'm going to support any of those... Give me some good Rap or Pop music, and I'll be happy, too bad those music genres have been "dead" since the millenium

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

For instance, the Kurt Sanderling recording of the Brahms 4th goes for about $22 retail, whereas on that site is $11. Half price.

There is a good example of what is wrong with the RI. Why on earth should a classical recording be $22? Did it take a year to record in a studio? Did the company pay for a promo tour by the artist? They cant even claim demand since the used CD is half price. Its just price gouging. Its funny how congress can claim that when its about oil but not when its about music.

[Ned]

Just a thought, but perhaps the RIAA and its members could transform themselves into "internet broadcasters." Instead of selling CDs in stores, they could broadcast the music on the internet and include commercials - or license others to do the same. They could also make the music downloadable, either for a monthly fee or on a per-song basis. MP3 players would unversally replace CDs.

I already subscribe to at least one service that plays classical music. I assume that most people would be willing to pay $10/month or more for such services and be willing to pay a small fee to download a favorite song.

The thing that will attract the average person to the commerical sites rather than to peer-to-peer "sites" will be the vastly superior quality of the commercial sites.

I do not believe the RIAA can win this war against the people. I wonder why they are even trying.

[The Mad Monk]

[SpencerH]

The Recording Industry Association of America said on Monday it has reached out-of-court settlements with 52 people who were sued for sharing online music illegally and 12 others who were targeted for possible legal action.

The RIAA said an additional 861 people had signed affidavits in which they voluntarily admitted they were illegal file sharers and promised to stop. The signings are part of a RIAA amnesty program called "Clean Slate.''

Fools

In other related developments:

The ACLU asked a federal judge in Boston to quash a subpoena the RIAA filed with Boston College seeking the name of an alleged file-sharing senior identified in court documents as "Jane Doe.''

"If the recording industry can uncover your identity simply by claiming that a copyright violation has occurred, then the Chinese government can use the same tool to find out the name of a dissident, and a batterer can use it to find out the address of a domestic violence shelter,'' ACLU attorney Christopher Hansen said in a news release.

So now the legal fun really begins.

[Harry Seldon]

They should change the name of the amnesty program from "Clean Slate" to "We'll Get Back to You Later."