boycott-riaa.com - Article: SpinART says: We are NOT of the RIAA

SpinART says: We are NOT of the RIAA

Posted by Mike (Shmoo) on September 29, 2005 at 2:01 AM (printer friendly)

I find your site rather interesting, especially in regards to your list of labels to boycott. Please take a close look at the page you're referencing on the RIAA web site as members of the RIAA. It clearly reads, "Distributed Labels of Reporting Companies". Just because our distributor reports our sales to the RIAA does make us a member, because we aren't. I know for a fact a number of other labels you have listed there aren't either.

As I'm sure you're aware, the RIAA collects data on records shipped to certify them gold, platinum, etc, as it's not actually based on sales by the consumer. Our distributor reports all sales to the RIAA for this purpose. Not that even of our records have ever come close to going gold, there's no point spending the energy trying to completely disassociate ourselves from the RIAA. They do not represent us, we are not members and we strongly disagree with the stance of the RIAA on a number of issues.

But with a staff of 6 people struggling to sell as many records as we can, who has time to worry about such minor details? I would appreciate it if you could remove spinART's name from your list of labels to boycott. I would also recommend that you do a little more research about what you're telling people to do before you hurt the very people you're trying to help.

Regards,

Erik Courson
spinART Records
=================

I e-mailed him back and told him that I will put an asterix next to SpinART's name on the list as viewed on OUR pages. However, I did advise him that the list itself comes directly from the RIAA's own website. Erik Courson is a busy man I am sure, but I invited him to participate with us in this thread. Stay tuned and see if he shows up. (Play NICE if he does!)

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


Dave10910	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 2:42 AM If it's the same label with The Dears and Clem Snide, then RIAA radar lists them as safe.

independentm...	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 2:59 AM I think the list he refers to is the "Who To Boycott" link over on the left of this page. (Already updated with the asterix/disclaimer next to SpinART's name.) MESSAGE TO OTHER RECORD LABELS ON THAT LIST: If, like SpinART, you want to add a similar disclaimer and/or dispute being on that list, hit the "contact" button below and let us know!

independentm...	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 5:05 AM SpinART does appear to be an "indie" label. Is it our fault, or the RIAA's, (and/or even SpinART's own fault) that they are on that "who to boycott" list? Folks, I want your opinions on this sorta thing. Discuss!

independentm...	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 5:18 AM "...there's no point spending the energy trying to completely disassociate ourselves from the RIAA." Sure there is. (I posit that you might actually think so too since you took the effort and wrote to us in order to do so.) :)

ShadowMom	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 10:20 AM Maybe the RIAA should put a little disclaimer on their page that says not all of the labels listed actually BELONG to the RIAA--they just like their names. This might just fall under the umbrella of false advertising....I don't know, but it might be illegal to make a claim that is false on a web page. C&D?

gdZiemann	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 12:01 PM On the RIAA's "About Us" page, the link to the list of labels says "RIAA members." Why is it up to us to "do a little more research"? If listed labels aren't actually members, the false information is coming from the RIAA. They say those are their members. They should know. So Shmoo marked our list. What about all the other anti-RIAA sites? The RIAA's list still gives the calculated impression that spinART is a member, as well as each and every other label that feels it's not worth the effort to disassociate. If we are hurting the people we are trying to help, it's because they have allowed their name to be co-opted. The RIAA says you're part of their team.

ecourson	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 12:05 PM People, look at this list on the RIAA website. What does it say? "Distributed Labels of Reporting Companies." It doesn't say these labels are due paying members of the RIAA. Many small labels have distribution deals with companies that may report ship numbers to the RIAA (which is used to certify records gold, platinum, etc). Should a label like Star Time International, who is run out of Isaac's bedroom be punished for that? Come on people.

ShadowMom	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 12:05 PM It makes you wonder -- why they thought we should correct our list -- but they don't want to bother with the RIAA. If they're that worried about their image, they should go to the source.

ecourson	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 12:08 PM Because the RIAA's list is corrent, we are a "distributed label of a reporting company". Our distributor, Ryko Distribution. We are not a member, as is portrayed on this web site.

ShadowMom	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 12:18 PM Right you are, ecourson. Shmoo took care of it for you on our site. Too bad you have your name on their list. Their page is a bit misleading for the casual reader, but par for the course for the RIAA. Glad you came by. :)

otech	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 12:37 PM ecourson, I believe the purpose of the "Boycott-riaa" website was to inform us as to what labels have an association with the RIAA. The record industry is well known for it's lies and deceptions, so therefore, it is difficult to determine who is, or is not, in support of their customers. Every time the RIAA lobbys' congress for another bill, the full list of record company names are used as being supporters.

INeedAlover	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 1:55 PM Gee, I heard that when your label manages to achieve a GOLD RECORD, that you automatically become a member of the RIAA?? Sure, spinART doesn't have one yet. But what will you do if you get one??

mroop	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 4:03 PM "Gee, I heard that when your label manages to achieve a GOLD RECORD, that you automatically become a member of the RIAA??" I just wanted to say: You're ignorant!

mroop	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 4:05 PM And kudos spinART for signing Tommy Keene. Love ya!

gdZiemann	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 4:41 PM "People, look at this list on the RIAA website. What does it say?" Look at the link on this page. What does it say?

Dreddsnik	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 5:15 PM "People, look at this list on the RIAA website. What does it say?" I have. The link CLEARLY says "RIAA Members" Click on it, you go to a page that says .. "Distributed Labels of Reporting Companies " Is that "Membership" or not ?? If not, isn't that just a bit misleading ? ecourson ..... "We are not a member, as is portrayed on this web site. " You seem to agree, that it deliberately portrays those on this page as members. " there's no point spending the energy trying to completely disassociate ourselves from the RIAA. " Really ? "They do not represent us, we are not members and we strongly disagree with the stance of the RIAA on a number of issues." That seems like a DAMN GOOD reason to make that effort. "I would also recommend that you do a little more research about what you're telling people to do before you hurt the very people you're trying to help." That page is gonna be one of the FIRST pages MANY casual researchers are gonna look at. you can ... 1. Use RIAA style methods and complain to all of the sites that found this info there ( many i am sure ) 2. contact ONE site owner ( the RIAA ) and ask them to clarify your true status, or remove you from their "member" list. By not " .... spending the energy trying to completely disassociate ourselves from the RIAA. " you are the ONLY ONE hurting you.

INeedAlover	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 5:28 PM mroop, You're rude and self indulgent.

ShadowMom	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 7:14 PM :rofl: The RIAA says SpinART is a member...SpinART seems to be insulted about inclusion on our web site...when they should be insulted to be included on the OTHER web site! Welcome to the wacky world of the RIAA, ecourson!

independentm...	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 10:07 PM An e-mail from Erik Courson: "Mike, Yes, I'm quite familiar with this listing on the RIAA website. The point you fail to see obviously is the difference between what this list represents and how you portray it. Look at the RIAA web site. Does it say anything about membership? Does it say anywhere on there that the RIAA represents all those labels on that list? No it does not. It is a list of "Distributed Labels of Reporting Companies". Nothing more, nothing left. Because of this I'm not sure what you mean by "take the next step and not deal with them at all." Are you suggesting that the we change distributors simply because our distributor reports ship out numbers to the RIAA? That would be the most absurd argument I've ever heard. I applaud your efforts against the RIAA, they've taken stands on issues that we feel are detrimental to a small indie like ours. We don't support them, we don't pay to be a member, we don't deal with them, we don't speak to them. I'm asking only that you represent the list on your website accurately. I see lots of other labels on there that I know are in a similar situation, Star Time International, Absolutely Kosher... the list goes on. These guys are running their labels out of their bedrooms for crying out loud! How much more of an independent label does one have to be? Really, think about it. I would hope that you would want to remain true to the spirit which possessed you to start this web site in the first place. Regards, Erik Courson" -------- "I'm asking only that you represent the list on your website accurately." We certainly wish to provide accurate info (but I admit, from OUR point of view) here at Boycott-Riaa. Is it really all that absurd that we wish your company not deal with RIAA reporting distributers? Of course we don't honestly think you would honor our request to simply throw away that revenue stream, but the fact remains that you are dealing with the beast. SpinART may not like it, but spinART is an RIAA 'member' by association (even a tenuous one.) "Independent" means that you do things independently. A label with an RIAA distributer (or reporting distributer) can not truely be called 'independent' of the RIAA. I am very glad that you brought this matter to our attention. In the interest of fairness, I did put a disclaimer next to spinART's listing ...and I am considering how to re-word the heading visitors see when they click on the "who to boycott/RIAA membership list" to better explain what that "list" really reflects. ...but until spinART becomes truely independent of the RIAA, I can not in good conscience remove the listing. Doing so would be tantamount to telling a deliberate lie. Our boycott of the RIAA is a 'total' one. I am very sympathetic to those artists and smaller labels who are "caught in the middle" of our war. Our 'side' did not pick this fight. The blame for the existance of sites/movements like Boycott-Riaa belongs to the evil machine you report your sales to.

independentm...	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 11:30 PM When you play with fire you sometimes get burned.

autodidact	Date: September 27, 2005 @ 11:43 PM In a way, SpinART is a customer of the RIAA, hiring an RIAA member to perform a service for them in the process of selling CDs. Have I got that right? If you are a customer of them, you are supporting them, to some degree. Financially. Of course, you have clarified that there is a distinction. I might own shares of stock in a company, and that doesn't mean I agree with everything that company does. It wasn't Enron shareholders' fault, for example, that the company was cheating energy customers in California. I guess we just need to have full disclosure, and then people can make up their minds whether they want to do business with a company that does business with RIAA associates, or whether their relationship as a customer of RIAA removes them enough from the crimes of that group so that boycotters are willing to support them. We had a similar discussion the other day about Harry Shearer who started his own label -- but it is distributed through an RIAA label. And who's Tommy Keene?

ecourson	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 12:08 AM Shadowmom: The only page I had seen on the RIAA website was the one that was linked to from this site; the one which reads "Distributed Labels of Reporting Companies". That was the basis for my original argument, as nowhere on that page does it state that any of those labels are RIAA due-paying members. I have now seen the main "About Us" page where the link says "members". I have contacted the RIAA webmaster in hopes that they make make this distinction on their web site. However, I think the point is still being missed here. Is it so bad that our distributor reports sales to the RIAA? I don't really give a shit. I'm not even sure if our distributor is an actual member or not. I would bet that they aren't, but I don't know. Certifying records gold, platinum is a small arm of what the RIAA does and is in no way connected to the Congressional lobbying they engage in. Perhaps you need a section on this web site that discusses the new group that smaller labels are starting in attempt to have a stronger voice that more represents our views on important topics in the music industry today. It is called AAIM and Mr. spinART has played a role in getting this off the ground. A quick google search produced this article: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/music_reporter_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000999281 Unfortunately there's not a lot of news out there about this as it is brand new. Your boycott of the RIAA should in fact be a total one. When they and our ol' friend pal were suing people, spinart was becoming the very first label to make every song of every release available for download online. While major labels are flooding the the P2P networks with fake songs by their artists, spinART is doing everything they can to get our MP3's out there in the world. While they big boys are bitching about not making enough per song from Apple's iTunes store, spinART smiles all the way to the bank, enjoying the much needed new revenue stream. I'm not knocking this site at all, I hope no one has gathered that from anything I've said previously. Boycott the RIAA all you want, most of the major labels put out shitty music anyways.

ecourson	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 12:24 AM There's a huge distinction between simply reporting sales and being an actual member. Like I said, I don't know if our distributor is a paying member of the RIAA or not. I bet they aren't. One of the roles of the RIAA is to gather and disseminate sales data, similar to Nielsen's Soundscan, which collects sales data from retailers. Unless a more legitimate entity wants to come along and take over that task, people who wish to report have no choice but to deal with the RIAA in that endeavor. I dont' think we're going to change distributors based solely on the fact that they do this. It may be that our distributor, Ryko uses warehouses owned by WEA. Again, I don't know. So, if we're paying Ryko a fee to distribute our records and Ryko is paying a fee to WEA to use their warehouse space and WEA is a member of the RIAA, should that stop you from buying that Clem Snide album, or the Dears or Frank Black or Apples In Stereo or on and on? I don't know. If you're standards are that strict, then I guess it will stop you. This whole debate started by my disagreement with this site representing spinART as a paying member of the RIAA. I hope at least I've clarified that we're not. Any other judgement should be left up to the individual reading this I guess.

independentm...	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 1:04 AM "I have contacted the RIAA webmaster in hopes that they make make this distinction on their web site." Good luck! (But fat chance.) We, however, will try to make that distinction. We might be wrong about things sometimes, but Boycott-Riaa has no desire to hide or distort any truths. ==== "Perhaps you need a section on this web site that discusses the new group that smaller labels are starting in attempt to have a stronger voice that more represents our views on important topics in the music industry today. It is called AAIM and Mr. spinART has played a role in getting this off the ground. A quick google search produced this article: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/ music_reporter_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=100 0999281 Unfortunately there's not a lot of news out there about this as it is brand new." Consider it DONE! ===== "If you're standards are that strict, then I guess it will stop you." Our standards as a website are to urge and inform ...we don't "require" anything from our visitors and participants. We only hope to get folks to think about where their money goes when they make a purchase. Ultimately they will of course decide for themselves. Again, I thank you for bringing up this subject.

otech	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 1:05 AM shmoo, Didn't we go through this before with Gokart records ? What did they do to get themselves of the RIAA list ? BTW, I did purchase Gokarts MP3 CD in support of their actions

independentm...	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 1:46 AM "I'm not knocking this site at all, I hope no one has gathered that from anything I've said previously." Don't sweat it Erik. We take a lot of heat for simply existing. (Actually, I think we beat up on each other more-so from within. Simply visit any of our previous threads with a ton of replies to witness some glorious flame-wars, lol.) Feel free to take swipes at us if you ever want to do so. You have been most excellently civil thru-out this discussion. (A shining example of "playing nice" I always harp about here at Boycott-Riaa.) ====== otech, that's a good question about Gokart. I don't know the answer. But you are right, I no longer see them listed on the RIAA's page. Let's hope they did drop affiliations.

independentm...	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 1:53 AM From Go-Kart's faq: "2. Are you affiliated with a major? No! Go-Kart is owned by one person: Greg. All final decisions are made by him, or in some cases, Murray the Go-Kat. Go-Kart Records is distributed by Koch in North America. We would like to make clear that people need to stop being caught up in the ideology of �indies vs majors,� especially when it comes to distribution. We have worked with so-called "punk" distributors with tons of street credibility and have been royally ripped off too many times to count. It comes down to people. In the end that's what matters to us." ====== I sent Greg a note that we were talking 'bout them if he wants to come join in the fun.

independentm...	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 2:01 AM "Let's hope they did drop affiliations." ...uh, that is if they really ever were affiliated. Sheesh, that was all a while back and my memory is vague. All appologies to whom it may concern.

ShadowMom	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 9:36 AM Okay, seriously. Really. What I thought was funny was the way the RIAA works. They put a name on their list regardless of whether that person/company wants it or even knows they do it. What I thought was amusing was that he was worried about us ... but not the RIAA. WHAT? And if he does get SpinART removed from the RIAA's list -- :) Bravo! Kudos! THAT is what he should be worried about. And, finally, yes he was very polite and well-spoken, and I didn't mean to be rude to him. (He just tickled my funnybone a little!)

Dreddsnik	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 10:43 AM "Shadowmom: The only page I had seen on the RIAA website was the one that was linked to from this site; the one which reads "Distributed Labels of Reporting Companies". That was the basis for my original argument, as nowhere on that page does it state that any of those labels are RIAA due-paying members. I have now seen the main "About Us" page where the link says "members". I have contacted the RIAA webmaster in hopes that they make make this distinction on their web site. " Thanks. That little link is deliberately misleading. People aren't jumping to conclusions, they are being LED to them. "I have now seen the main "About Us" page where the link says "members"." "I would also recommend that you do a little more research about what you're telling people to do before you hurt the very people you're trying to help. " ;) .....

gdZiemann	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 12:53 PM Eric, Maybe this site needs a "Who NOT to Boycott" list, with links to the web sites of labels whose product is not manufactured by the RIAA. Labels would have to ask to be put on the list, it would be much smaller.

autodidact	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 3:09 PM I once complained to Six Degrees label (I think that's the right one) that I'd like to buy a Bebel Gilberto CD, but they were on the boycott list, and I couldn't in good conscience. They replied that their connection with the RIAA was very tenuous. But they did not make it as clear as ecourson, so I just figured they were trying to flimflam me. Now I'm not so sure. I want to support true independents whenever I can. But maybe "true independent" is not as easy to define as we'd like.

GregGokart	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 4:00 PM This may disappoint some of you, but I agree with Spin-Art here. They did not ask to be listed and I am sure, from my limited experiences dealing with the RIAA, they would waste a lot of time trying to get their name removed from the RIAA list - time that could be better spent doing a million other things. Luckily, Go-kart was never listed on the RIAA site, so I didn't have to ask to be removed. Although had we been listed I would have spent whatever time it took to get us removed, it would have been hypocritical for me not too. But Spin-Art did not take the same position I did so I understand their not wanting to waste their time. Thanks to whoever said they bought the MP300 � you were one of the few� It was a disaster from a sales standpoint, oh well. At the end of the day the RIAA gets its marching orders from the heads of the major labels that fund it. Those people are the enemy, not people like Spin-Art. Greg

independentm...	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 4:28 PM "But maybe "true independent" is not as easy to define as we'd like." Especially when talking about labels instead of just individual artists. I guess folks just have to figure it out for themselves. At this point in time, and because of the difficulties of determination, I don't know if it would be a good idea or not to have an "official" Boycott-Riaa list of approved indie labels. We would have to have a list of requirements that we generally agree upon (including what gdZiemann pointed out about the label having to contact us to indicate they wanted on that list.) Hmm, what do you all think? It would take some time to come up with a "who NOT to boycott" list of labels. I want lots of input on the criteria before I throw one together.

independentm...	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 4:29 PM Hi Greg, thanks for stopping by!

gdZiemann	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 9:48 PM "I want lots of input on the criteria before I throw one together." Simple. They write to you and say, "We are not an RIAA member." Then post a link and run them through the gauntlet. "It would take some time to come up with a 'who NOT to boycott' list of labels. No it wouldn't. So far there are two. spinART GoKart It makes infinitely more sense to post a list of known good guys -- even if it starts very small -- than to rely on the RIAA's obviously exaggerated and misrepresented list of who belongs to their camp. Accentuate the positive.

ShadowMom	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 10:58 PM I'm with George. Go positive, with a short list--and put a note on the page telling independent labels how to contact you to get their name on the list. It will take time, but it will also be a lot easier.

independentm...	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 11:05 PM GoKart gets a pass from what all we know already for sure. Are you saying that we shouldn't be so "nit-picky" and give spinART a definite "thumbs-up" too (even though they continue to be distributed by an RIAA reporter?) I admit that it is a rather petty seeming distinction. I think I will await more input from our visitors before deciding. (But I am leaning twords being in favor of putting someone like spinART in the "good" column.)

independentm...	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 11:09 PM I have a question for someone to research... Has the RIAA used any indie label's songs (someone like spinART for example) as the basis for any of the file-sharing lawsuits, or have they just stuck to the big 4's catalogue?

independentm...	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 11:12 PM ShadowMom, George, For now, I can just use the same "who to boycott" page. Rewording the heading a little. And then, simply list all the "good guys" at the top of that page before you get down to the RIAA's claimed membership. No problem doing that logistically at all. Simple enough.

independentm...	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 11:15 PM List could look something like: ----------------------------------- BOYCOTT-RIAA APPROVED LABELS GoKart SpinART (but distributer reports sales figures to the RIAA)

independentm...	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 11:16 PM I'll keep thinking it over, but I really do want input.

ShadowMom	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 11:23 PM I'm not sure how this works, but it seems that by using an RIAA distributor, they are supporting them. There are independent distributors out there, so if they truly are against the RIAA, they could use those. In fact, I think Raid (?) posted a list of some a few days ago. So...if the distributor is a member of the RIAA, do we include the label who uses them?

ShadowMom	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 11:39 PM Okay, this comes from the distributor's webpage: In a world where independent distributors represent anywhere from 100 up to even 1000 labels, Ryko Distribution, with a 26 member label roster, offers labels the closest thing to having their own private and elite sales staff. http://www.rykodistribution.com/about.php So, maybe they report sales figures to the RIAA, but I can't find any other links to them. The RIAA might have just put their name on their list, just like they did SpinART. George can tell you better how the distributors work, I think. We do know, though, that the RIAA is not shy about including people in their membership without their approval.

independentm...	Date: September 28, 2005 @ 11:43 PM So, I guess it's up to us to rectify the problem and clean up the mess. God, I hate the RIAA. :)

Dave10910	Date: September 29, 2005 @ 4:09 PM Greg - Thanks for putting out great records. I actually did buy the MP300. It was a great deal for 10 bucks. Too bad other people didn't like it. Keep up the good work.

gdZiemann	Date: September 29, 2005 @ 8:10 PM "Are you saying that we shouldn't be so "nit-picky" and give spinART a definite "thumbs-up" too?" Eric came here and said, "They [RIAA] do not represent us, we are not members and we strongly disagree with the stance of the RIAA on a number of issues." Followed later by... "Your boycott of the RIAA should in fact be a total one. When they and our ol' friend pal were suing people, spinart was becoming the very first label to make every song of every release available for download online. While major labels are flooding the the P2P networks with fake songs by their artists, spinART is doing everything they can to get our MP3's out there in the world." I think people should be taken at their word, especially if they make the effort to come here and deal with our often petty criticisms. Nobody jumped up and challenged his independence. The worst that could happen is if spinArt gets bought out by Warner or something and you have to take it off the list.

pinemikey	Date: September 29, 2005 @ 9:28 PM What the hey... Two down and a few hundred to go... It's all about exposure...the more people that hear their name the better.

INeedAlover	Date: September 29, 2005 @ 10:34 PM "List could look something like: ----------------------------------- BOYCOTT-RIAA APPROVED LABELS GoKart SpinART (but distributer reports sales figures to the RIAA)" This option gets my vote. It seems the fairest and most honest way to make the list. Those that feel an RIAA distributor affiliation isn't acceptable can make their own decisions accordingly. The fact that someone from SpinART came here to state that "They [RIAA] do not represent us, we are not members and we strongly disagree with the stance of the RIAA on a number of issues" should carry some weight for us to not Boycott them.

ecourson	Date: September 30, 2005 @ 2:24 AM gdZiemann: if Warner Bros does in fact ever buy out spinART, if I'm not the first one fired, I will gladly be the first one to quit. Although I will give WBS props for sticking with both the Flaming Lips and Built to Spill even though their sales have never been what's the norm for sticking with a major, it's not a company I would ever want to work for.

RaidHHI	Date: September 30, 2005 @ 10:56 AM " Date: September 28, 2005 @ 4:00 PM This may disappoint some of you, but I agree with Spin-Art here. They did not ask to be listed and I am sure, from my limited experiences dealing with the RIAA, they would waste a lot of time trying to get their name removed from the RIAA list - time that could be better spent doing a million other things." Not to mention the hoops he's already having to go thru here to have it removed. George, "Why is it up to us to "do a little more research"? If listed labels aren't actually members, the false information is coming from the RIAA. They say those are their members. They should know." The false information is coming from the riaa, but you are furthering it. Even when it's been brought to your attention that the information is wrong, You still wish to fight one tiny label from being removed from your death to riaa list. you have a duty to report the facts, not half facts, not what you think are the facts, but the actual facts period. If either you OR independent is to sorry to verify the contents of the material you post here, then he should resign immediatly. You are not helping your cause by fighting your own indie labels.

RaidHHI	Date: September 30, 2005 @ 11:04 AM Independent, You are NOT helping your side by posting emails in public and then inviting a discussion on it. That's a serious lack of maturity from you. Further, this person emailed you because you have incorrectly listed him as an RIAA member. Instead of taking steps to fix this, you invite discussion and force him to try and defend himself; When it's YOU who copied the bogus information offered by the RIAA without any effort to verify it's legit. That's very unprofessional. A high school newspaper doesn't even pull that. Reporter Ethics and all. I realize alot of you think your patting each others backs here, but your not impressing anybody outside this website. Your making fools of your own cause. Fighting a record label that IS NOT part of the riaa. They shouldn't have to BEG you to be let lose of your information. As you post the information, you have a responsibility to make sure the information is fucking accurate! You cannot pawn it off on your source!

ShadowMom	Date: September 30, 2005 @ 11:10 AM Get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, Raid??

ShadowMom	Date: September 30, 2005 @ 11:18 AM This is a forum, not a newspaper. Discussion is what we're here for. We can all read the news by ourselves, you know. The list we have in the who-to-boycott section is preceded by a paragraph explaining where the information comes from and what to do if you have a problem with it. The amount of time it would take for one person to check out each of those names is prohibitive. It is easier for them, if they really care, to contact the RIAA or Mike to get their names removed, don't you think?

ShadowMom	Date: September 30, 2005 @ 11:20 AM And yes...make them BEG! PLEASE! WE LOVE IT WHEN THEY BEG! Lighten up...it isn't really so tough to get along. :)

RaidHHI	Date: September 30, 2005 @ 11:45 AM ShadowMom, "The list we have in the who-to-boycott section is preceded by a paragraph explaining where the information comes from and what to do if you have a problem with it. The amount of time it would take for one person to check out each of those names is prohibitive. It is easier for them, if they really care, to contact the RIAA or Mike to get their names removed, don't you think?" I think, it's independent's responsibility since he's posting this list here, to make sure the content is accurate. Pawning it off on the riaa because they are your source for material is wrong. You routinely claim the riaa cannot be trusted, so why on earth would you use them as a source for your boycott list?

ShadowMom	Date: September 30, 2005 @ 11:58 AM Well...maybe because they got the names from ... somewhere? I'm pretty sure they didn't just make them up, aren't you? If they are listing someone who isn't a member, and doesn't want to be a member, don't you think they need to take it up with them first? If they get their name removed from the RIAA's list, or if they simply e-mail Shmoo and let him know it's a "mistake" by the RIAA, he can indicate that in our list. The RIAA is responsible for what's on their page--not Boycott. Saying we have to verify the information the way we have represented it here is like saying readers must verify an AP report before posting about on a blog...you might verify that other sources have the same story, but you can't possibly verify it by your own personal experience. Here's the difference: if our page said simply "This is a list of RIAA artists and distributors," yes, we would need to verify it. But since we attribute it to the RIAA, we are saying "This is a list of RIAA artists, according to the RIAA." Meaning, if you don't agree with it, take it up with them.

ShadowMom	Date: September 30, 2005 @ 12:01 PM I would like to see one more thing in the who-to-boycott box, though. Link to RIAA Radar Home, and if anyone has a question about a label or a band, they can check there.

RaidHHI	Date: September 30, 2005 @ 1:20 PM ShadowMom, "If they are listing someone who isn't a member, and doesn't want to be a member, don't you think they need to take it up with them first? If they get their name removed from the RIAA's list, or if they simply e-mail Shmoo and let him know it's a "mistake" by the RIAA, he can indicate that in our list. The RIAA is responsible for what's on their page--not Boycott." Boycott-riaa becomes responsible if they just blindly take and repost the data. SpinArt has already contacted Independent concerning it, That resulted in their email being posted and a discussion here about it. It's very unprofessional, no matter how you like to slice it. You know whats funny? I've read posts before where individuals would complain because a reporter was wrong, and several news agencies picked up the story and ran with it, that they should have corrected it, or did some research into it before blindly posting. That's exactly whats happening here. Pot Kettle Black perhaps?

RaidHHI	Date: September 30, 2005 @ 1:30 PM "I'm asking only that you represent the list on your website accurately. I see lots of other labels on there that I know are in a similar situation, Star Time International, Absolutely Kosher... the list goes on. These guys are running their labels out of their bedrooms for crying out loud! How much more of an independent label does one have to be?" I 100% agree with this. You will find however, boycott-riaa is about the destruction of the riaa, not necessarily a boycott. The outright destruction. And everything and everyone who has anything even remote to do with them. Boycott-riaa isn't about the indies, unless your completely indie, and most likely won't be around long to see another year. :) If you use an riaa distributer, they don't consider you one of them. In my opinion, with this sites average intelligence per user, I hardly think they are affecting any serious boycott. All they do is poke fun at individuals who don't see things the way they do. Your one of their own kind and look how they do you. Indie Indie Indie, ad nausem. They preach it, you do it, get labeled an riaa supporter, try to defend yourself, and get slammed for your time. You would have been better off to sign a real label, make some money, go into debt, and say fuck this site, and it's dumbass users. These same people who are unwilling to remove you from a list that is obviously not accurate are the same individuals who think the free use clause means they can jam to a cd for the whole fuckin neighborhood to hear. Good Luck with your efforts man, I applaud you. But it's a wasted effort here.

pinemikey	Date: September 30, 2005 @ 7:33 PM And this thread was going along good, too. Mr. Courson and posters here were having a good civil discussion. He pointed out correctly about the Boycott list and no doubt it will be changed for the better. Oh well.

ShadowMom	Date: September 30, 2005 @ 8:34 PM Just a thought--but that list we have is pretty clunky. Could we just link or give the URL for the RIAA page, and maybe start a list of labels we do know are independent? Would that make it easier for guys who work out of their bedrooms to let people know about them? And would that satisfy Raid's moral outrage? Heaven forbid we should discuss it, but discuss it we will.

otech	Date: September 30, 2005 @ 10:35 PM Here is a list of record labels distributed by Koch (GoKart is listed here). I checked a few of the labels and didn't find them listed on the RIAA site. http://www.kochdistribution.com/labels.aspx (Still wondering why SpinART is listed.)

ShadowMom	Date: September 30, 2005 @ 10:55 PM That's a good start, otech. Next time Shmoo is in the house, we'll corner him and work him over ... just a litte bit, and see what he says. Do you think that might be a better way to tackle this, though?

independentm...	Date: October 1, 2005 @ 6:45 AM Just popping in for a minute this morning. I'll try to be back in here late tonight. RaidHHI, sure, I could have simply went and quietly zapped spinART's name off our our version of the RIAA's list without consultation from anybody and took care of things behind the scenes, but I guess I foolishly give a damn about what you and our other participants think about things that occur here. (This all seems to me to be a "policy" question. Sure, it may be "nit-picky", but I'd like to know how you folks feel about this particular issue. I promise you I have no ill-will twords Erik and his company, quite the contrary.) and YES we are always shouting "indie indie indie" --I mean, c'mon... what do you think our site is all about anyway? We are called "Boycott-RIAA" not "Let's give the RIAA a break sometimes dot com."

independentm...	Date: October 2, 2005 @ 3:35 AM "That resulted in their email being posted and a discussion here about it. It's very unprofessional, no matter how you like to slice it." The email was sent to Boycott-Riaa in general and nothing about it indicated to me that Erik needed/required/requested that it be seen by admin eyes only. (If I was wrong and misinterpeted whom the intended recipient of the message was, I certainly would owe a huge appology. I always try to be sensitive about privacy issues when checking our mail.) Boycott-Riaa is "we" and not just "me". This seemed like an important issue, so I went ahead and started this thread. If that's being "un-professional", I am sorry. I try my damned best to be ethical as possible about things, but don't loose sight of the fact that we are a discussion forum with an agenda, NOT an unbiased news source.

Dreddsnik	Date: October 2, 2005 @ 10:01 AM Schmoo, There is nothing you can possibly do to satisfy Raid's .. umm .. sensibilities. I think you know that by now. That Raid should question YOUR ethics is ironic at best, absolutely hysterical at worst. You were doing the right thing, and it was being worked out in a completely civil manner until Raid popped in. I know you want to be a "nice guy". Stop it. ;)

RaidHHI	Date: October 2, 2005 @ 6:23 PM Dreddsnik, " There is nothing you can possibly do to satisfy Raid's .. umm .. sensibilities. I think you know that by now." Are you kidding me dude? What I said was simply internet ethics concerning email, and requests to be removed from a list that is not accurate. I'm not on your side concerning this. I find it very rude, and disrespectful. This list here is not accurate. They are not affiliated with the riaa, They have nothing to do with them. Their distributer may or may not be affiliated with the riaa, but that has very little to do with that label. Why do you insist on keeping this list, if it's not accurate? If you wish to pawn the list off on the riaa concerning updates, then ShadowMom has the right idea; Link to the riaa, not here. That would make you completely excluded from the list, Your just linking to it. The riaa controls it. Professional. No need to be asked for list removal as you do not control it. However, as it is, your maintaining your own avoid this list, but this label has specifically told you they are not apart of the riaa. They shouldn't be on your list. Get yourself removed from the situation, instead of maintaining a bad list like your proclaimed enemy does. "That Raid should question YOUR ethics is ironic at best, absolutely hysterical at worst." I don't find this comment having much merit. I have done no harm to any educated person here. And quiet frankly, ex-virus writer aside, I'm quiet withen the definitions of "normal". I find it quiet saddening that someone as evil as you seem to think I am, is more professional concerning online activities then you and yourself proclaimed admin Gods who run this site. The misinformation communicated to outsiders here is fucking amazing. You have people actually thinking the AHRA will potentially save them from a lawsuit. You have people trying to claim DRM will be the end of this or that. I have news for you and those who think that, what you call DRM in this day and age is nothing more then copy fuckin protection, and People like me have been dealing with it for years! Nothing fucking new here Move on, nothing to see. Quit being so damn paranoid about it. To make matters even more saddening, You post a tribute message about open copyright infringement via bit torrent. You foolishly encourage users to use this technology and don't warn anybody about the serious potential for legal issues if you do use it. Torrent technology is NOT outside the riaa/mpaa/bsa etc firing ranges. Torrent technology in itself is awesome, but don't assume it's anonymous; it's not. Be careful. " You were doing the right thing, and it was being worked out in a completely civil manner until Raid popped in." The right thing? Are you nuts man? He has a list which has bad data on it, instead of correcting it, he invites a discussion here about it. The list is bad, moron. How many more individuals on it have to notice and complain before you zealots do anything about it?

independentm...	Date: October 2, 2005 @ 10:17 PM "They are not affiliated with the riaa, They have nothing to do with them." Erik even admits they allow/have their distributor (Ryko) report sales figures to the RIAA. Therefore, they DO have "something" to do with them. Sure, it is a minor point of contention, but it is a fact. "then ShadowMom has the right idea; Link to the riaa, not here." I am actually planning on doing something just like that tonight! The only reason I reprinted the RIAA's list on our site was for those visitors who would want the info, but didn't want to taint their computers by clicking on an RIAA page. (There are a few of us that fanatical.) "He has a list which has bad data on it, instead of correcting it, he invites a discussion here about it." I "did" something about it immediately after I read the original letter from spinART. (I put a disclaimer next to their name on the list.) AND, I am STILL doing something about it. If you think my involving all of our participants (including YOURSELF) in a discussion about this is wrong, well, we are going to have to agree to disagree. You can just call me "un-professional" then. But PLEASE don't try to mislead folks into thinking that I don't take action when my nose is rubbed in something wrong/inaccurate at Boycott-Riaa. If that is what you assert, you are just plain WRONG. I CARE about what we are doing and what we are all about. I am not perfect, and certainly no "admin god" ...but I want to do everything I can to get it right! (Raid, you have been active off and on at Boycott-Riaa as long/longer than I myself, you should know me by now.)

independentm...	Date: October 3, 2005 @ 1:22 AM Folks, let's migrate anything futher on this topic to the NEW "spinART Question" thread: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/18293

RaidHHI	Date: October 4, 2005 @ 11:41 AM As I said previously to SpinART, this site has it's targetting all fuxored up. I wouldn't worry about it tho, generally speaking, yes some of the posters here are about as bright as burned out light bulb, but not everyone is suckered by the bullshit here. Good luck to you SpinART, I hope things go your way. Incidently, I noticed this: "This may disappoint some of you, but I agree with Spin-Art here. They did not ask to be listed and I am sure, from my limited experiences dealing with the RIAA, they would waste a lot of time trying to get their name removed from the RIAA list - time that could be better spent doing a million other things." heheh... The guy you suggested comment doesn't even agree with you guys. I notice you didn't invite more discussion concerning that. LOL!