boycott-riaa.com - Article: What does Paul McCartney Have Against Me?

What does Paul McCartney Have Against Me?

Posted by jark on May 9, 2000 at 8:31 PM (printer friendly)

WHAT DOES PAUL McCARTNEY HAVE AGAINST ME?

Let me begin this by stating that I have nothing against Paul McCartney as a musician or a human being. Over the years I have paid a lot of money to McCartney and his old pals and former business partners, the Beatles. I do not regret this because I have spent many hours enjoying their music. The pleasure received was well worth the price of admission.

Yet today I have a difficult time listening to Paul�s music. It has nothing to do with the style or content of his music so much as what he has done in the last few weeks. As you probably know if you follow popular music and the issues swirling about it, McCartney has filed a lawsuit against MP3.com, the online service that distributes free music by mostly unknown artists. Paul says that MP3.com is stealing from him. It has not paid him or his record label for the right to use his music. MP3.com hosts a listening service � if you have bought a CD, such as Paul�s Run Devil Run, and you can prove it, MP3.com will allow you to stream the music over the Internet. Paul McCartney and his lawyer say this is copyright infringement.

I tend to believe that it is not theft � but that�s not the reason I writing this. I am writing this because in the process of suing MP3.com � and maybe running it out of business � Paul McCartney is denying me something. No, he is not denying me the ability to listen to his music over the Internet (since I am interested in a different genre of music than McCartney produces). Instead, Sir Paul McCartney may end up denying me the ability to distribute my own music.

MP3.com distributes my music. It has nothing to do with money � while I have sold a few DAM CDs at MP3.com, the money is negligible � and it has nothing to do with copyright. None of my music is copyrighted. I believe that it should be given away for free. I don�t expect Paul to give away his music. He is entitled to every penny he has made over the long span of years since the Fab Four emerged from Liverpool. Others may be envious of McCartney�s riches � according to Billboard magazine, Paul is currently worth $863,976,000 � but I am not. I simply want him to stop messing with my music.

If Paul�s lawsuit is successful and MP3.com is hit with severe penalties there is a chance it may go out of business. In one fell swoop I would be denied my primary distribution channel. Paul would get what he wants � control over his music � and in the process thousands of lesser-known artists would be denied the ability to distribute their music. It would be an unmitigated disaster for thousands of people � not only the musicians, but also the countless people who visit MP3.com a regular basis to listen to and discover new music.

There is a good chance Paul does not know about this. He may be going on what his lawyers say � people are stealing his music � and he may not know anything about the other services MP3.com offers. On the other hand, he may know and not care. If this is the case, it would not be the first time a rich person trampled over the rights of lessers in order to simply secure his holdings. Since I know so little about Paul McCartney, I cannot say one way or another what his motivations are outside of the obvious claim that people are stealing his music. I just don�t know for sure.

One thing is for sure � Paul McCartney and Metallica and Dr. Dre and all the others who are currently resisting the new modes of music distribution will have to wake up and take a good hard look at the industry that has served them so handsomely over the years. It is changing � for the better � and nothing they do � not lawsuits nor propaganda campaigns � will change or even slow down what is inevitable: on-demand music at lower prices downloaded or streamed over the Internet. Young consumers � the very future the music industry is banking on � demand new and innovative methods of music delivery. The recording industry should accommodate them.

I can only hope that Sir Paul McCartney will realize this. If he does not, chances are he will be in for a lot of frustration and disappointment � if the industry does not kick into high gear and begin offering consumers music in the format they want, chances are they will continue to go online with programs like Napster and take music for free. As we have witnessed, current law and the admonitions of the recording industry will not stop them. Many fans feel they have a right to the music � and they will get it any way they can.

Paul McCartney needs to recognize this.

And not simply because his actions may result in the loss of a distribution channel for myself and thousands of other artists.

In the long run this technology will serve Paul McCartney as well.

He needs to realize this before it is too late.

--Kurt Nimmo

nimmo@pcc.net
http://nimmo.freeservers.com

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


Anonymous	Date: May 9, 2000 @ 11:14 PM Again, stop blaming others for MP3.com's mistake, the Beam-It feature is CLEARLY against the law, however much we all agree it shouldn't be. And the beam-it feature has nothing to do with you posting your content there and me accessing it. An open letter asking people not to defend current law is a little pointless. The laws need to change, but in the meantime put your content on all the other sites that try to work within the law and support artists (I'm sure you don't need a list). MP3.com is the one that let you down, not Paul McCartney. If they go under, which they wont, someone else will step in with a legal alternative.

jark	Date: May 9, 2000 @ 11:22 PM I was not aware that it was that CLEAR that beam-it is illegal. There is NO reason why it should be illegal nor any reason that makes it as clear as you presume. --[ jark ]--

spyed	Date: May 9, 2000 @ 11:36 PM I really don't think it's Paul McCartney who's behind these law suits. There are people who represent his name and interests, you know. And his people are probably of the old school .... believe me, on the flip side, this whole "mp3 must be stopped" really does make sense. Both sides have some pretty friggin valid points. One side just happens to have reality on it's side.... (MP3)

Anonymous	Date: May 10, 2000 @ 7:19 AM Beam-it is illegal because it distributes copies of songs without the artist's permission. Look at the back of a cd sometime and read the part about unauthorized distribution.

Marzelao	Date: May 10, 2000 @ 8:56 AM STOP THE WINNYING!!!!!!!

inertia	Date: May 10, 2000 @ 9:28 AM "None of my music is copyrighted. I believe that it should be given away for free." Technically, unless your work is plagerism, all your work is copyrighted automatically when you create it, as I understand things. So just because you want to give it away for free does not mean that it's not copyrighted. I think thats an important difference. -inertia

Anonymous	Date: May 10, 2000 @ 10:04 AM I agree there is no reason it should be illegal, from a common sense standpoint, however if you read the law today it is totally CLEAR that Beam-It is illegal, it's a no brainer.

kurt_nimmo	Date: May 10, 2000 @ 10:17 AM Point taken. Let me restate this - I will not claim copyright infringement if somebody plays my music on an "illegal" device without my permission. As for the "MP3 must be stopped" mentality - good luck! This whole situation is way beyond anybody actually stopping it - or even moderating it - unless we are willing to monitor all traffic for offending files, which I believe is impossible. The recording industry has to come to terms with the new busines models. Yes, MP3.com is one of those, and I think the RIAA is more interested in killing an alternative music distribution model than protecting copyrights in this situation. MP3.com made it clear - you cannot use the service unless you own the CD. There is no copyright violation in my opinion. The RIAA and the music industry are shooting themselves in the foot on this one. People are tired of having the industry tell them they can only play music on certain devices. The RIAA et al needs to wake up and smell the coffee - people want to listen to their music on the Internet. Hello? But then they're a cartel, a monopoly. Expect them to fight this tooth and nail. Seriously, I blame the music industry for all these supposedly "illegal" file transfers. If they were a responsive industry, they would have realized that consumers want music in different formats and enjoy portability over devices. In essence, with Napster, the message has been sent - people will play music on the devices they want (computers, portables) and they will not wait around for industry to respond to new technology. Clearly, the recording industry must change. If they will without dropping a bomb remains to be seen.

kurt_nimmo	Date: May 10, 2000 @ 11:44 AM Why is Beam-It against the law in the first place? It does not threaten the recording industry cartel. It's good for consumers - having the ability to listen to music you have bought over the Internet - not that the recroding industry cartel is interested in the needs of consumers, except to rake them over the coals on CD prices. Now that the courts have ruled against the Beam-It concept, we can expect even more "illegal" file trading via Gnutella, Scour, and whatever service replaces Napster. For every hole the RIAA plugs, another will appear. Seriously, the RIAA does not understand the Internet nor its dynamics. Sure, the Beam-It concept is "illegal" - but only because the recording industry cartel had a heavy hand in the fashioning of these laws (i.e., HR 2281, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). The only reason this law exists is to vapor-lock the distribution channels.

Stereofenix	Date: May 10, 2000 @ 1:04 PM I agree... the music industry is probably full of techno-phobic fools- the same people that'll sit there in front a Windoze box scratching their head while saying "what's this blue screen mean?" Here's the problem: the RIAA has their experts in law and business, but they haven't a clue about technology or the internet. The pro mp3 side tends to have a more realistic background; we understand the technology and the internet. Our view is that which is more pragmatic and realistic. While it's true, there aren't exactly a whole lot of record industry experts on our side, but a braindead monkey can see the possible effects of mp3. So basically what it comes down to, is that the RIAA is attempting to use old, outdated laws that were created when this media could not even be fathomed to defend its position. The RIAA will not settle for anything less than complete control of the music industry and the ability to dictate to consumers what they will receive (as opposed to conventional industry, where the consumer gets what the consumer desires; i.e. supply and demand). The mp3 backers seem to be placing themselves on the technology high-ground, claiming to be the wave of the future. While I am VERY supportive of the mp3 movement, it's only because I wish to see the RIAA abolished. So many mp3 supporters seem competely oblivious of the harm that will come of the industry if music is to become freely distributed. They aren't asking to see a new business model, they are asking for the entire industry- the entire concept of being a rockstar to be completely altered. Yes, mp3 right now is special- it's a time where you can get music form major bands for free. But think if this trend continues and sets a new precedence for the industry, and infact becomes the new business model by which music is marketed. Currently, musicians simply do not generate enough revenue from concerts and paraphenalia to keep them in business. So if you're prepared to see free internet distribution become the wave of the future, you must also be willing to accept the impact upon the industry- for musicians to stay in business, you can expect insanely high concert prices, paraphenalia to either cease to exist or cost a premium, and has anyone considered MTV? I know I know, I hate MTV, too... but music videos are NOT cheap (nor are they nessecary, but that's a whole other topic...). So be warned. I for one don't mind paying for music- I just resent watching the RIAA rape the artists and the fans while their fat, talentless asses sit there and laugh.

Anonymous	Date: May 10, 2000 @ 1:45 PM

kurt_nimmo	Date: May 10, 2000 @ 2:11 PM Stereofenix wrote: >So basically what it comes down to, is that the RIAA is attempting to use old, outdated laws that were created when this media could not even be fathomed to defend its position. The RIAA will not settle for anything less than complete control of the music industry and the ability to dictate to consumers what they will receive (as opposed to conventional industry, where the consumer gets what the consumer desires; i.e. supply and demand).< This will not stand. Yet a lot of blood will be spilled in the process. Monopolies never respond to market forces � nor do they have to so long as their chokehold on the market is backed by government force (i.e., the restrictive, corporate-fashioned copyright laws). In order to send the message, consumers would need to boycott CDs and deny the industry money. I do not see this happening since most people do not understand the issue and even if they did most of them would be more interested in continuing to buy music at exorbitant prices. So expect the Napster Wars to continue. >The mp3 backers seem to be placing themselves on the technology high-ground, claiming to be the wave of the future. While I am VERY supportive of the mp3 movement, it's only because I wish to see the RIAA abolished. So many mp3 supporters seem competely oblivious of the harm that will come of the industry if music is to become freely distributed. They aren't asking to see a new business model, they are asking for the entire industry- the entire concept of being a rockstar to be completely altered. Yes, mp3 right now is special- it's a time where you can get music form major bands for free. But think if this trend continues and sets a new precedence for the industry, and infact becomes the new business model by which music is marketed. Currently, musicians simply do not generate enough revenue from concerts and paraphenalia to keep them in business.< People will always pay for music � and the vast majority of them do, regardless of the Internet or Napster. The RIAA has released figures claiming there has been a drop in CD sales for the 16-22 year old bracket. They say this is directly related to Napster. I don�t believe it � in fact, this drop very well could be due to any number of things, the most evident being the outrageous prices for CDs, something the recording industry cartel never considers. It knows the public will always pony up the cash for music. I believe the idea of the celebrity rock star should change as well. As it stands now, the entire artist base of this industry supports the promotion and lavish lifestyles of these often pampered and over praised musicians. Moreover, there is something wrong with an industry that refuses to support its artists � why, for instance, are artists dropped unless they sell 500,000 CDs? That�s a lot of money. I�m not suggesting the industry be forced to carry dead weight � nonprofitable artists � only that it should not expect mega return on every artist. Free music will eventually be an integral � and profitable � part of this industry. It will be crucial for artists to get more involved with their fans. I believe the industry � if it were decentralized and dispersed � can make money on giving away free music. How? Read Ester Dyson. Imagine a scenario where an artist deals directly with his fans on the Web � he sells directly to the consumer (this will cut out the middle man, which delivers more income directly to the artist) and keeps most of the profit, whereas in the current system the recording industry cartel keeps most of the money. It may be a radical shit, but one advantageous to the artist. >So if you're prepared to see free internet distribution become the wave of the future, you must also be willing to accept the impact upon the industry- for musicians to stay in business, you can expect insanely high concert prices, paraphenalia to either cease to exist or cost a premium, and has anyone considered MTV? I know I know, I hate MTV, too... but music videos are NOT cheap (nor are they nessecary, but that's a whole other topic...). So be warned. I for one don't mind paying for music- I just resent watching the RIAA rape the artists and the fans while their fat, talentless asses sit there and laugh.< Again, I think the economics of this stuff is skewed due to the recording industry cartel. In fact, with desktop technology, a music video can be made for a fraction of the cost. What about pay-per-view rich media streamed concerts? Also, simply because MP3s are passed out for free does not mean people will stop buying higher quality CDs. People like jewel cases, liner notes, artwork, etc. I don�t think demand for that will go away.

kurt_nimmo	Date: May 10, 2000 @ 2:15 PM For some reason that post got screwed up... Here it is again: Stereofenix wrote: So basically what it comes down to, is that the RIAA is attempting to use old, outdated laws that were created when this media could not even be fathomed to defend its position. The RIAA will not settle for anything less than complete control of the music industry and the ability to dictate to consumers what they will receive (as opposed to conventional industry, where the consumer gets what the consumer desires; i.e. supply and demand). This will not stand. Yet a lot of blood will be spilled in the process. Monopolies never respond to market forces � nor do they have to so long as their chokehold on the market is backed by government force (i.e., the restrictive, corporate-fashioned copyright laws). In order to send the message, consumers would need to boycott CDs and deny the industry money. I do not see this happening since most people do not understand the issue and even if they did most of them would be more interested in continuing to buy music at exorbitant prices. So expect the Napster Wars to continue. The mp3 backers seem to be placing themselves on the technology high-ground, claiming to be the wave of the future. While I am VERY supportive of the mp3 movement, it's only because I wish to see the RIAA abolished. So many mp3 supporters seem competely oblivious of the harm that will come of the industry if music is to become freely distributed. They aren't asking to see a new business model, they are asking for the entire industry- the entire concept of being a rockstar to be completely altered. Yes, mp3 right now is special- it's a time where you can get music form major bands for free. But think if this trend continues and sets a new precedence for the industry, and infact becomes the new business model by which music is marketed. Currently, musicians simply do not generate enough revenue from concerts and paraphenalia to keep them in business. People will always pay for music � and the vast majority of them do, regardless of the Internet or Napster. The RIAA has released figures claiming there has been a drop in CD sales for the 16-22 year old bracket. They say this is directly related to Napster. I don�t believe it � in fact, this drop very well could be due to any number of things, the most evident being the outrageous prices for CDs, something the recording industry cartel never considers. It knows the public will always pony up the cash for music. I believe the idea of the celebrity rock star should change as well. As it stands now, the entire artist base of this industry supports the promotion and lavish lifestyles of these often pampered and over praised musicians. Moreover, there is something wrong with an industry that refuses to support its artists � why, for instance, are artists dropped unless they sell 500,000 CDs? That�s a lot of money. I�m not suggesting the industry be forced to carry dead weight � nonprofitable artists � only that it should not expect mega return on every artist. Free music will eventually be an integral � and profitable � part of this industry. It will be crucial for artists to get more involved with their fans. I believe the industry � if it were decentralized and dispersed � can make money on giving away free music. How? Read Ester Dyson. Imagine a scenario where an artist deals directly with his fans on the Web � he sells directly to the consumer (this will cut out the middle man, which delivers more income directly to the artist) and keeps most of the profit, whereas in the current system the recording industry cartel keeps most of the money. It may be a radical shift, but one advantageous to the artist. So if you're prepared to see free internet distribution become the wave of the future, you must also be willing to accept the impact upon the industry- for musicians to stay in business, you can expect insanely high concert prices, paraphenalia to either cease to exist or cost a premium, and has anyone considered MTV? I know I know, I hate MTV, too... but music videos are NOT cheap (nor are they nessecary, but that's a whole other topic...). So be warned. I for one don't mind paying for music- I just resent watching the RIAA rape the artists and the fans while their fat, talentless asses sit there and laugh. Again, I think the economics of this stuff is skewed due to the recording industry cartel. In fact, with desktop technology, a music video can be made for a fraction of the cost. What about pay-per-view rich media streamed concerts? Also, simply because MP3s are passed out for free does not mean people will stop buying higher quality CDs. People like jewel cases, liner notes, artwork, etc. I don�t think demand for that will go away.

Anonymous	Date: May 10, 2000 @ 9:52 PM There are now FOUR major record companies in the world. F O U R !! These FOUR companies want TOTAL CONTROL over what your music. They want to control it all! They want to colluse and set prices. They want to collude and control artists. The sad thing is that the artists//like metallica...haven't figured this out yet... Four comanies.....own all the record labels in the world. MP3 is theie enemy. They want to kill it, to destroy it. They're willing to do anything to accomplish their objective. They'll sue anyone, everyone. They'll buy the best lawyers and pay off every judge they can (and don't be so naive to think it doesn't happen!). They have no morality whatsoever...just corporate greed... Four companies...who have no problem lobbying and paying off congress too (why do you think they get all these copyright 'enhancements'? they BRIBE them out of your congressman and senator... It's us vs them folks.... Period.....

Anonymous	Date: May 11, 2000 @ 12:18 AM The thing of it is, that the Beam-It service, while illegal, is in fact in NO WAY harming the artists that it includes in the service. How would it? Unless the RIAA decides to start collecting royalties on how many times your CD spins in it drive, how coud this possibly hurt anything? The RIAA and Paul McCartney are just being bitchy, because they do not understand the new way of things. Therefore they do the American thing, which is to sue anyone they can.

Anonymous	Date: May 11, 2000 @ 12:51 AM Well, I guess I don't rate a cool nick. There are some extremely valid points made. Aimee Mann's new album, I remember when they weren't cd's, is available for purchase over the web. This, I think, is your ideal use of the mp3 format. It allows creators of music to offer a sampling of their works for free to any who want them. The creators are then able to earn their daily bread by selling thier wares in the open market. It's a dirty job, but it surely must be available as an option when a major record lable simply won't pick you up - for whatever reason. They then able to do what they do best. Create. We seem to have 2 major camps at work here: revolutionaries and financiers. For a time both will raise their own hell over the rest of us which have ordinary lives and interests. For those musicians whose work we truly love, we'll continue to support them. Just remember that tech always increases at an exponential rate. Bye all. Mynd4rent

Stu	Date: May 11, 2000 @ 6:19 AM "Four comanies.....own all the record labels in the world." I'm sure the hundreds of indies out there would disagree. ~~stu

Anonymous	Date: May 11, 2000 @ 9:28 AM Well, actually it is five labels, and they control 90% of music: Universal Music and Video Distribution, Sony Corp. of America, Time-Warner Inc., EMI Music Distribution and Bertelsmann Music Group (BMG)

Anonymous	Date: May 11, 2000 @ 2:11 PM yeah, 90% is a more realistic figure; i was just pointing out that to the idea of a handful of all-powerful corporations controlling all music was plainly rubbish :) ~~stu

Anonymous	Date: May 24, 2000 @ 9:51 AM

Anonymous	Date: May 27, 2000 @ 12:04 PM

Beethoven	Date: May 31, 2000 @ 10:22 PM If I would be Ernesto Cortazar or any other of the musicians on mp3.com that have found exposure and financial success by allowing their music to be downloaded for free, I would be very upset about people or companies that are trying to shot down mp3.com. I would even consider filing a class action suit against such an organization or person. There is no record company that can provide the tools that mp3.com have put together for the benefit of the artists by given artists complete control about how to do their business. I think the rights of the musicians are better served with mp3.com and similar companies than with a major record label in the long run.